R. J. Rushdoony versus Ron Paul's Libertarianism

by Steve C. Halbrook

The Ron Paul campaign has supporters of various stripes, including some professing theonomists. Some of these professing theonomists might, in an attempt to justify their support for the libertarian Ron Paul, attempt to equate Ron Paul's political philosophy with R. J. Rushdoony's on the basis that the theonomist Rushdoony considered himself a libertarian. 

However, even if Rushdoony ever used the term "libertarian" to describe himself, these professing theonomists commit the fallacy of equivocation. For if Rushdoony considered himself a libertarian, he certainly did not mean it in the sense Ron Paul does. Thus while Ron Paul and Rushdoony may have in common the word libertarianism, they surely do not have in common its meaning; they might as well use two different words. 

In Rushdoony's political philosophy, the Bible is foundational; in Ron Paul's, humanism, or the traditions of men, is foundational.

(It is true and commendable that Paul at some points cites Scripture to support his views [and we think he does so sincerely]. But simply citing Scripture for some issues here and there is not enough to show that one's overall political philosophy is Christian, for anyone [neo-cons, liberals, liberation theology Marxists] can cite Scripture for particular views--whether they are sincere are not. And in fact, Paul's overall philosophy is far from being foundationally Christian, as we have already demonstrated. Moreover, even to the extent that Paul bases any particular political view on Scripture, his pluralistic libertarian philosophy would surely not require society as a whole to accept Scripture or the Lord Jesus Christ as authoritative in political matters.)

That Rushdoony and Ron Paul don't have much more in common than the word "libertarian" is evident in Rushdoony's condemnation of a libertarianism that does not defend the family and Christianity, as well as of a libertarianism that allows for a relativistic, free-market of ideas and practices (namely, polytheism).

Rushdoony said this about libertarianism that does not favor Christianity in general and the biblical family in particular:

Every defense of property therefore is ineffective and paralyzed if it simply seeks to defend private property without at the same time defending the family and Christianity. This is the fallacy of the libertarians who seek to defend private property in isolation from Christian faith and the family. Too often, by this limited approach, they not only begin with two strikes on them but also more than partially in the enemy’s camp.[1]

According to Rushdoony, Ron Paul could be "more than partially in the enemy's camp." For, as we go on to show, Ron Paul seeks to defend private property (one of his chief issues) without at the same time defending the biblical family and Christianity 

As a professing Christian, perhaps Ron Paul supports the family and Christianity on a personal level. But on a public level, he will neither defend the biblical family nor Christianity; for him, these are "in isolation from" private property. 

Defending them would require not just political tolerance of them, but defending them to the exclusivity of rival views. A Christian that tolerates non-Christian religions (and by extension particular non-Christian views about the family) does not recognize that neutrality is a myth: for defending false religions is not merely to tolerate them, but to oppose Christianity. All false religions oppose Jesus Christ Himself. Jesus says: "Whoever is not with me is against me" (Matthew 12:30a).

Rushdoony opposed the myth of neutrality, and said "By beginning with the premise that there are neutral spheres outside of God, man ends up by declaring God out of bounds as a concern to men"; and "The myth of neutrality prevents justice because it ascribes to the law and to the courts a character very much in conflict with their very nature."[2]

Ron Paul opposes the biblical family in his tolerance for sodomy. In an interview, John Stossel asked Paul, "Should gays be allowed to marry?" Paul answered:  

Sure. They can do whatever they want, and they can call it whatever they want, just so they don't expect to impose their relationship on somebody else. They can't make me, personally, accept what they do, but gay couples can do what they want.[3]

At this point we should note the following by Rushdoony:

Humanistic libertarianism is an exceptionally good critic of state power, especially in the economic realm, but it then warps its own position too commonly by replacing the power of the state with the power of the individual to be lawless sexually; homosexual freedom has become basic to all too many libertarians.[4]

Regarding religion, Ron Paul opposes Christianity in his tolerance of political polytheism: the open practice of non-Christian (and thereby anti-Christian) religions:

My defense of liberty is the defense of their right to practice their religion and say their prayers where they want and practice their life. But if, if you do not protect liberty across the board--it's a First Amendment-type issue. We don't have a First Amendment so that we can talk about the weather. We have the First Amendment so we can say very controversial things. So, for people to say that, "yes, we have our religious beliefs protected," but people who want to follow something else, or a controversial religion, "you can't do this." If you have the inconsistency, then you are really not defending liberty. ... You have a right to do things that are very controversial.[5]

And Ron Paul said this in defense of Mitt Romney's Mormonism:

We live in times of great uncertainty when men of faith must stand up for American values and traditions before they are washed away in a sea of fear and relativism. I have never been one who is particularly comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena, and I find the pandering that typically occurs in the election season to be distasteful.

Our nation was founded to be a place where religion is freely practiced and differences are tolerated and respected. I come to my faith through Jesus Christ and have accepted him as my personal savior. At the same time, I have worked tirelessly to defend and restore individual rights and religious freedom for all Americans.

The recent attacks and insinuations, both direct and subtle, that Gov. Romney may be less fit to serve as president of our United States because of his faith fly in the face of everything America stands for. Gov. Romney should be judged fairly, on his record and his character, not on the church he attends.[6]

Here is, as we quoted Rushdoony earlier, "the fallacy of the libertarians who seek to defend private property in isolation from Christian faith." In his defense of Mitt Romney, Ron Paul defends not just private property, but every political matter in isolation from Christian faith. 

