All posts by Richard

Christian Libertarianism, Freedom, Libertarianz, Luke, Mark, Matthew, Nile, Romans, Thomas Jefferson

Libertarianism’s last bastion against the unrule of the godless

2 Comments

in-god-we-trust-art-0b6414eb76501dc7

The terms ‘libertarian’ and ‘libertarianism’ mean different things to different people. In a broad sense, a libertarian is anyone who favours more freedom and less government. In a narrower sense, libertarianism is minarchism.

Minarchism (also known as minimal statism) is a political philosophy. It is variously defined by sources. In the strictest sense, it holds that states ought to exist (as opposed to anarchy), that their only legitimate function is the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud, and that the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police, and courts.

The libertarianism on which I cut my teeth is libertarianism in the latter sense. It’s the libertarianism that was espoused by the now deregistered Libertarianz Party and is promoted by Objectivists such as Lindsay Perigo. In what follows, I’ll use the term ‘libertarianism’ in the minarchist sense.

Sadly, in today’s Western world we are very far from a minarchist libertopia. The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. Our government departments ever increase in both size and number. Our surfeit of statism won’t be gone any time soon, let alone gone by lunchtime.

In a libertarian state, all government departments—save for the military, police and courts—would be gone. There would be no public health system. There would be no state welfare. There would be no state schools. Even the roads would be privatised.

But persuading most people—who are thoroughly inculcated in statism by the very state education system that libertarians seek to dismantle—that we should roll back the state is difficult. How can libertarians possibly justify getting rid of government-run hospitals? How can libertarians possibly justify ending state education? And how can we even envisage life without state highways? Muh roads!

who_will_build_the_roads

How can we justify paring back the state to the barest minarchist minimum?

Actually, it’s the wrong question. The right question to ask is this. How can we justify even the barest minarchist minimum? How can we justify having any state at all?

There are plenty of problems with libertarianism. Underlying philosophical problems. I called attention to a couple of them here, here and here. And I’m about to present another problem. It’s a compelling argument for anarchism and against minarchism. (I’m not going to go into all the reasons why I think anarchism, rather than minarchism, looks set to win the day. For that, I suggest readers follow the arguments of anarchist thinkers such as Stephan Kinsella. See, e.g., his paper What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist.)

Here’s the problem. Libertarians think that taxation is theft, and that all giving, including the giving of money to the government, should be voluntary. Libertarians (of the minarchist/Randian variety) think that the (only) legitimate functions of government are providing defence and police forces and a judiciary, and that these functions should be funded voluntarily by the citizenry. But what if the citizenry don’t want to fund a minarchist state voluntarily? What then?

Here’s an excerpt from L.P.D.: Libertarian Police Department to illustrate the problem.

“Now, which one of you punks is going to pay me to investigate this crime?” No one spoke up.

“Come on,” I said. “Don’t you all understand that the protection of private property is the foundation of all personal liberty?”

It didn’t seem like they did.

“Seriously, guys. Without a strong economic motivator, I’m just going to stand here and not solve this case. Cash is fine, but I prefer being paid in gold bullion or autographed Penn Jillette posters.”

Nothing. These people were stonewalling me. It almost seemed like they didn’t care …

Elsewhere I presented the case for compulsory taxation. In the comments section to that post, a battle erupted between Damian Grant, a libertarian in the loose “More Freedom, Less Government” sense, and Mark Hubbard, a devout minarchist. Damian didn’t manage to better my case for compulsory taxation, but Mark didn’t score any points either. The whole thing was left hanging.

When Christian libertarians confront statists, statists just love to throw the Good Book at them! There are two Bible passages commonly mentioned.

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve been confronted with Jesus’s injunction to render unto Caesar. But this objection is easily demolished. To render is to give back. Jesus tells us to give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give back to God what is God’s. But what do we have that is Caesar’s? What have the Romans ever done for us?

Elsewhere, of course, the Bible tells us that all things belong to God. So the objection is easily dealt with.

Seemingly more difficult to deal with is the second objection, viz., Romans 13.

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. (NIV)

This objection is taken so seriously by Christian libertarians that the Facebook group of the same name deals with this passage (and only this passage) specifically in its “About” section.

A very common question new members have is, “What do you think about Romans 13?” One member has shared a Facebook doc with links to the various discussions we have had:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/290101931017604/doc/491608790866916/

Here are two additional essays on Romans 13:
http://libertarianchristians.com/2008/11/28/new-testament-theology-2/
http://libertarianchristians.com/2013/04/02/theology-doesnt-begin-and-end-with-romans-13/

But, far from dooming minarchist libertarianism, Romans 13 is its salvation! For, without this crucial passage, there is nothing in the Bible or anywhere else to stop the slide into anarchism.

