For years I was seduced by the philosophy of modern libertarianism. I found the arguments against so-called victimless crime laws particularly compelling. But I was puzzled by the fact that the Lord’s prophets supported the amendment to the US Constitution establishing Prohibition, and they opposed the amendment repealing it. If God was for freedom and liberty, shouldn’t his prophets have opposed Prohibition and favored its repeal? Why were the Lord’s prophets championing the devil’s cause against freedom of choice? This seeming contradiction bothered me a lot for quite a few years. Do we not revere the Founding Fathers of the United States as wise men raised up by God, and were they not the first libertarians?
I was also puzzled by the fact that the literature of modern libertarianism does not quote much from our nation’s Founders, or spend much time reading their writings and philosophy. In fact, the writings of our Founding Fathers are conspicuous by their absence from libertarian literature. In contrast, our Church leaders from the days of Joseph Smith have taught that we should study the writings of the Founders, and have quoted from them.
So what is the resolution to this contradiction in philosophy between the writings of our Founders and our Church leaders on the one hand, and the philosophy of modern libertarianism on the other? I finally figured it out one day as I was reading The Second Treatise on Government by John Locke who was the philosophical father of our Founders. In Chapter II, Section 6, Locke writes:
Sec. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: 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 authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our’s. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.
Voila! The contradiction is resolved. Our Founding Fathers were true libertarians. Modern libertarians are not. They have made a fundamental error.
On the one hand, modern libertarians teach as a most fundamental principle that each man belongs to himself, and that therefore no man and consequently no government has a right to impose his will on another except to defend himself from another doing so to him. A man’s right to swing his fist extends only as far as the end of another man’s nose. On the other hand, John Locke, true libertarians, the prophets of God, and our national Founding Fathers teach that men do not belong to themselves but to God who created us, and that all our rights originate with Him as stated so eloquently in our Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Hence we see that modern libertarian philosophy is false. It is Godless, atheistic, materialist and secularist. And in these qualities it resembles Marxist communism which inevitably results in totalitarianism.
Does an acknowledgement of God as the source of our rights violate the principles of freedom upon which the United States is founded? No it does not. Indeed, all of our Founders were strongly influenced by the philosophy of John Locke. That philosophy is embodied in our founding document, the Declaration of Independence. And it is implied throughout the US Constitution which is the supreme law of the land. We can be sure of this because those same men who signed the Declaration of Independence, and in many cases shed their own blood so that Americans can live free of foreign tyranny, were the men who brought forth the Constitution and the new American republic. They were students of John Locke and believed that men belong to their Creator, and not to themselves.
Does this understanding and philosophy violate the separation of Church and state? Not if it doesn’t establish a state church or religion as prohibited by the Bill of Rights. Of this we may be certain because these same students of John Locke, and authors of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, are the men who gave us the Bill of Rights which guarantee us our freedom of religion.
It is astounding how true libertarianism has been corrupted in our own day to obscure this basic truth, that men belong not to themselves but to their Creator from whom all men obtain their rights.
The Iron Rod 
John,
I will not argue against your view regarding false premises. You are completely right and that is the very reason why a government which claims to promote freedom cannot be based on religion. The premises of philosphy are grounded in what any man can observe or falsify. Religion, however, relies on premises which are supernatural and notoriously difficult if not impossible to falsify. Given that there is such a wide variety of these religious premises, most of which contridict one another. Again, problems arise.
With regards to the BRM parellel, I said that because that was actually something that BRM really said. I actually thought you were quoting him. I’m sure you like that.
Jeffrey D. Giliam wrote:
“You sounded just like Bruce R. McConkie right there. Unfortunately, both of you are wrong on that point. Philosphy is a systematic engagement of ideas using rigorous rules of deductive logic by way of analysis and synthesis.”
Thank you for suggesting that I sound just like Bruce R. McConkie. He was a true prophet of God, and I accept most of his teachings as scripture.
As for “rigorous rules of deductive logic,” those who start their deductions from a false premise always arrive at false conclusions unless their logic is bad. Our Founding Fathers understood this when they signed the Declaration of Independence. That is why they began with the premise that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Clearly, they were starting from a true premise. They said it was “self-evident.” Any philosopher starting from some other premise will invariably arrive at a false conclusion regardless of how rigorous and impeccable his logic.
P.S. Perhaps we could make some progress if you defined “rights” for us. Not necessarily where they come from (we already know what you will say to that) but what they are exactly.
No! It’s getting worse!
