The Libertarian Atheist

Before delving into this very relevant topic, I want to applaud the efforts of the originator of this website and all of the contributors. There is something genuinely noble in the sheer existence of this forum and the significant topics covered within. Libertarian atheists and agnostics alike, are immersed in a two front battle, one concerning their political values and the other directed at their viewpoints on religion. They face opposition from the socialist left as well as the neoconservatives of the right. And they must also struggle with secularists, deists and perhaps most troubling, fellow atheists, many of whom question the integrity of libertarian atheism when the Darwinian principle of natural selection, extend into the arena of individual choice and personal liberty.

The significant question you have posed within this forum has two separate parts. I will voice my opinion on the second part, which has more to do with religion than politics.

Noticeably absent, are libertarians who adopt atheist or even agnostic beliefs. There are many libertarian writers, politicians and captains of industry who are intelligent, logic minded and freedom promoting. However, when the topic shifts from politics, economics or individual liberties to the question of god’s existence, they seem to throw all of their clear thinking capabilities aside. It is if they have some primordial tendency in this area of human development that they just can’t seem to admit, much less prevail over. These are all admirable libertarian spokespersons. Dr. Richard Dawkins would suggest that something in the brain’s temporal lobes are to blame. Still, people such as Lew Rockwell, Thomas DiLorenzo, Norman Singleton, Steven Yates and Roger Young often blindly promote the god of the Old and New Testaments even when that god is guilty the of the same tyrannical, oppressive and authoritarian actions they rail against when committed by mere mortals. Consider the illogical manner in which this blog post on lewrockwell.com is published without forethought or scrutiny. Here is the link:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo…..45437.html

I submitted a comment to this blog entry to Lew Rockwell but my submission went unacknowledged and ultimately, unpublished. Fortunately, I was able to express my view on YouTube. The link is supplied here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..r_embedded

The difficulty I have with libertarian theists is not their belief in a supreme deity or even their adherence to unproven and irrational biblical history. What is most disturbing is how these supposed champions of liberty choose to ignore the despotism, oppressive edicts and assaults on personal freedom that are so blatantly apparent in these spiritual scriptures. God always gets a pass from a libertarian believer no matter the infraction committed. This is a courtesy that is not extended to any human including Thomas Jefferson, Ayn Rand or Aristotle to name a few.

It is time for atheist and agnostic opinions to be expressed and heard. If for no other reason, then in an attempt to expose religion’s hypocrisies that run counter to the principles that devoted libertarians respect and cherish.

I want to be clear that I am a devoted admirer of Lew Rockwell and his superior awareness of libertarian issues. I view his website nearly every day and I look forward to seeing him as a frequent guest on Judge Napolitano’s, “Freedom Watch” program. I do realize that Mr. Rockwell is a believer. Only seldom does he allows his religious beliefs to cloud his political wisdom, a prominent characteristic represented dependably on his website. In fairness, a blog posting from a reader possessing an opposing view to a religiously tainted article, will more often than not, get published. But not always.

As I wrote in my previous posting, I am not so concerned about libertarians who believe in a supreme entity. That choice is their right. It is certainly an inalienable one, even if there are doubts about whether it was bestowed upon them by a certified heavenly creator. Libertarians do not play favorites when it comes to supporting constitutional rights. Religious freedom is just as important as any other liberty. Freedom from religion is just as vital, however. It is difficult to comprehend the ability of some libertarian theists to hold their own personal god’s decrees and actions to a different standard than they would those of their political opposition. In my view, this amounts to nothing more than affirmative action on behalf of divinity. It is further proof of mankind’s infinite capacity for self-deception.

Here is another blog post from Lew Rockwell’s website. This one may actually be a better example of lazy thinking than the Cecil B. DeMille film clip. The link is provided here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo…..47557.html

Again, my reply to this post was never published or acknowledged. Please allow me to post it on this forum:

The Bible and its majestically benevolent central character, a just, merciful and loving god is, like most totalitarians, virtually exempt from scrutiny. To sin by convenient exclusion is to suggest that even the most fanatic of followers could never fall victim to this king of kings’ slavish whims. If you believe in this fallacy then you believe that no mortal ever died as a result of religion’s confinement and destructive governing of, the mind, soul and spirit. Any admirer of truth should admit, using no more than biblical scripture as confirmation, god’s autocratic tendencies. God delights in commanding his followers to perform absurd, barbaric and sometimes lethal rituals with blind obedience. Any king should be despised no matter how distant, sits his throne. A preference of a few less shackles within the prison cell of tyranny is no indication of greater individual liberties and personal freedoms. At least an earthly king is assured of an eventual demise.