I’ve been looking for a Biblical justification of libertarianism ever since I heard this speech. Now I think I’ve found it. In the last place I ever thought to look.

Romans 13 is libertarianism’s last bastion against the unrule of the godless.

ALCP, Cannabis, Live Like It's Legal, Vote 2014

Eternal Vigilance electorate candidate endorsement #2. Alistair Gregory for Wellington Central.

1 Comment

20_alistair_gregory

Alistair Gregory is a rising star in the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party. He’s our candidate for the high-profile Wellington Central electorate and #4 on the party list. He’s also the ALCP’s Wellington Regional Manager and President of the ALCP’s Wellington branch. (I’m the Vice President. Ali’s the main man!)

Vote Alistair Gregory in Wellington Central

Legalise Cannabis in WELLINGTON CENTRAL!

Hello, I’m Alistair Gregory, your ALCP candidate for the best little capital in the world.

I’m a 23 year old chef, born and bred Wellingtonian, and convinced that we have to stop making criminals of people having a joint.

Using natural cannabis for medical, recreational, industrial and spiritual purposes should be a standard human right.

Cannabis, also named marijuana, has been used for centuries around the world. It is not and never has been a ‘demon weed’.

Jamaica, Holland, Uruguay, Portugal, USA and many other countries are introducing relaxed cannabis controls. New Zealanders are repeatedly calling for the same choice.

Sensible reform is legalisation, with regulated supply and use, for adults. ALCP is the only party that will stop making our people criminals.

Alcohol prohibition was a failure. Cannabis prohibition is a failure.

Enrol to vote. Vote for civil rights. Vote ALCP.

I’ll also mention that Ali is a medicinal user, and a friend. He needs cannabis, I don’t. As a recreational cannabis user, I’m prepared to live like it’s legal and live through the occasional supply drought. But I’m not prepared to do nothing while my friends suffer because the law denies them the best medicine. That’s why I’m out supporting Ali on the campaign trail.

Voters in the Wellington Central electorate, I urge you to give your electorate vote to Alistair Gregory and your party vote to the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party!

ALCP, Kim Dotcom, Vote 2014

Eternal Vigilance electorate candidate endorsement #1. Grant Keinzley for Taranaki-King Country.

3 Comments

Please read the DISCLAIMER first.

Okay, so that was full of nothing. 🙂

The reason I’m endorsing Grant Keinzley for Taranaki-King Country is because he co-authored (with Tim Kibblewhite) a Review of New Zealand’s Drug Policy. It’s an Internet Party draft policy document. And it’s good.

Here are the document’s seven policy proposals.

Oh, wait … looks like someone pressed the history eraser button. 🙁 Subsection 4.2 and all of section 5 (containing the policy proposals) seem to have mysteriously disappeared! What were they?

Lucky that I saved a previous edit of the document. 🙂

5.1 Implement a Rehabilitative Approach towards Drug Addiction
The Internet Party will focus on viewing drug addiction as a health issue and not a criminal issue. The Internet Party will support legislation that reflects this. Part of this approach will be the implementation of drug courts to deal with possession issues.

5.2 Decriminalise the Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes
The Internet Party will propose legislation to decriminalise the possession, cultivation and personal use of prescribed small amounts of natural cannabis for medicinal uses. Large-scale (to be determined) cultivation, possession and sale of natural cannabis will remain illegal. Details of the new law will be drafted following research into global best practice and the study of successful models in Europe and the US.

5.3 Set up an Office for Medicinal Cannabis
Following decriminalisation, an office for medicinal cannabis will be set up along the lines of that operating in the Netherlands, with the objective of controlling and maintaining high standards for the supply and use of natural cannabis for therapeutic purposes.

5.4 Fund Research and Clinical Trials
New Zealand research into the efficacy and safety of medicinal cannabis and cannabis-based therapeutic medicines will be funded with a view to speeding up the availability of proven remedies. Clinical trials to determine the benefits of medicinal cannabis and cannabis-based medicines will be funded, but only if the veracity of clinical trials undertaken overseas cannot be confirmed by New Zealand health authorities.

5.5 Legalise Cannabis for Personal Use
The Internet Party understands that policy and change has to be implemented slowly due to political realities. However, it will be the official opinion of the Internet Party that, due to the evidence and research supported by the scientific community, cannabis should be decriminalised for personal use.