“There is no general agreement among philosophers on the matter.”
There is a whole lot more agreement between philosophers than there is between religionists. At least philosphers have common rules of engagement and demand a certain amount of rigor from one another. As much as one can see religious language in the DoI (many of the founders where not believers in the God of ethical monotheism mind you) there is far more philosphical language in it and the federalist papers than there are passages from the Bible.
“Philosophy is just religion for people who don’t have a religion.”
You sounded just like Bruce R. McConkie right there. Unfortunately, both of you are wrong on that point. Philosphy is a systematic engagement of ideas using rigorous rules of deductive logic by way of analysis and synthesis. Your accusation might be true for metaphysics, but can hardly be applied to most other branches of the subject. The fact that there is no religion in philosophy is exactly what makes it good for everybody and fit for politics. There can never be any claims such as “because God says so” to back anything up. Ideas must stand or fall on their own merit, not endorsing authority.
“To speak of rights in the absence of a Creator, is an oxymoron. Unless there is a Creator, who is to say that any of us have rights?”
Are you kidding here? Society says it, thats who! It’s as if you were to say that I don’t really have a name because God didn’t give it to me. If everybody agrees that everybody else has rights (or a name) then they actually do have rights. Just like God didn’t create anything, even people, ex nihilo, He didn’t “create” rights either.
“The whole idea of rights without a Creator is ludicrous.”
I’ll let you defend that one before I even touch it. People shouldn’t have to actually engage any boulderdash that comes along.
“Because there is a God, there is true philosophy and false philosophy.”
This is faith claim, pure and simple. Most people don’t agree with you and are just as sure of their beliefs as you are. What makes you so special?
“…or nothing is left but complete ideological chaos, and murder becomes just as moral as protecting small children or giving alms to the poor.”
You keep saying this despite the fact that atheists or agnostics as a whole are just as moral as religious people. Are you going to back up this assertion with any evidence or argumentation whatsoever?
“The whole concept of freedom depends upon the ability of government to achieve a balance between anarchy and totalitarianism. And that cannnot be done if men cannot agree on common moral values ultimately based upon the values held in common by all religions.”
You were off to a great start in this one, but then lost it at the end. Can’t you even think about politics without religion? Moral values are psychological issues. Studies have shown that people are psychologically inclined to view practical morality with a rather unified eye, regardless of religious background. This is due to our not being born with a blank slate. We can create rules of government based on our innate sense of utility. The rules which government agrees upon, based on this universal sense of utility, can be defended in their own right without any appeal to religion or supernatural entities.
Therefore our surest bet if we are trying to acheive unanimity would not be an appeal to religion or culture which varies widely the world over, but in an appeal to the universal sense of utility as shaped by our common evolutionary past.
I am also waiting your response to the revelations I have quoted:
“We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of cconscience (even atheists)… We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it (even satan worshippers), unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others (!); but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish bguilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul…
We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.” D&C 134
“This law is a Celestial law and pertains to a Celestial Kingdom…
You are not now sent to proclaim this principle to the United States, nor to the world, nor to urge it upon them.
It is not for them as a nation or nations, only as many as accept the law of my Gospel and are governed thereby.” Revelation to John Taylor
“Now there was no law against a man’s belief (even that of an atheistic anti-Christ’s); for it was strictly contrary to the commands of God that there should be a law which should bring men on to unequal grounds (even atheists)…
Now if a man desired to serve God (or obey law which have no concern with mortality), it was his privilege; or rather, if he believed in God it was his privilege to serve him; but if he did not believe in him there was no law to punish him.
But if he murdered he was punished unto death; and if he robbed he was also punished; and if he stole he was also punished; and if he committed adultery he was also punished; yea, for all this wickedness (evils commited against other people) they were punished.
For there was a law that men should be judged according to their crimes. Nevertheless, there was no law against a man’s belief; therefore, a man was punished only for the crimes which he had done; therefore all men were on equal grounds.
-BoM
Thus Korihor could believe and say whatever he wanted. He could also do whatever he wanted just as long as he didn’t infringe on anybody else’s rights. The people tried to judge him according to the law but the law had no power over him.
Or consider Mosiah’s refusal to judge heretics in chapter 26. Instead he forced the religious leader to judge them according to the religious crimes they had commited.
Cl
John, can you point out any atheist who thinks that murder is just as moral as protecting children or giving alms to the poor?
