Blagnet.net

Vox Day on non-aggression and religion

Vox Day found a blag post about him that was quite funny. It is from a German guy who calls himself atheist and libertarian (I don’t know if he would fit my and Kelly’s rather narrow definition of libertarian) who wrote:

This morning, I stumbled upon a very popular blog (judging by the number of comments per post) titled Vox Popoli. The author, who calls himself Vox Day (bonus points for the pseudonym), refers to himself as “Christian Libertarian”.

I lol’d.

How can you be a Christian apologetic and a libertarian? Libertarianism is all about the non-aggression principle. Live and let live. Christianity, on the other hand, is all about telling people what to do and what not to do.

As any frequenter of LewRockwell.com knows, quite a number of true (anarchist) libertarians are devout Christians, and furthermore, they have enumerated many times the reasons that libertarianism is the only truly Christian political philosophy. As the great Christian libertarian Frank Chodorov said, he could see how a libertarian might not be Christian, but he didn’t see how a Christian could not be a libertarian.

In response, Vox Day says something very puzzling. He seems to make a gigantic error, either semantic or material:

First, libertarianism incorporates a non-aggression principle, but it is by no means all about non-aggression. In fact, it may actually require aggression because what it is actually all about is limiting government power to the bare minimum required by a society.

Now, I know Vox Day is a minarchist, but that doesn’t detract from his supremacy as a writer and spreader of the libertarian message, especially to Christians. But how can he confuse aggression and self-defense?! I sincerely hope this is just a semantic difference, that he just refers to different types of force all as “aggression,” and that he does understand the fundamental difference between State aggression (for instance…taxation, or…its existence) and self-defense against such aggression. Libertarians use “aggression” and “coercion” interchangeably, and “self-defense” very, very differently.

Libertarianism is all about non-aggression because it is directly implied by the self-ownership principle, which I know he subscribes to and puts at or near the top of his list of human truths.

One of Day’s central theses in his writing is that belief in Christianity, or, perhaps, just belief in something higher than humans and this universe, is essential for widespread human liberty. His main piece of evidence for this, as far as I have been able to gather so far, is that atheists do not believe in any final, higher, absolute morality—they are moral relativists—so they try to implement moral relativism into State policy, leading, basically, to the enforcement of the belief that there is no right and wrong. Which means the State determines what is right and wrong. Communist governments, which outlawed religion and even the basic family structure because nothing could be held higher than the State and the Communist Party, are probably his primary examples of this. Other examples, not necessarily of atheism in government but of the harm done by the notion that the State should determine what is right, would be every other government in the history of the world.

But, as far as I can tell, Vox Day completely ignores the glaring record of human history that shows us how murderous, intolerant, and immoral believers in a One True Faith can be. If atheists have a bad record with government, Christians and Muslims have a worse one.

Belief in a higher moral authority seems quite often to lead directly to the belief that you have the correct morality and dissenters don’t, and it is your place to force the correct morality on everyone. It’s for the higher good, after all. This isn’t required of Christians, Muslims, Jews, or Miscellaneous, but it sure seems common. Which leads one to the fairly obvious realization that government is at the center of the problem, not faith. Vox Day, Lew Rockwell, and millions of other libertarians would say that belief in the true teachings of Christianity will lead one to endorse the non-aggression principle and oppose the existence of (most of) the State. Well, be that as it may, the Bible, clergymen, politicians, philosophers, writers, and activists certainly haven’t done a very good job of infusing this true Christianity into the minds of Christians or non-Christians. What seems to be wildly successful, on the other hand, is the self-righteous assertion that everyone has the right to use the police power of the State to force their morality, religious or otherwise, onto everyone in the State’s geographic domain. We have even seen how adherents to the most popular form of “Christianity” in the United States today, neoconservative-evangelical crusaderism, perceive perfect right in the expansion of their State’s geographic domain to the entire world!

The origin of this problem and its solution both lie in ourselves, in human intellect, reason, and philosophy, not in an external force or authority. Something about our minds is the problem with government and coercion, and widespread belief in monotheistic religions sure hasn’t done anything to cure it, but rather has, unfortunately, exacerbated the problem, if anything. Self-righteous assertions of atheism have also exacerbated the problem. A lot of things humans do exacerbate our own problems.

Christian libertarians believe that the Golden Rule, love of thy neighbor, and the Sixth and Eighth Commandments should govern our behavior, and therefore vehemently oppose everything about the State. Christian Statists think it is their God-given duty on this Earth to use government coercion to force various other concocted aspects of their morality onto everyone, and furthermore that they can—no, must—violate the Sixth and Eighth Commandments and the Golden Rule to carry out this work. Atheist libertarians think nothing is higher than humans—the most important aspect of humanity, the individual—and therefore every individual has equal rights, so no one may do to another what may not be done to him. Atheist Statists think nothing is higher than humans—or the most important aspect of humanity, the State—so the wielders of State power should force their ideas on everyone.

Atheism is not required for totalitarianism. Belief in a higher morality is not required for liberty. Belief in a god or gods is not the cure for atheist Statism. I will reiterate again, widespread belief in a One True Religion has almost always led to the belief that its adherents must enforce their beliefs on others, violently if (when) necessary.

Clearly, the belief that a higher, final moral authority exists has led to a multitude of human moral codes, all of which can’t be right and most of which are appallingly wrong to even the most casual objective observer. Day says, and I can’t disagree, that atheism usually leads to the belief that there isn’t a higher, final moral authority humans must abide by. Both extremes of these beliefs and everything in between seem to have led us no closer to widespread human liberty. And, I think history shows us these beliefs haven’t led us closer to the discovery of what a correct, true, universal human moral code would look like.