5.6 Decriminalise Possession of Class A, B and C Drugs
The Internet Party will follow the compelling example set in Portugal and decriminalise the possession of other drugs to ensure that rehabilitation and treatment is offered to drug addicts as opposed to jail sentences.

5.7 Remove the Presumption of Supply
Following the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Supreme Court of New Zealand the Internet Party will introduce legislation that is consistent with the Bill of Rights Act 1990 which ensures that there will be no presumption of supply without proven intent.

These are all sensible and modest proposals. I’m particularly impressed that

The Internet Party understands that policy and change has to be implemented slowly due to political realities.

New Zealand already tried rapid implementation of unreal drug law reform, viz., the interim period provisions of the Psychoactive Substances Act. Predictably enough, the PSA’s interim period provisions proved to be a load of abject FAIL. There was a public outcry and the PSA’s evil mastermind, Peter Dunne, pulled the plug on the whole shenanigans. But not until eleven novel, untested research chemicals had been approved for sale to the general public. They were on the shelves for nine months. Just long enough for us to find out if any of these substances cause birth defects in the children of mothers legally addicted to them. The National government is criminally insane.

As per my personal policy statement, one day I hope to see all drugs fully legalised. The sad fact of the matter is that this may never happen. But, if it does, it will occur through a series of tiny steps in the right direction. It will begin with cannabis legalisation.

4.2 Colorado Legalisation of Cannabis

In 2012 there was a referendum in the state of Colorado. This measure would amend Colorado’s constitution and allow state-wide legalisation of cannabis. A similar measure was also passed in Washington State, however, their legalisation was set at a later date and as such less information is available on the success or failure of the plan so Colorado’s model is more applicable for research purposes. The first legal cannabis stores opened in Colorado on January 1st 2014.

The law change has meant that adults over 21 years of age can possess and use cannabis for personal recreational use.

There was a fear that this law would lead to a spike in usage of cannabis. However, in a recent report John Hickenlooper, the Governor of Colorado, reported that “we don’t see a spike in adult use…we don’t think we see a spike in youth consumption.” He also remarked, ‘let’s face it, the War on Drugs was a disaster…it sent millions of kids to prison, gave them felonies – often times when they had no violent crimes.’

In addition to avoiding charges on those who were simply using cannabis for personal use, Colorado has reported that there are significant tax incentives to legalisation of cannabis. The state, which is of roughly comparable population and GDP to New Zealand, has reported that they have collected $25,307,067 in cannabis taxes since January 2014.

Full Colorado-style legalisation of cannabis is the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party’s policy. 🙂

It’s been all year since Colorado’s bud shops opened their doors. Almost all indicators from Colorado so far are good. But even implementing something along the lines of Colorado’s tightly regulated commercial cannabis market may be too much too soon for the sheeple of New Zealand. Colorado-style legalisation of cannabis would be a tiny step towards a future libertopia. But (I’m guessing) it’s still too big a step, according to the Internet Party’s policy advisors, and that’s why they’ve redacted the subsection above.

So what is the Internet Party’s cannabis policy? They don’t have one. Yet. I’m told by a couple of party insiders that the Internet Party will release its cannabis policy this Sunday 24 August. I hope that policy proposal 5.5 will make the cut. And I’ll be interested to see if their upcoming policy will be to legalise cannabis for personal use (as per the section heading) or merely to decriminalise cannabis possession and cultivation (as per the section body). (It’s worth stating the not as obvious as it should be. Legalisation and decriminalisation are NOT the same thing. Decriminalisation just means less draconian penalties apply.)

Here‘s another reason to vote Keinzley.

His work in Asia included setting up a non-profit China Typhoon Rescue Organisation, helping communities clean up and rebuild after a disaster.

And another.

I never really liked politics.

Voters in the Taranaki-King Country electorate, please give your electorate vote to Grant Keinzley and your party vote to the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party!

Democracy, Sheeple, Vote 2012

Eternal Vigilance electorate candidate endorsements. DISCLAIMER.

2 Comments

35478185321585666304

New Zealand’s next general election is on 20 September. Previously, libertarian blogger Liberty Scott has published handy guides to the electorate candidates on offer. For all electorates—so quite substantial pieces of work and a much appreciated public service. Thanks, Scott, and good on you!

Libertyscott’s Electorate voting guide (2008)

New Zealand election 2011 electorate voting guide

Over the next few weeks leading up to 20 September, I propose something far less ambitious. A handful of individual candidate endorsements for single electorates.