First, Ron Paul said that he has "worked tirelessly to defend and restore individual rights and religious freedom for all Americans." Second, he implies that one's faith makes no difference in one's character. In working tirelessly to defend anti-Christian religions and in denying that only Christian faith produces character, Ron Paul clearly does not see the importance of the Christian faith--let alone the importance of defending the Christian faith. 

Ron Paul's radical relativism and advocacy of a free market of morality in the civil sphere amounts to what Rushdoony condemns as "blind faith in man":

Modern libertarianism rests on a radical relativism: no law or standard exists apart from man himself. Some libertarian professors state in classes and in conversation that any position is valid as long as it does not claim to be the truth, and that therefore Biblical religion is the essence of evil to them. There must be, according to these libertarians, a total free market of ideas and practices.

If all men are angels, then a total free market of ideas and practices will produce only an angelic community. But if all men are sinners in need of Christ's redemption, then a free market of ideas and practices will produce only a chaos of evil and anarchy. Both the libertarian and the Biblical positions rest on faith, the one on faith in the natural goodness of man, the other on God's revelation concerning man's sinful state and glorious potential in Christ. Clearly the so-called rational faith of such irrationalism as Hess and Rothbard represent has no support in the history of man nor in any formulation of reason. It is a faith, and a particularly blind faith in man, which they represent.[7]

While Ron Paul, a professing Christian, would surely not call biblical religion the essence of evil, nevertheless, at their core, Rushdoony's and Ron Paul's political philosophies differ radically. For Rushdoony, politics cannot be in isolation from Christian faith. For Ron Paul, politics and religion can and ultimately should be isolated from one another. As he said in his book Liberty Defined, "Christ dealt with spiritual matters, not temporal or political."[8]

A further antithesis of the views of Rushdoony and Ron Paul is seen in the case of Murray Rothbard. While Rushdoony above said that Rothbard's (a vile anti-Christian humanist) philosophy represents a "blind faith in man," Ron Paul called Rothbard while introducing him at the 1987 Libertarian Party Convention

a very special person, somebody who has been very important to me over the years in my studying and understanding of the libertarian philosophy, and in particular the libertarian free market message. A recent article in the Washington Times labeled him as the Libertarian Guru, Murray Rothbard.[9]

Of course, Ron Paul dedicated his book Liberty Defined not to those who share Rushdoony's view of civil government, but to such libertarians as Rothbard, F. A. Hayek, and Ludwig Von Mises. Of them he says, "This book is dedicated to the great intellectuals of freedom who taught and inspired me and so many others."[10]

Thus for Rushdoony, Ron Paul's opposition to statism is not enough. (And their view of tyranny would differ radically, as Ron Paul's libertarianism would cause him to view a biblical theocracy--which Rushdoony holds to--as tyrannical.) In not holding to an explicitly Christian view of small government, Ron Paul's labors are in vain. As we quoted Rushdoony earlier, "Every defense of property therefore is ineffective and paralyzed if it simply seeks to defend private property without at the same time defending the family and Christianity." 

And so according to Rushdoony, the labors of professing theonomists supporting Ron Paul are worthless.

(Indeed, such labors are more than worthless. Ron Paul is not biblically qualified, and thus voting for Ron Paul is a violation of God's law. And violations of God's law invites God's judgment, including the judgment of a tyrannical state. Thus voting for Ron Paul is implicitly statist, and therefore self-defeating.)

The difference then between Rushdoony and Ron Paul is the difference between theonomy and autonomy; their philosophies cannot be harmonized. Rushdoony understood the myth of neutrality. We urge his followers who support Ron Paul to do the same. 

To support political polytheism is to support treason against the highest political authority in the land, the King of kings, the Lord Jesus Christ. By extension, to support a political candidate who supports political polytheism is likewise treason against the Lord Jesus Christ. R. J. Rushdoony says the following relating treason to polytheism: 

Basic to the health of a society is the integrity of its foundation. To allow tampering with its foundation is to allow its total subversion. Biblical law can no more permit the propagation of idolatry than Marxism can permit counter-revolution, or monarchy a move to execute the king, or a republic an attempt to destroy the republic and create a dictatorship.[11]

[S]ocial health requires the prohibition of idolatry, because its toleration means social suicide. ... It [idolatry] constitutes treason to the King or Sovereign, the Almighty God.[12]

Most importantly, the word of God warns:

Now therefore, O kings, be wise; be warned, O rulers of the earth. Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.(Psalm 2:10-12)

Notes

---

    

[1] Rousas John Rushdoony, Law and Liberty (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1984), 66.

[2] R. J. Rushdoony, Roots of Reconstruction (Ross House Books, 1991), 1114, 1112.  
[3] John Stossel, Live and Let Live, Says One Candidate (Townhall.com, January 9, 2008). Retrieved August 30, 2011.
[4] Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law: Volume Three (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1999), 156.

[5] RonPaulSource, Ron Paul on legalizing drugs and gay marriage - SC Republican debate 5/5/2011 (YouTube, uploaded May 5, 2011). Retrieved August 30, 2011. 

[6] tarabyte, "Romney's Faith Should Not be an Issue" (Ron Paul Forums, December 6, 2007). Retrieved October 19, 2011.

[7] Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) 289, 290.
[8] Ron Paul, Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues that Affect our Freedom (New York, NY: Grand Central Publishing, 2011), 244. 
[9] Paul's introduction of Rothbard can be seen in Covenant Commission, Covenant Commission Vindicated (YouTube, uploaded Jan. 23, 2012). Accessed Feb. 29, 2012.
[10] Paul, Liberty Defined. See the book's dedication prior to the Introduction.
[11] Rushdoony, Institutes, 38, 39.
[12] Ibid., 66.

More on Ron Paul's humanistic libertarianism