As Thomas Jefferson said, “Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.“

Yes, and in a similar vein, even a resolute theist should support and honor the separation of church and state, the same way a supporter of non-violent protest accepts the notion of the right to own a firearm. President Kennedy once referred to the separation of church and state as an “arrangement”. This word is very precise because it calls for both sides to respect a mutual understanding. Government will stay out of religion and in a symbiotic manner, religion is to stay out of government. The old adage, "I may not agree with what you say but I’ll defend to the death, your right to say it", is not adhered to nearly enough. Similarly, I may not agree that there is a god but I will defend to the death your right to suppose anything your mind desires.

Expanding on why articulate and prominent libertarians cling to old and suspect theocratic notions, permit me to reference Dr. Richard Dawkins. Dawkins, (hardly a libertarian in certain respects) in his brilliant treatise, The God Delusion, points out quite perceptively, that we are living during the infancy of atheistic equality. Comparatively, Dawkins points out that homosexuals were admonished from vocalizing their views and expressing their lifestyle choices, just a few decades ago. Atheists and agnostics are on that same point in that timeline. Some libertarians along with many republicans and a fair number democrats are simply too apprehensive to express their ambivalence about god and religion, for fear of retribution or rejection. Also, one cannot dismiss the possibility that some libertarians pretend to be pious, merely as a way to benefit economically. Noted researcher, author and libertarian agnostic, Michael Shermer, reminds theists and secularists alike that nonsensical religious precepts had a 4000 year head start on science. Science and logic have shortened the distance considerably but we are not yet in the home stretch.

jayh said:
I grew up in the 60s, when the left was getting pounded, harrassed, arrested and criminalized by the government. I cannot understand how they can turn around and expect that 'their' government will somehow be different.

Slightly OT, but the technological advances since the 60's are the biggest threat to liberty, along with people who insist on making rules that are for our own good. Or, even better, for the good of the children.

I have a degree in economics and finance, I am pretty good at Cost Benefit Analysis so why don't you just give me the statistics and I'll make my own mind up about driving without a seatbelt, taking drugs or any of the million other things you think you have to protect me from?

Jeff, please take a look at this : http://libertarianatheist.com/…..r-freedom/ as your point on education is interesting. I have heard many people say the state should stay out of education (indoctrination is the inevitable result etc.) but I have issues with the treatment of children in a libertarian system and have a feeling that the state has a responsibility for them in some form, regardless of how small the state is.

Thank you Keddaw, for your comments.

I do not have children and will not attempt to express my views as if I were a parent. I have the utmost respect for those parents who take their child rearing responsibilities seriously. The problem is that I do not encounter enough parents who do. Thomas Jefferson advocated a nation of educated citizens so they would be able to possess the sensibility and intellect necessary to prevent government from becoming too overbearing. He certainly did not have in mind, the type of intrusionary, government run school system we have in place today.

Your point is a valid one and while I do not want to stray too far from the original forum topic, I will respond briefly. It is much easier to make the case for libertarian values and beliefs as they apply to consenting adults. Impressionable children are especially susceptible to adult and societal influences. I do not recall who said it but to a three year old who doesn’t want to go to sleep, a lullaby is propaganda. Children do not possess the reasoning skills to make up their own minds about most of the important matters of life. I maintain that accountable and trustworthy parents know more about how their children should be raised than government pretends to.

My only issue with Bill Sardi’s rant is in his lazy thinking which leads him to the illogical conclusion that teaching a child biblical nonsense is better than teaching him big government nonsense. Sardi, a libertarian, curiously did not mention an option for his son that offered a superior private school alternative without the disadvantage of theist ambiguity. Many do not believe that it is possible to be a moral, honorable person without believing in god. To declare this conviction to a child or to an adult may be one of the most harmful fallacies of all.

Perceptions are certainly changing as far as libertarianism and religion are concerned. The reason for this paradigm shift is due in large part to the superior awareness that the younger generation possesses. I’ll confess, I thought the chances of a libertarian political surge were all but extinguished as the Bush administration concluded and as Obama was elected. I was more than pleasantly surprised when, instead of becoming dormant, the concepts of individual liberty, self determination and personal responsibility experienced a resurgence. This seemed to happen almost overnight. Libertarian heavy hitters such as Dr. Ron Paul, Judge Andrew Napolitano, John Stossel, James Bovard, Lew Rockwell, Peter Schiff and Nick Gillespie have been receiving record amounts of air time. The late, great Harry Browne used to declare that he was hopeful but not optimistic, regarding America’s future. If Harry were alive today, he may have to displace a portion of his skepticism with a bit of exuberance. Libertarians may fall short of achieving a consensus with their mainstream rivals but libertarian ideals are now considered less crazy. They are finally being given the respect they have always deserved.