There may a philosophical basis for determining morals and ethics outside of “religion.” But there is no general agreement among philosophers on the matter. For this reason, a good argument can be made for the separation of philosophy and state that is just as good as the argument for the separation of religion and state. Philosophy is just religion for people who don’t have a religion.
We need to keep in mind that the “philosophy” upon which the United States was founded, the philosophy underlying the Declaration of Independence and our other founding documents, is that every man is born with individual, God-given rights including life, liberty and property. We are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable right.” Take that away, and we have no rights. There is no freedom.
To speak of rights in the absence of a Creator, is an oxymoron. Unless there is a Creator, who is to say that any of us have rights? And if some philosopher should be foolish enough to so assert, by what authority should we agree with him? The whole idea of rights without a Creator is ludicrous. Because there is a God, there is true philosophy and false philosophy. And false philosophies are no more binding upon men than the power of a totalitarian dictator to enforce them.
The study of morality and ethics has to be based upon those values held in common by all religions or nothing is left but complete ideological chaos, and murder becomes just as moral as protecting small children or giving alms to the poor.
Is there such a thing as an illegitimate religion? There must be, or men cannot live together in society, and all governments must fail. The whole concept of freedom depends upon the ability of government to achieve a balance between anarchy and totalitarianism. And that cannnot be done if men cannot agree on common moral values ultimately based upon the values held in common by all religions.
Name one atheistic organization which endorses adultery while being concerned with morality.
Religions have endorsed things such as murder, rape and adultery in the past. If they have done it in the past, they are more than likely to do it again as a rule of human nature. Of course these laws (I’ll say it again) are defensible using reasons based on survival and practicality. These rules, like the rest of our sense of morality, are based on our epigenetic rules which have evolved in the human race. Over the past tens of millions of years it became profitable, with regards to genetic fitness, to become a more social species. Thus we evolved psychological tendencies which facitilitated cooperation and survival. Our laws concerning adultery, rape and murder are grounded in these psychological tendencies.
It is on these tendencies that our legal system is grounded as well, like it or not. Thus, our legal system is based on tendencies which are meant to facilitate survival, diversity and practicality.
Religious doctines, no matter how popular or obscure, in as much as they go beyond practicality and survival are not welcome in our system. They limit the diversity too much. They limit freedom too much. They don’t allow people to express themselves like they should.
There is a social contract in which we live. Our legal system is a fair, but not perfect, representation of this contract. If there are not enough rules in the agreement, there will be suffering and people will infringe on each others “rights”. Too many rules and their rights are being infringed upon by the state. Thus, we imprison those who commit adultery, murder and rape, but we don’t enforce baptism, faith or any thing that concerns itself with things beyond this life.
People can believe ANYTHING they want to. To a large degree they can say whatever they want to (exceptions include plagiarism and confidentiality). And people should be able to do whatever they want to as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody else in any observable way (this is a flimsy notion, but excludes hurting “spiritual” beings which don’t make up our population).
John said: “I notice that you still haven’t named a current religion that endorses adultery.”
Will says: Yes, I did. The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
John asked: “Are you suggesting that freedom of religion or the separation of Church and state should protect those too?”
Will says: No. It’s you who considers murder, stealing, lying, and rape to be immoral for exclusively religious reasons. The fact is that there are perfectly good secular reasons for outlawing these acts.
There has been a spate of posting today and yesterday. As a result, posts from The Iron Rod have been pushed down the list until they no longer appear on the first page. Just click “more” at the bottom of
“Even More Islands & Atolls,” and you’ll find my latest blog posts listed. Of course, you have to come over here to read the comments.
I notice that you still haven’t named a current religion that endorses adultery.
I know that anciently the worship of Baal and Molech involved ritual fornication and human sacrifice. But those religions are rightly extinct. And if there are any tiny groups practicing ritual fornication and human sacrifice today, I certainly hope that laws are passed that will make them extinct too. Like all other freedoms, freedom of religion cannot be absolute in any society.
I suppose there might be some “belief systems” or “world views” that endorse murder, rape, and theft too. For an example, the world view and belief system of communism endorses mass genocide for world revolution. Are you suggesting that freedom of religion or the separation of Church and state should protect those too? I think that you are vastly overstretching the definition of “religion” as it is used in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. As used in the Bill of Rights, the word “religion” denotes such religions as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism which make up over 99 percent of the world population. If you expand the definition to include any system of belief or world view, you have to include such world views as that held by the Mafia, and other murder cults. Obviously that cannot have been the intent of our Founders in guaranteeing freedom of religion.