My endorsements for the Hamilton West and Mana electorates will be the same as last time and the same as Liberty Scott’s. As far as these two electorates are concerned, I expect no dissent from my co-bloggers.

But I am expecting fierce dissent if and when I publish my endorsement for the Upper Harbour electorate!

So here’s the DISCLAIMER.

Eternal Vigilance electorate candidate endorsements are the unmoderated views of the bloggers who express them.

They do not necessarily reflect the views of other Eternal Vigilance bloggers, or of Eternal Vigilance, and do not necessarily align with Truth, Freedom and Justice.

Let’s get the ball rolling.

Eternal Vigilance endorses Grant Keinzely for Taranaki-King Country. 🙂

ALCP, Vote 2014

I am not a number. I am a free man.

5 Comments

Number-Six-the-prisoner-26758467-1024-768

If the Aotearoa Legalise Cannabis Party vote reaches the 5% threshold in the general election on September 20, I shall be an MP.

Top-Ten List Ranking Released

1. Julian Crawford (Dunedin South)
2. Abe Gray (Dunedin North)
3. Emma-Jane Kingi (Te Tai Tonga)
4. Alistair Gregory (Wellington Central)
5. Jeffrey Lye (Kelston)
6. Richard Goode (Mana)
7. Paula Lambert (Christchurch East)
8. Romana Manning (Tukituki)
9. Rob Wilkinson (Christchurch Central)
10. Richard Neutgens (Auckland Central)

Peter Dunne, Prohibition, Psychoactive Substances Act

This garbage is not worth re-electing

Leave a comment

dunne_accused_of_conflict_of_interest_1904360225

Minister criticises pro-cannabis groups over medicinal marijuana

The Associate Health Minister has weighed in on the medicinal marijuana debate criticising pro-cannabis groups as “misleading and emotive”.

Peter Dunne says the claims from pro-cannabis groups that the Government is blocking research into medicinal marijuana is wrong.

“That is not only absolutely wrong but also shows a woeful ignorance of the process for approving any new medicinal products,” says Mr Dunne.

This comes after the issue was put into the spotlight on TVNZ’s Sunday and Breakfast programmes when a Kiwi dad spoke out asking the Government to “step up” and reassess its laws on medicinal marijuana, saying the positive effect it has had on his daughter has exceeded his expectations.

Brent Gallien, the father of an 11-year-old who suffers from a rare and severe form of epilepsy, says his daughter was suffering several seizures every day before she was prescribed a cannabis extract called Sativex.

Mr Gallien says there are better products that have a far less risk of causing negative side effects but the Government has so far refused to approve them.

But Mr Dunn says if cannabis is sought for its medicinal benefits, then it must be subject to the same rigour and testing that’s expected of all pharmaceutical products. He says consumers need to be directing their questions to the pharmaceutical industry not the government.

“The fact is the government does not oppose the trial and development of cannabis-based medicines, as the availability of Sativex on the New Zealand market already shows.”

Here’s a paraphrase of Peter Dunne’s position about this time last year when he voted to enact the Psychoactive Substances Act, a vile piece of legislation, and Dunne himself was its chief architect.

Mr Dunn says if synthetic cannabis is sought for its recreational benefits, then it need not be subject to the same rigour and testing that’s expected of all other pharmaceutical products. He says if you’ve already been selling it for three months or more and no one’s complained yet then it can stay on the shelves.

Reread the paragraph below to fully comprehend the scale of the double standard now on show.

But Mr Dunn says if cannabis is sought for its medicinal benefits, then it must be subject to the same rigour and testing that’s expected of all pharmaceutical products. He says consumers need to be directing their questions to the pharmaceutical industry not the government.

I do believe that when we read

The Associate Health Minister has weighed in on the medicinal marijuana debate criticising pro-cannabis groups as “misleading and emotive”.

we are seeing a disordered personality engaging in projection, the ascription of one’s own faults and failings to others. Dunne is the one whose utterings on drug policy have ever been misleading and emotive.

Regardless, Dunne’s criticism of pro-cannabis groups is the height of insolence for a public servant, especially in view of the fact that his drug policy is manifestly not in the best interests of those whom he is supposed to serve. He treats those who rightly criticise his policy and those who suffer under it with utter contempt. This is characteristic behaviour for Peter Dunne.

