• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

A Few Historical References

I think Aristophanes or Golden Seal touched on this. With a marriage, the pre-written set of rules, regs and biased laws are automatically put into effect. With a contract, the marriage courts can't (i think that was the hang-up we couldn't agree on) touch the union because it wasn't an official marriage and the contracts must be enforced by civil law.
 
Kinda. My comments were directed to how I'd like it to be. How it is is that the courts are always free to do whatever they think is "in the best interest of the child", regardless of what anyone thinks they contracted to. So "can't touch this" is a bit of an overstatement.
 
You're right. I recall that part now. That was the second issue, regarding the kids. The courts would be all over that like flies on.....
 
What @Mojo said. @sun, it sounds like you a very outsider view of libertarianism, and you're basically attacking a straw man.

I have read all the responses to my post and I am surprised that this many people responded. I didn't know libertarian ideology was so prevalent on this forum and it is a shame. Libertarian ideology and Christianity are simply incompatible. This essay does a good job of refuting the libertarian philosophy and why it is not a part of the biblical worldview. https://www.firstthings.com/article/2014/08/libertarian-delusions

Did God make us free? Yes. Is this an argument for libertarianism? No. The libertarian conception of freedom is one based on choice and non-coercion, but this has never been the Christian conception of freedom Any philosophy that makes liberty the object and center of existence is, quite frankly, a lie.

I will refute some of the positions posted in the coming days.
 
I was curious and tried reading it. Really, I tried.

I became dubious when the counter-argument was made that since a Libertarian desires self-ownership he has made himself an object of ownership and hence attempting to own someone and therefore contradicting himself. I get annoyed with overly-philosophical fluff like that. It's the kind of drivel people spout off to hear the sound of their own voice.

I completely stopped after the bananas and rape.
The libertarian reduction of the logic of morals to the logic of preferences has absurd results. It makes moral statements like “rape is wrong” into preference statements like “I don’t like rape (but others might).” It equates the statement “rape is wrong and therefore should be prohibited” with the statement “I don’t like eating bananas; therefore, eating bananas should be prohibited.”
Anything taken to absurd extremes will have absurd results. Republicans, taken to the extreme, would be absurd. Liberalism, taken the extreme, is absurd. Any -ism taken to its extreme is absurd. We need Libertarians to balance out what they see as a growing central government removing freedoms. We need (can't believe i'm saying this) Liberals to open the minds of people who have become closed off to other points of view. When it comes to laws and politics, we need these opposing views in order to reach balance.

The libertarians you find here are not the imaginary, conflicted radicals this article describes but just simple people who are tired of an oppressive central regime that has fooled our own country-men into an illusion of pseudo-freedom that only benefits a very loud minority of peoples. When laws are constantly being passed that fly in the very face of the Constitution that was created to prevent it.

I am incapable of adequately expressing my thoughts.
 
There are so many laws in the United States;
I remember one of the founding fathers said something like "too many laws breeds disrespect for the law"? Horrible paraphrase I'm sure. I'm going to guess Jefferson?

A friend of mine told me there is a book called something like "You may already be a 6 time felon".
The claim is essentially that because there are so many laws as the world's oldest democracy, it's really easy to throw someone in jail if they are an unsavory individual say a polygamist or political opponent.

Dinesh D'Souza is a fine example of someone jailed for something never before prosecuted in his situation. Donating more than the limit to a political person without there being any intent for a favor (corruption) -in his case helping out an old college buddy, and not even letting the buddy know it!

That'll teach him to make those documentaries about Obama and Hillary!

An Orthodox Rabbi I like to listen to makes the point that many of the laws in American are regarding things that have nothing to do with morality. For example, insider trading. In Israel there is no such crazy law that if you know someone who tips you off to good news about a company and you cash in hoping he's right and bam make some money...good for you. In the US that can be prison. It's ludicrous.
There's part of your 23%.
We have laws like this and then state sponsored murder of unborn children.
So someone can murder but not risk their own money on a tip that a stock may go up and their lives get destroyed (separated from families etc).

