A Lockean Foundation for Christian Libertarianism
As of late, I’ve been finding myself more aligned with political libertarianism. However, I have not found myself embracing it to the extent that many who are within that camp have been. For those of you who are unfamiliar with libertarianism, it’s a family of ideologies that puts emphasis and importance on individual choice and autonomy, while seeking to minimize state involvement in the personal lives of citizens.
Suffice to say, it’s a big tent. Some libertarians are anarcho-capitalists, advocating that free markets provide for laws, roads, schools and courts. In this camp are thinkers like Murray Rothbard, David Friedman and Lew Rockwell. Others are minarchists that wish to provide the smallest state possible, this includes Robert Nozik, Ludwig von Mises and Tibor R. Machan.
There are also libertarians who hold a synthesis of libertarianism and some other such ideology. Fusionists, like Frank Meyer, attempt to combine social conservative values (which are pursued in an individualist manner) alongside libertarian freedoms and small governments. Left-libertarians stress personal freedoms (like a woman’s right to choose, anti-war policy, etc), as well as anti-corporate elements (such as eliminating corporate benefits and protections afforded by the state). Roderick T. Long would fit this description.
So where would I fall under, and by what foundation would I have to support it. Well, I would say my position would be that of what I will dub a Lockean libertarian. That is a libertarian whose political philosophy is based on the works of John Locke. What this entails are four essential doctrines; how they fit into the whole of his philosophy will be explained as we go on. These doctrines are,
1. Divine Ownership
2. Natural Law
3. Property Rights
4. Limited Government
This post will not be a rigorous defence of my position, but will serve to explain my political views so far.
Divine Ownership
Murry Rothbard, the pioneer of anarcho-capitalism, first grounded his conception of rights via self-ownership in Man, Economy and State[1]. Although, he argues for it more in his work For a New Liberty [2]. Many libertarians follow Rothbard in this endeavour, Rothbard considers himself to be following Locke in this manner [1], but this is disputable.
For Locke, we start off with the fact that we are the by-product of God’s creative action. As Locke himself argues,
for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about His business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His, not one another’s pleasure. And, being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorise us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours [3]
Some would point to other places where Locke claims we have self-ownership as well, earlier in his Treatise Locke says,
Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a “property” in his own “person.” This nobody has any right to but himself. The “labour” of his body and the “work” of his hands, we may say, are properly his.[4]
Note that this is not a contradiction since it only speaks to the control we have relative to one another. Locke seems to be using the terms in an analogous sense. As Edward Feser explains,
God owns everything, he nevertheless allows us to take exclusive possession over certain parts of the world in such a way that relative to everyone else it is as if we own those things, though strictly speaking we are only “leasing” them from God.…But it is Fred and Fred alone who holds the lease on Fred, and Ethel and Ethel alone who holds the lease on Ethel. Consequently, Fred has no right to interfere with Ethel’s use of herself, her labor, or the fruits of her labor [5]
For the Christian, this matches well with scripture that declares us to be made in the image of God[6], and that we are also his workmanship[7].
Natural Law
From the fact Locke concludes that men are the workmanship of God, Locke also derives the maxim for his political philosophy as well. Namely “The fundamental law of Nature being that all, as much as may be, should be preserved”[8][9]. Since we are God’s property, we have rights expected from one another, and duties to one another, less we violate God’s will over his creation. In terms of how one grounds goodness in God, I’ve already got that covered.
This places the Lockean libertarian in a rather weird place from other libertarians. While he can say that no one should intervene in another person’s pursuit of life, liberty and labour (nor can they give these things up, since they are from God, a being by any means we have no authority over), it doesn't follow we have no obligation to let another person do whatever they wish. Since our bodies belong to God, we have no right to commit suicide, abort, self-harm, take drugs, etc. This is because it involves transgressing against God’s property rights.
However, this doesn’t mean we need to pass draconian laws to stop such practices. But rather we can focus on developing practical means to disabusing society of these habits. Drugs are terrible, but while I think marijuana should be legalized, the answer to fighting crystal meth isn’t in legalizing the selling of it to children.
Property Rights
God grants mankind dominion of the earth in order to sustain ourselves, this is the basis of Locke’s property rights [10]. We lay claim to a particular part of the earth when we mix our labour and use it for some particular function or end [11]. Now, a criticism of the Lockean libertarian position that Feser points out is that Locke himself claimed that those impoverished have a right to the goods of others [12]. Now, to be fair this doesn't kick Locke (or Lockeans) out of the libertarian camp, otherwise FA Hayek would also be disqualified [13].
Positive rights to goods and services can be distributed through the free market, and if more efficient than the state, then we ought prefer it. This is an argument made by more consequentialist libertarians like anarcho-capitalists David Friedman.
Limited Government
The last part of Locke’s philosophy is that rights should be protected by a limited government. The government is, in Locke’s words,
Though the legislative, whether placed in one or more, whether it be always in being or only by intervals, though it be the supreme power in every commonwealth, yet, first, it is not, nor can possibly be, absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people. For it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person or assembly which is legislator, it can be no more than those persons had in a state of Nature before they entered into society, and gave it up to the community. For nobody can transfer to another more power than he has in himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another [14]
Locke also advocates for a balance of power between executive and legislative branches of government. He even advocates that whoever is in the executive office remains there (lest someone else too tempted for power comes along) [15]. In this regard Locke is fairly appealing to the libertarian looking for a limited government, especially those supportive of a monarch (or monarch like figure to maintain liberties).
Conclusion
Lockean libertarianism, as far as I see it, has promise. I see it as a synthesis of two traditions that do well to inform one another. Locke seems to ring in the absurdity that ‘a thoroughgoing do whatever libertarianism’ implies. However, the libertarian spirit of free markets, property rights, and statist scepticism are still allowed to flourish based on how we can respect one another to the maximal extent as the creation of God almighty.
End Notes
[1] Rothbard, Man, Economy and State with Power and Money, 92–93
[2]Rothbard, For a New Liberty, 34
[3] Locke. Two Treatises of Government, 107 [ http://tinyurl.com/j8lqr8m]
[4] ibid, 116
[5]Feser, Locke, Kindle Location 1944/3410
[6] Genesis 1:26
[7] Ephesians 2:10
[8]Locke. Two Treatises of Government, 186
[9]Feser, Locke, Kindle Location 1938/3410
[10]ibid, Kindle Location 2299/3410
[11]ibid, Kindle Location 2351/3410
[12]ibid, Kindle Location 2286/3410
[13] Walter Block, Hayek Road to Serfdom, 361–363 [https://mises.org/library/hayeks-road-serfdom]
[14]Locke. Two Treatises of Government, 163
[15]ibid, 167–169