Once again, name a single religion that endorses adultery among the religions that are practiced by nearly all of the world’s people.
I don’t know of one. A law against adultery violates no man’s religious sensitivities. An atheist, by definition, doesn’t have religious sensitivies any more than a communist or a Mafioso practicing his satanic craft. In law there has to be a distinction between religion and “world view” or “belief system.” If there isn’t, then the whole concept of law becomes a mockery and virtually everything becomes lawful.
I think what is going on is that John is simply unable to separate in his mind religion from morality and ethics. Philosophers, however, have done this for millennia now.
The fact is that ethics can and must be decided independent of God. We can also enforce moral behavior independent of God.
Of course such accounts will only take into consideration issues of survival and practicality in this life, but this is a good thing. Anything beyond that is religion, which should be kept out of politics, and this according to revletion.
John, we consider Warren Jeffs an adulterer since he is not legally married to most of his sexual partners. And you and I both know that there are occult groups with practices that we consider immoral. On what basis do you deny them the label of “religion”?
There are LDS doctrines that are contrary to the beliefs of the world religions. Take, for example, the doctrine that God wants people to leave their respective churches and join the LDS Church. Should we let the major religions legislate their views on this matter?
BTW,
Why aren’t these posts appearing over at MA anymore?
John,
I think you are severely over-stating the similarities which exist in religions. I guess it depends on what you mean by religion. Apparently you don’t mean w”orld view” since atheism somehow doesn’t count. Personally, I think that freedom of religion should indeed be defined in terms of world view.
But even excluding atheism, the ethical monotheistic tradition (aside from hardly being monolithic itself) hardly accounts for the wide variety of religions which exist the world over. We can’t just exclude them because they are small, since every religion was small at one time or another.
Here are some of the examples of the variety which exists:
1) Super natural agents vary widely. Sometimes there is only 1 god, sometimes many. Sometimes animals are gods, sometimes inanimate objects like rivers, mountians or statutes are. Many religion don’t even believe in a god at all! Some believe god to be an alien.
2) Some gods die. Some are immortal, some go through endless cycles of reincarnations, some are totally mortal such as cheifs.
3) Many spirits are stupid. Sometimes God is all the omni’s and sometimes he is stupid. Sometimes rituals are intended to trick god.
4) Salvation is not always a central preoccupation. Sometimes they only believe in the here and now. Sometimes there are ghosts and sometimes there is no after life at all.
5) Official religion is not the whole of religion. Within every community, no matter how concerned with orthodoxy, belief still varies greatly. A great many of ethical monotheists in the world still believe in witches and ghosts and the like.
6) You can have religion without having “a” religion. Take for instance those who pray to their ancestors. Why would they ever pray to other people’s ancestors? There are no different “religions” from which to choose. There is only religion which can be practiced.
7) You can also have religion without having “religion.” Some don’t even have a concept of religion at all. Religion is culture and politics all in one. There is no separation between the sacred and the profane.
8) You can have religion without faith. In many religions there is no such thing as “believing in” something or having faith. Thing are the way they are and there is simply no belief about it. It’s like asking you if you believe in mountains. The question and concept simply doesn’t make sense.
Based on these vast differences, can we really expect them all to come to some kind of unity? The sense of morality between these people will differ radically.
Are there religions which condon murder? Yes, look at the old testament or even LDS church history.
Are there religions which condon adultery? Yes, again look at the OT and Church history.
Almost any reason for “not considering” a belief system worthy of consideration can be applied to Mormonism’s beginning.
Will,
I do not believe that atheism should be given the same status as other belief systems. Doing so undermines the moral basis of all laws including murder, stealing, lying, rape, etc. Without a religious moral basis, these acts are not immoral. They are just like so-called victimless crime laws. Without a religious basis, there is no such thing as right and wrong, true and false, good and evil, moral and immoral, or freedom and slavery.
I defy you to name one of the major world religions that endorses adultery. “Religions” such as Wicca, Satanism, atheism, agnosticism, and communism are not religions at all. They are anti-religions. Or perhaps they might be appropriately called belief systems.
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism all encourage husbands to be faithful to wives. And these five major world religions and their variants make up over 99 percent of the human race.
Go ahead, name me one religion that authorizes adultery. Don’t just claim that such a religion exists. Name it.
Also, it is not true that all religions teach against adultery. Some even include orgies in their rituals.
John, do you believe that the government should give atheism the same status as other belief systems?