Abba help us.


Nonsense about insider trading. But what drives insider trading laws, and what bothers most people about it? Is the issue of fairness. Trading on insider information is not a victimless crime. There is another party on the other side of that transaction, since the number of shares in the market is fixed. What are that person’s (or investment fund’s) rights?

The insider trader avoids the loss by trading out of it. It reminds people of what happened at Enron when management changed pension plan providers, preventing employees from selling their Enron stock while management was dumping its stock in large quantities. It helped adjust the stock price rapidly and efficiently.

I think insider trading represents one of the few instances in which a completely free market isn’t always ideal. Fairness must certainly be taken into account if we are to encourage everyday Americans with no connections to corporate insiders to put money into the market. In this case, I believe regulation trumps the desire for ultimate market efficiency.

The inherent wrong in insider trading is a justice issue. Insider trading has a lot of moral implications because people in certain positions may choose to act on information that is confidential and unknown to the larger public. In knowing information before it is public, the holder of that information has a difficult choice to make. I think the funny thing is that most people convicted of insider trading are not poor by any measure. It is true that greed is behind all of the insider trading violations, but also is pride and the thrill of knowing things most people do not.

If our country legalized insider trading, many of the gains in the market would be absorbed by the ones possessing the insider knowledge. This could lead to people refusing to participate in the market out of frustration or a belief that the system is corrupt. If a market that is perceived to give them more of a fair chance is available, such as one in another country, you can count on them moving to that one. So, although in the short run the prices may respond faster with insider trading, long run implications may prove problematic.

Nonetheless, it should still be outlawed based on a desire to have a marketplace defined by equality of opportunity. The market should be as transparent as possible, with everybody having equal access to that information. Investors can then analyze the same set of facts and come to various investment conclusions. If someone is privy to information that is not available to the rest of the marketplace, they should be excluded from trading in that market until the rest of the market is made aware of it. Insider trading is wrong based on a desire to achieve equality of opportunity.

If everyone traded on insider information, then our market would be similiar to China’s and India’s due to the corruption. If people had an advantage in the market, then it would not be wise to invest at all in the market. Insider trading should be illegal and keep punishing the individuals who are taking the fairness out of the market.

When an insider buys shares on inside information, the insider is taking those shares from someone at a discounted price from their true value, which is unknown to the seller.

Jews have a bad reputation for financial corruption. This is why there are many conspiracy theories about how they control the money behind the scenes with the Rothchilds. I wouldn't take the Orthodox Rabbi comment seriously. During the 1930's in Germany, there was a long list of Jewish crooks in the market prior before the rise of National Socialism. If they want to gamble with other people's money go to a casino -not the stock market
 
I was curious and tried reading it. Really, I tried.

I became dubious when the counter-argument was made that since a Libertarian desires self-ownership he has made himself an object of ownership and hence attempting to own someone and therefore contradicting himself. I get annoyed with overly-philosophical fluff like that. It's the kind of drivel people spout off to hear the sound of their own voice.

I completely stopped after the bananas and rape.

Anything taken to absurd extremes will have absurd results. Republicans, taken to the extreme, would be absurd. Liberalism, taken the extreme, is absurd. Any -ism taken to its extreme is absurd. We need Libertarians to balance out what they see as a growing central government removing freedoms. We need (can't believe i'm saying this) Liberals to open the minds of people who have become closed off to other points of view. When it comes to laws and politics, we need these opposing views in order to reach balance.

The libertarians you find here are not the imaginary, conflicted radicals this article describes but just simple people who are tired of an oppressive central regime that has fooled our own country-men into an illusion of pseudo-freedom that only benefits a very loud minority of peoples. When laws are constantly being passed that fly in the very face of the Constitution that was created to prevent it.