On the religious front, it will again be the age bracket that is currently in their teens, twenties and perhaps early thirties, who will be generally responsible for helping to reverse the long existing trend of self-righteousness, American style. Obsolete theocratic thinking patterns are slowly going the way of the dinosaur (pardon the pun). Curiously, the dictionary defines theocracy as “government by god”. I would not be opposed to a god administration if I could be sure that god would adopt steadfast libertarian virtues. Evidence suggests that god has more than a few traits found in both, didactic, war-mongering neocons and in hypocritically collectivist, democrats who are often too self absorbed to notice the audacious arrogance of their power. Dr. Richard Dawkins is in agreement that the influence associated with religious fundamentalism is shifting. The triumph of religious zealot culture is slowly being counterbalanced with human logic and earthly wisdom.

I’ll direct the reader once again to experience the promotion of unfounded theism by an otherwise prudent libertarian. This time around it is the Mises Institute’s, Bob Murphy. The link follows:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/mur…..hy166.html

I will not pretend to adequately understand the mathematical theories put forth by fellow libertarian Steve Landsburg. Bob Murphy’s convoluted thinking, especially in his last few paragraph’s are, by contrast, clear as a bell in a bat laden belfry.

The Paradox Of Godless Conservatism

Belief in god is often linked, prematurely, to concepts such as patriotism, capitalism and the American way. During the cold war, the Soviets were as referred to as, “those godless communists”. Since religious freedoms were severely curtailed under Soviet rule it was a reactionary response to thoughtlessly apply the atheistic label not only to the Soviet system but to the Soviet citizenry as a whole.

Back in the U.S.A. and contrary to popular belief, there was never a time at which a government school student was prohibited from praying in a government school. Though Organized prayer was never sanctioned, there was nothing to stop individual students from silently asking a heavenly spirit for divine intervention prior to a academic test or before a sporting event. I am quite certain that many quietly mumbled their prayers while others went as far as to reflexively blurt out the lord’s name in order to win some positive effect on their school performance. Similarly, there is no way of knowing how many Soviet men, women and children were secretly or openly religious. To equate the belief in communist doctrines with the absolute disbelief in a supreme being is not only narrow minded but outright erroneous.

Ayn Rand loathed the Soviet system with all of her human energy. Russian born Rand immigrated to the United States about nine years after the Bolshevik revolution, Rand never hesitated to express her contempt for Marxist/Leninist political, economic and social methodology. She was a fervent supporter of private enterprise of and a devout American patriot. Yet this loyalist to American liberty and entrepreneurial values was also a vociferous atheist. This paradox throws a wrench in the works of religious devotees who pronounce with gleeful certainty that one cannot be a patriotic American without being a god loving American. If you happen to be an atheist but only by the good grace of their god, an American citizen, you must therefore be a commie, liberal, socialist, pinko and peacenik. A conservative libertarian who has strong doubts against god’s very existence is an inconsistency. Nobody on the left or the right knows precisely how to take or what to do with, such an anomaly.

What hard and fast evidence ever gave credence to the notion that all free-market, capitalists need to believe in god and all socialists, communists and income distributors must be atheists? Yet somehow, this dim-witted observation has managed to permanently stick for the past 60 years or so.

Libertarian conservative Barry Goldwater had the moral fiber in the 1980s to tell “all good Christians” that they should give Jerry Falwell a “good kick in the ass” after Falwell decided that he alone knew how every American should behave at home, in public and in the voting booth. Late in his life, Goldwater confessed that what scared him the most about the emerging U.S. political landscape was the inordinate amount of power being acquired by America’s religious right. Goldwater, though a traditionalist, knew the immediate dangers that could result if religion were allowed to increase its dictatorial influence by mixing too closely with government. Religion is seldom content to be a protected island unto itself. It wants to spread its dogmatic tentacles to all aspects of American life, often under the clever guise benevolence and altruism. At the same time however, religious freedom must be assured. To accomplish this, it was vital for government to adopt and maintain a hands off policy, as it applied to government influence and control of any church matters. A citizen who genuinely believes in the spirit and letter of the constitution should be as committed to keeping religion out of government as he is about keeping government out of religion. Any religious person who also refers to themselves as patriotic, should be as loyal and passionate to the cause of liberty as they are about their right to worship.

Libertarians, fiscal conservatives and those who believe in small government should agree that the best way to preserve their own right to live freely, is by permitting others to live as they see fit. Even if, by mob rule, the religious throngs were to have their day and homosexuality, abortion, drugs and premarital sex were wiped away from what they consider to be, the nation’s stained moral fabric, the devil known as socialism would still exist. Until collectivism’s evil plot is foiled, no other force in heaven or on earth, real or imagined can save us.