It’s nothing new. In 2006, Dunne responded to medicinal cannabis user Greg Soar’s pleas with

This garbage is not worth replying to

and recently, Dunne pulled his head out of the sand long enough to tell us

I have yet to see any evidence that cannabis in any form has contributed in any way to help children, or indeed anyone, recover from serious diseases.

I hope Dunne watched the recent Sunday program on ONE about Charlotte’s Web. He needs to educate himself about the many and varied therapeutic uses of medicinal cannabis. His wilful ignorance and wanton denial are epic.

Dunne is not worth re-electing. I look forward to bidding good riddance to bad rubbish this September 20.

10514205_10152336254677252_2584346595172963134_o

2 Corinthians, C S Lewis, Epistemology, Metaphysics

In the jar

9 Comments

10462753_10152385834254543_1964188277831426513_n

Once upon a time I was a real philosopher. I wasn’t a very good philosopher then, and I’m certainly not now, but here’s an argument for the truth of Christianity. If you fancy yourself as a philosopher, feel free to shoot my argument down in flames. But if you fancy yourself as a real philosopher, do what a real philosopher would do. Improve my argument, so that it’s as good an argument as it can possibly be. And then shoot it down in flames!

Okay, so here goes. Lately, something called the multiverse theory has become popular in atheist circles. It purports to explain why the universe we live in appears to be fine-tuned for the existence of life, without the universe we live in actually being fine-tuned for the existence of life. Because what best explains the fact that the universe we live in is fine-tuned for the existence of life, if it’s the only universe, is the existence of a creator God. If, however, our universe is only one of trillions upon trillions of other actual parallel universes, each with different physical laws and constants, then we can find the explanation for the apparent fine-tuning of the universe we happen to inhabit in the so-called anthropic principle. Basically, we’re here because of sheer, dumb luck and the probabilistic resources of a multiverse.

Atheist Logo

As far as I’m aware, there’s no empirical evidence for the multiverse theory, but it does at least explain why most atheists believe in pink unicorns. So there is that. Now, my argument appeals to the idea of multiple possible universes. The possible worlds heuristic has been a mainstay of academic philosophy for a very long time. Since I’ve been around, anyway. I think my argument only depends on the existence of a finite number of possible universes, and not on the existence of an infinite number of actual universes, but I’m not sure. But the question is, if there are multiple possible universes, but only one actual universe, which of the multiple possible universes is the actual universe we live in?

Well, it could be that the universe we live in is, in actual fact, contained in a tiny glass jar placed neatly on the shelf of an alien child’s room. It’s a logical possibility. The thing to note about this possibility is that it’s a possibility that our universe is contained within another universe. Thus, this possibility is a variant of what I have elsewhere called supernaturalism. Naturalism, as I define it, is the view that the world we know is a stand-alone affair. It’s not contained within anything else, or a product of anything else. It’s self-sufficient from go to whoa. It just is. Whereas, supernaturalism is the view that the world we live in—and all it contains, including us—is an artefact.

Now consider all the logically possible universes. Logically speaking, what is the likelihood that the one-and-only actual universe is a self-contained universe, as opposed to a universe contained within a greater reality? Bear in mind that the the universe inhabited by the alien child, in whose room our universe is contained in a jar on a shelf, could itself be contained in another jar on a shelf in some uber-alien child’s room. That’s right, for every possible self-contained universe, there are an infinite number of possible nested universes containing that universe. So it’s highly likely that we live in a nested universe.

God is eternal. The claim that God is eternal is often taken to mean (as I take it to mean) that God is “outside” time and space. God is outside the time and space fabric of our universe, which means that our universe is “inside” the outside reality in which God dwells. If Christianity is true, we live in a nested universe.

There are two types of possible nested universes. Those in which the creator in the containing universe has communicated with the inhabitants of the contained universe, and those in which the creator hasn’t. What would our world look like if we lived in a universe within a universe? Moreover, one in which the creator outside had communicated with us in the jar? It would look exactly like this one looks if Christianity were true. Therefore, Christianity is true.

Perhaps my argument, such as it is, is a variant of an argument that C. S. Lewis presents in Mere Christianity. According to Lewis, we should expect the unexpected.

Reality, in fact, is usually something you could not have guessed. That is one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It is a religion you could not have guessed. If it offered us just the kind of universe we had always expected, I should feel we were making it up. But, in fact, it is not the sort of thing anyone would have made up. It has just that queer twist about it that real things have.

So, there it is. It’s not an argument I’m about to write up and submit to a peer-reviewed academic journal any time soon, but hey. I’m only a jar of clay.