I am incapable of adequately expressing my thoughts.

I agree with the bananas and rape analogy was bad but the overall essay was sound. I still think Christianity and Libertarianism is incompatible.
 
The secular libertarian non-aggression axiom, as outlined (for example) by Herbert Spencer: "Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man."
The Christian non-agression axiom, as outlined by Jesus Christ: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12)

The similarity is no coincidence. The foundations for classical liberalism / libertarianism were laid in many cases by Christians. I thoroughly recommend reading the essay "The Law" by Bastiat, from 1850 - here he defines from a Christian perspective the appropriate use and limits of law. His conclusions would be termed today as "libertarian". This is a very readable essay and I cannot recommend it highly enough.

In my opinion, libertarian thought is essentially a secular expression of the individual freedom professed by Christianity. It is therefore the appropriate philosophy for a secular government to have, that has the greatest compatibility with the Christianity of individuals living under that government.

Sun, the article you linked to sets up an extreme straw man and then destroys that straw man, rather than destroying libertarianism. For instance, it states that libertarianism relies on moral relativism, so cannot say rape is wrong - but rape is the act of force against another person and is by definition forbidden by the non-aggression axiom. So I don't see a need to go through the article in detail debating it, because it's not actually about what most people here will believe. Most people here who may use the word "libertarian" are actually meaning what that article would define as "classical liberal".
 
Quick thought experiment Sun. Imagine for a moment that you live in a country where the vast majority of the population are anti-Christian, and the government is therefore guaranteed to be non-Christian, whatever political system is used. (this isn't hard to imagine as it's actually the reality in most of the world). What philosophy would you prefer the secular government had?
1) Individual freedom (libertarianism or whatever you want to call it)
2) Statism, the state defines what is best for everyone and enforces their view on the masses (secular communism, Islamic sharia, or anything in-between)

Which government would allow you to actually have a church and live a quiet life spreading the Gospel to your neighbours? 1 of course. Now that government might also let your gay neighbours try and evangelise you, and let the local brothel put up a full-nude billboard across the road from your kids school. But they'll gladly let your church put up an equally enormous nativity scene and ignore any complaints that it was "offensive", and they'd let you school your kids however you liked. So you'd get along ok.

While the communists or islamists would burn down your church and shoot / decapitate you, and our more "moderate" Western secular democratic rulers might let you have a church but forbid you from advertising it in any way and force your kids into a state-controlled indoctrination centre.

I'd choose 1 over 2 in a heartbeat. That's why libertarianism is compatible with Christianity.
 
When an insider buys shares on inside information, the insider is taking those shares from someone at a discounted price from their true value, which is unknown to the seller.

I agree on the insider trading but imho, the stock market is all about a false balance and is most likely the apparatus behind the idea of Mammon. When Satan takes Jesus up on the high mountain to bribe him, he didn't offer him the world because he was not the owner of it. He offered Christ the kingdoms of the world because that's all he had to offer. Mystery Babylon in Revelation 17 & 18 is not about Rome or the Catholic Church. Nothing in the passage can be construed to prove this theory because Mystery Babylon in its 8 occurrences has always been about Mammon not religion. Mammon is all about the false balance that comes from and is based upon trade. If you notice in the passages below, the whore is a city that rules over kingdoms and nations and has made the "merchants" and kings rich. Also notice how they are made rich and what the merchandise is. No one city can produce all of that merchandise but it can facilitate the speculation of this merchandise through means of a stock market.

If Mystery Babylon / Mammon is all about the stock market, we as believers are to have no part of it or whatever Mystery Babylon is, per Rev. 18:4.
Rev. 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth † over the kings of the earth.
Rev. 18:2-4And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.
For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Rev. 18:10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.
And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:
The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,
And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.
And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.
The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,
And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!
For in one hour so great riches is come to nought
 
Aaahhhhh!!!!! Words words words words words words words. We don't need all of these pretty words strung together in pleasing sounding combinations.