Will, I am not advocating the legislation of the religious morals of any particular religion. I am advocating the legislation of those moral laws held in common by all religions. This is what our Founding Fathers did. This is what our Declaration of Independence and Constitution does.
Why is it immoral to trample on individual rights? Why is freedom good? It is because our individual rights are from God who created us. And he wants us to be free. Take away this moral basis for law, and slavery is just as good as freedom.
Well, the same God who outlaws slavery also outlawed adultery. Further, this is not the claim of any particular religion. All religions teach against adultery.
Hence, laws may be passed against adultery and other mutually agreed upon immoral acts without establishing a state religion as forbidden in the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The separation of church and state is thus maintained.
The radical libertarian position against so-called victimless crimes is not only atheistic, it undermines the legitimacy of all laws. Taken to its logical conclusion, it would establish anarchy, a lawless state.
Governments may legitimately legislate against immoral acts for the same reason they may legislate against murder, rape, and stealing. The distinction between crimes with victims and crimes without victims is a false distinction. All immoral acts have victims, otherwise they would not be immoral. Legislating against such acts does not violate the separation of Church and state or anybody’s freedom of religion as long as the immoral act is one considered immoral by all religions in common.
Lyle,
This response is only going to fall back into the revelation discussion I’ve been engaged in over at Nine Moons and New Cool Thang.
If prophets really are learned and wise on a particular subject to any extent greater than I am, then it should be due to their having received revelation on the subject. If no revelation has been claimed on a particular subject, then why should I believe that they are any more learned and wise than myself?
I find it absurd the belief which many members tend to embrace (I’m not describing any particular person here) that when a person is ordained an apostle or prophet all their false beliefs and political stances which they had before are magically wisked away. Again, absurd. Such a position is a total violation of agency – thus making prophets puppets on strings.
Bottom line – if they really are better informed than myself, then I would like to know how in specifics. I want to read the revelation they received on the subject so I can adjust my views accordingly. If no revelation is claimed on the subject, however, then I will not feel bound by such statements.
lyle, it seems to me that JWR is advocating the legislation of religious morals. If I’m wrong on this, John, can you tell me exactly what you’re advocating?
If religious morals should be legislated, then why not outlaw infant baptism?
Will: Except that your bill would enrage Catholics and be plainly unconstitutional.
I take it that was sarcasm?
Sr. Gilliam: Why puppets? Why not learned and wise men who have chosen to follow the Lord’s will, regardless of whether it agrees, or disagrees, with their own mortal desires?
-lyle
If I ever make it to Congress, my first bill will be to outlaw infant baptisms. Somebody has to save those Catholics from themselves.
I find it easy to quote one Founding Father and not another. Hamilton and Madison may have agreed in the Federalist Papers, but not on anything after that.
As for libertarian philosophy, it depends on which libertarians one looks at. Just as there are conservative, moderate, and RINO Republicans, there are conservative and liberal libertarians.
A total libertarian ideology depends on just how much we want to limit government. Some are close to being anarchists, while others want to send power back to states and local government. Unfortunately, the most vocal libertarians tend to be on the anarchist side of things.
Church leaders are not libertarians. At least most are not. Most are either Republicans or Democrats, both of which support some federal government involvement.
The argument for libertarians is: how close can I come to your nose with my fist before we should all consider it affecting others? Does Prohibition (of alcohol or other drugs) help prevent harm to other individuals? How many abuse incidents are influenced by drugs or alcohol?
We can ask the same on abortion: What is the value of a potential life? Is it of lesser, equal, or greater value than the mother’s? If it is equal, then abortion should be considered only when the mother’s life/health are endangered. If the fetus’ life is of lesser value (giving women the right to their own body and abortion on demand), then why does it suddenly gain greater value at birth?
Does abortion-on-demand cost society anything, or does it harm anyone? Studies suggest that often it does. For example, our Social Security rolls are going to be drastically affected for Baby Boomers, because we are aborting 1/3 of the future tax payers. Of course, under a libertarian society, we would drop S.S. and have everyone look out for him/herself, regardless of the tragedy.
So, while I do like lesser federal government, I think it doesn’t mean we do away with all government. We just move it to the states. And that’s where the discussions on abortion, Prohibition, and other ideas should remain.
“If God was for freedom and liberty, shouldn’t his prophets have opposed Prohibition and favored its repeal?”
Are prophets really puppets on God’s strings? Of course they as individuals were against drinking. Can we maintain for a second that this wouldn’t influence them in the least?