David McElroy

making sense of a dysfunctional culture

Shockingly, it’s true: You can love liberty and still be a Jesus follower

By ·

The popular stereotype is that libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke pot and live libertine lifestyles. It’s true that some of my libertarian friends love their recreational drugs and wild lives. But it’s just as true that many committed Christians are libertarians or anarchists. I’m one of them.

A person’s religious faith is about his spiritual life, not necessarily his political or civic beliefs. For those of us who follow Jesus and believe in individual liberty, there’s no contradiction between the two. In fact, if you actually study Jesus’ words — instead of taking what you hear from social conservatives as Gospel, no pun intended —  you won’t find a hint that He ever told His followers to coerce people in any way. He told His followers to give to the poor and needy, but there’s never one instance where Jesus is recorded as having told His followers to take things from other people to give to the poor.

Keep Reading

Share on Social Networks

Related Posts

The free market: It’s not just for greedy, rich white capitalists

By ·

Some well-meaning people on the political left listen to arguments for the free market and respond by saying something such as, “Well, that’s fine if you’re one of the privileged middle class or higher. But for those in poverty, they’re never going to have anything unless the state helps them. Your free market is only good for the rich.”

This just isn’t so. The free market is the best known vehicle for raising the living standards of the poor. People today look at the lifestyles of poor people in the 19th century (and even 20th century) and believe those lives indict the free market. Reality is just the opposite.

Life has always been difficult. Thomas Hobbes famously referred to the natural state of man as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” The relative wealth that came to the poor in the 19th century — because of industrialization — was a tremendous improvement over what they had experienced before. It’s a testament to just how far we’ve come since then that their lives seem so bad to us today. The fact that the “working poor” weren’t as well off as the capitalists doesn’t change the fact that the market helped the poor immensely.

Michael Strong makes a powerful case for the market when he talks about the experience of the poor in India:

“At the average rate of economic growth under socialism, India would have reached a U.S. standard of living in 2300. At the average rate of economic growth achieved since economic liberalization, India will reach a U.S. standard of living in the mid-21st century. By what standard of morality can one condemn a billion people to 250 years of unnecessary poverty?”

That’s a powerful argument. If you’re a socialist or egalitarian, you might not like it that some people are going to do better than others in a market. But condemning people to the “equality” of a non-market system ensures that the living conditions of the poor will be far worse. Is your egalitarianism worth condemning billions of people to lives of poverty for? If so, please don’t pretend that you really care about the poor.

Share on Social Networks

Related Posts

I have no ‘duty’ to vote, even if I agree with you about freedom

By ·

As most Americans gear up to pay attention to another presidential campaign season, I’m once again hearing an argument that’s been around for a long time. Does every U.S. citizen have a duty to vote?

It’s long been a staple of “good government types” that everyone has a responsibility to be an informed citizen and then to vote on election day. Newspaper editorialists who’ve run out of actual things to editorialize about are fond of writing a piece (right before election day) about the duty to vote. I seem to recall that I’ve written such editorials a time or two in the distant past when I was an editor, although I did once write a controversial column asking ignorant people not to vote. But that’s another story entirely.

The argument I’m hearing right now, though, is from freedom-loving people who argue that libertarians and others who desire freedom have a duty to go to the polls and vote for the candidate who they think is most likely to bring about liberty. Well-meaning liberty-lovers frequently insist that the rest of us have such a duty.

Keep Reading

Share on Social Networks

Related Posts