When God put Adam and Eve in the Garden He did so without a government. When He sent the children of Israel into the Promised Land He did so with only the barest minimum of an organized government.

Governments pursue man's laws, man's justice and man's goals. We all know that those are incompatible with Christianity. We don't need to talk about rape, insider trading or even the all important banana conundrum. What did God do? What did He say?

I think we should all be able to agree that modern liberalism is incompatible with Christianity. Quebec is passing a law that lets the government take children away from parents who don't affirm the child's chosen gender identity. Liberalism has embraced abortion, gay rights, massive wealth distribution (theft) and religious suppression. They're out.

So called conservatives aren't much better and frankly the libertarians aren't doing great but then again the only system of government that God endorses in His Word is a theocratic patriarchy centered on Him so we're all missing the mark here.
 
I fully agree.... up until the banana bit. The bananas need to be addressed. Preferably in a purple tutu.
 
but then again the only system of government that God endorses in His Word is a theocratic patriarchy centered on Him so we're all missing the mark here.

Certainly agree that this was His choice. He also limited the influence of even Israelite kings to ministering His law, not adding to it, or taking away from it.
The fornication the kings of the earth have participated in, is simply EVERYTHING they have done, that YHWH did NOT authorize! Every law that adds or diminishes from His righteous standard.
The problem for many of faith today, is that the people that should be teaching His law, claim it has been done away with, or even worse, that He wants us all to obey the "laws of the land."
Isaiah wrote YHWH is our judge, YHWH is our lawgiver, YHWH is our king He will save us.
YHWH our creator IS government! When this is realized the first commandment takes on a whole new level of meaning, and all other wannabe authorities, NOT subject to Him, are clearly shown fraudulent, and without authority. (The emperor has no clothes....not UNDER authority = has no authority.)

I hear from many Christians that we should obey the laws of the land, unless there is a conflict with God's law. But they don't realize that the whole thing is in conflict. Just because some parts agree with His law, like punishing murderers, they think what man made is good, not realizing the only part that IS good, is what YHWH made!

The reality is man can never change the standards and law that YHWH established. They are all delusional if they think their so called laws matter. This reality will be made clear to the entire world when His kingdom is established on earth, and that day is coming closer every minute. Thank and praise Him for that!

I thoroughly recommend reading the essay "The Law" by Bastiat, from 1850 - here he defines from a Christian perspective the appropriate use and limits of law. His conclusions would be termed today as "libertarian". This is a very readable essay and I cannot recommend it highly enough.
There is a document written by Lysander Spooner called No Treason that is right next to Bastiat's work, in the recommended reading at www.benwilliamslibrary.com
No Treason is well worth reading too.
 
Last edited:
I'm a what? *head explodes*
You're a libertarian! :cool:

Progressives took the perfectly good word "liberal" and wrecked it. "Liberal" literally means "free". (Liberal is from Latin, free is from Anglo-Saxon, but it's the same idea.) The last thing progressives want today is for everybody to be free, but now somehow they're the "liberals".... :p:p

So yeah, 200 years ago (hence "classic") we would have been the liberals. My how the times change....
 
You're a libertarian! :cool:

Progressives took the perfectly good word "liberal" and wrecked it. "Liberal" literally means "free". (Liberal is from Latin, free is from Anglo-Saxon, but it's the same idea.) The last thing progressives want today is for everybody to be free, but now somehow they're the "liberals".... :p:p

So yeah, 200 years ago (hence "classic") we would have been the liberals. My how the times change....

too true, C.S. Lewis wrote in his book "The Abolition of Man", how words are often ruined.
One such example is that "gentleman" used to mean "land owner" but today it's an insult to tell someone, "You sir are not a gentleman" land vassals or no.
Oh maybe it's "Mere Christianity" I can't remember; one of the Lewis books not about wardrobes and lions.
 
Back
Top