The problem isn’t with the source, this higher force or judge, if it exists. The problem isn’t with the possibility that one doesn’t exist. The problem is with humanity, with the people who do the interpreting and enforcing. We are the only common factor. Regardless of whether you believe a true, universal human morality comes from the Creator of the universe or has to come from humanity, we have to determine what that morality entails. We have to determine, enunciate, and spread the correct morality with our own minds and words. We have to explain why Islamic jihaadism and neoconservative crusaderism are wrong, and how they have either misinterpreted their faith or chosen the wrong faith altogether. Day insists, at the very least, that belief in an extra-universal authority is necessary for any true morality and not moral relativism to reign. He never seems to address the fact that the discovery of the contents of that moral code have nothing to do with faith or religion. It must come from human observation, reason, and philosophy.

He continues refuting this ridiculous German:

Christianity most definitely is NOT about telling people what to do or not do, quite the opposite, in fact.

I’m sure all Christian libertarians say this. I’m also sure a hell of a lot of Christian leftists (for instance, Republocrats) believe Christianity is about telling people what to do and not do. Who’s right? Who correctly interprets the teachings of Jesus and the Bible? Who are the true Christians and who believe in a corrupted Christianity? How are we to determine this? By observing, reasoning, and philosophizing. There is zealous belief on both sides, so belief per se has nothing to do with it. As humans striving for a just and moral world, we must explain why one aspect of their moral code is wrong or one aspect of our moral code is right.

Even though Day spends what little time he doesn’t devote to the promotion of his new book doing exactly this—arguing for his moral-political philosophy, minarchist libertarianism—I haven’t noticed him acknowledge the fact that this endeavor has nothing to do with faith, religion, or a lack thereof. It comes from his mind. He is appealing to other people’s minds. It is most certainly inspired by his belief in Christianity, but so is a lot of neoconservatism. He came to his beliefs by his reason and his experiences, which were guided by his faith, but so did many State-worshipping socialists. Are they actually different faiths, one being true Christianity and one masquerading as Christianity? Which one is correct? Which one is better? We can only know by reasoning and discussing, if at all. Telling them that a higher moral authority exists, outside of this universe, and even agreeing on that point, does nothing to change their minds about what that moral code consists of. Facts, history, experience, intelligence, reasoning, and discussion can enunciate this morality, but religion apparently cannot.

Maybe Day would say that since it is wrong for the State to determine what is moral and immoral, and “the State” simply means the people in control of the State at a given time, then it is equally wrong for people to claim they have determined what is moral and immoral.

Then where does our morality come from? I don’t hear any voice from heaven giving us any hints or help. If there is any extra-universal force or being that knows the correct human moral code, how are we supposed to deduce it? So far, religious belief (i.e., the belief that heavenly forces have given us hints and help) has a pretty dismal record at this endeavor, as believers in the same religion can drastically disagree on their own religion’s message and have all too often embraced State coercion and warfare to enforce their “correct” morality, thereby proving their morality to be incorrect. Belief in a higher, ultimate moral authority most decidedly does not lead to the discovery or implementation of a true and universal human morality; obviously, it tends to lead in the opposite direction. Then again, you could argue that almost any society of humans doing, saying, and believing almost anything has led in the opposite direction from freedom. Which just furthers my point that people’s minds, our psychology, our reasoning, our understanding of ourselves is the deficiency, and this is what must be improved for any large number of people to embrace liberty and shun coercion. Belief in God, while it certainly can become more widespread, cannot become more absolute for some people, and even when this belief was both widespread and absolute, it didn’t succeed in promoting liberty for very long. In some times and some places, it did, as Lord Acton and other Christian libertarians are quick to point out, but what failed was not their faith but rather the moral code that their faith led them to. Witness, for instance, New England busybody-Puritanism that gave us government schooling, income taxation, and military interventionism, the three greatest evils in the world today.

I think if he wants to spread libertarianism, his focus should be not on whether people believe in a supernatural moral authority, but on what they actually believe about human society. He’ll say that the reasons behind people’s moral beliefs will provide insight into how we differ and how to change them, to which I would respond that that brings us back to each individual’s reason, psychology, and philosophy, and not belief in god or belief in the absence of a god, both of which are faiths and both of which lead in myriad directions. These many moralities come from our minds and our constitutions, our view of the world and the universe and the extra-universal, our interpretation of our faith, not from having a particular faith.

Since many people’s morality is guided by their faith, and they will use their belief in a certain type of god or religion to direct (or justify) their adherence to a set of moral values, many Christian and non-Christian scholars will return to one of the deepest and most important questions of history: Who is right? Who correctly interprets the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Bible? Not being Christian, I’m going to have to let my political bias take over and go with the libertarian Christians.

To summarize my point, I am not addressing Vox Day’s assertion that the belief in an ultimate, extra-universal judge or authority leads to the belief that one true, universal human moral code exists. I am saying that this belief has been very harmful more often than not because of our many shortcomings. I also know that belief in this extra-universal authority is not necessary for the belief in a single universal moral code. Furthermore, I contend that discovering and enunciating what that moral code is has nothing to do with faith or non-faith, but can only come from our observations, intellect, reason, and internal moral compass.

Saying that humans are going to have to discover, understand, and implement a true, universal human morality on our own does not make the problem any easier; I think it just gives us a better place to start. I’ll offer my position, the promotion of which is the raison d’être of this website. I submit that the axiom of self-ownership and its corollary, the non-aggression principle, make up the entirety of the true, universal human moral code because it is the only morality that not only can but must apply equally to every human in every time, place, and circumstance.

Posted in Philosophy, Religion