In recent years, especially the last 2 or 3, many conservatives have been looking seriously at third parties, especially the Libertarian Party as a new home for their vote. For the most part, their former party was the Republican Party, but the actions of the Republicans have been increasingly indistinguishable from the opposing party, with some actions even more atrocious in their invasion of individual liberties and cost to the taxpayers. This trend has even lead to some comments that the LP is being taken over by Republicans, or that libertarians are just anti-war republicans, etc. While this is not the case, I do welcome the huge influx of former, or reformed, republicans. I am, in fact, one of them myself, only my transition was about 10 years ago.

There are a variety of issues in the LP platform that the average conservative balks at. Many are minor issues, and as the state of the Union gets more desperate and the mistakes and corruption of our leaders grows more massive, more and more conservatives are embracing the libertarian platform as a far better option than the status quo. The big issues, especially the basic concept of limited government and very low taxes, are the main draw for conservatives. The social and religious freedom aspects are a bit more of an area of conflict. As a former traditional conservative myself, I would like to address some of those areas of conflict in order to help others seeking a political platform they can get behind to understand the reasoning, to understand the thought process that I went through to get where I am now.

The first area I would like to address is religion, and it is, in part, an answer to one of my readers who was asking questions about libertarian stances on legislating morality. I answered briefly, but realized a full post on the subject was likely to be in order. Other points of conflicts will follow, I appreciate as always any feedback or questions my potential readers may have.

I grew up very religious. When I got older I realized a great deal of what was happening in the church I grew up in was hypocritical and corrupt, and I backed off of my dogmatic thinking a great deal. In spite of that, however, I have always made certain that my political philosophy was not in conflict with my personal belief systems. Once I began thinking through political philosophy as it applies to whole societies of people, I have had to make sure that it does not conflict with any one’s faith or personal belief system.

Several well known libertarians are atheistic or agnostic, especially outspoken ones like Christopher Hitchens and others. Many of the early libertarians were resisting the religious right and the personal freedoms that group attempted to restrict, as well as the socialistic mindsets of the liberals and the fascist/corporatist mindsets of the authoritarian conservatives. The libertarian platform firmly believes that there should be no victimless crimes. If one is only hurting oneself, one should be allowed to do whatever one wishes. These factors make the LP a little abrasive to most conservatives, particularly those with strong moral stances who have not been historically opposed to certain pieces of morally motivated legislation.

When I was looking at the LP, I realized that regardless of my own beliefs, I was able to embrace what I believed to be the core philosophy of the libertarian platform. I too do not believe in victimless crime. I do not believe in government involvement in matters of religion or faith. My reasoning is two-fold. Firstly, history has proven that government and religion have disastrous results when they mix. Some of the greatest atrocities in human history were carried out in the name of “God” or some sort of belief system that was integrated with government and used as an excuse to wield power. The Inquisition, the Crusades, and a variety of other wars and atrocities are the result of government use of religion to motivate and justify people to commit horrible acts. Even the Holocaust was an act accepted by the people because of blind faith. It was blind faith in nationalism and the propaganda of government, but it represented a belief system that was enforced by the government, rather than one that people came to on their own. Power corrupts, and adding the power of faith to the already dangerous authority that governments wield is a bad combination.

The other reason for a separation of church and state is the protection of the faith itself. True faith comes from within, not from following a set of rules. If people are being moral only to follow the law, that may still lead to moral decisions, but it does nothing for the soul of the person. Perhaps even more importantly, the tenets of faith or the base concepts of a religion must be protected from government structuring. The Catholic Church, while it has done great things in human history, was not only used by the government, it was created by one. The early Christian faith was nothing like the catholic church with all of its hierarchy and structure, that was developed when Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the State Religion in Rome. That officiating of the Christian faith lead to a complete change in its operation and structure, one that, according to Martin Luther and other early Protestants, was a severe corruption and deviation from the Christianity that Jesus intended. You can agree with their position on that or not, but you cannot deny that the face of Christianity was forever changed when the Catholic Church was formed, and it was formed because of government involvement. The best way to protect ones faith and the souls of those around you is to keep it out of law.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with a person of faith being in government. In fact, the use of the argument of “separation of church and state” to restrict the election of persons of faith, or worse, to restrict the actions of persons of faith who are in government is a corruption of the meaning, and is a violation of the first amendment rights of those citizens in government. To say that an elected official cannot pray in public lest he be seen as supporting a certain religion and therefore violating a separation of church and state is a direct violation of his rights as a citizens to act on his religious beliefs.

The best way to forge a separation is to determine the basis of what laws should be in place. Many moral positions, such as the idea that stealing is wrong, are also rights granted to a free society. The right to property is considered necessary for a free market to function properly, and is a key aspects of personal freedom and motivation. The fact that it is a moral precept does not mean that there should be no laws against stealing. There will always be some overlap. The basis for law should be the protection of the freedom of the citizenry, and the rights that go along with that. Laws that facilitate a free society, such as laws protecting contracts and transactions, laws against fraud and false advertising, laws against assault, threats, murder, etc. are all laws that, while they could be considered moral, are more importantly in place to protect the freedoms of individuals in our society.

A good example of a law that is not a legitimate part of government is the big debate over same-sex marriage. The biggest issue with this debate is the false dichotomy that is represented in the debate. On the one side is opening up marriage to any couple of age, regardless of gender, on the other is the use of law to define marriage in the more traditional sense. The real issue is that government should not be involved in marriage at all. The only reason it is involved is because many of our laws were imported from Great Britain. We declared our independence and set up our constitution, but many aspects of our legal system and legal proceedings are based on traditional British legal concepts. Marriage licenses are just one of many examples. The real debate is whether government should be involved in marriage at all. Marriage is a faith-based institution. It has been a sacred part of many different belief systems. One’s own beliefs should define marriage, not some law. Defining marriage for one group violates the beliefs of another group if it is done through law. If it is not, then no one’s definition of marriage steps on the toes of anyone else’s definition. Of course there are aspects of marriage that have legal repercussions, i.e. division of property, custody of children, etc. upon the death of a spouse or termination of the marriage. Such legal aspects could, however, be handled through a legal contract. Some such contracts could even be entered into without a marriage being involved. Joint ownership of material possessions and custody of children may be a lifelong agreement between two or more parties such as godparents and parents, or any number of other lifelong contractual arrangements. The only restrictions would be that the persons involved would have to be of age and of sound mind to enter such a contract. The idea of sex or intimate love or a commitment before God is not a necessary part of such an arrangement. Thus, government can handle the part that it should and no more.

That is just one example, but the bottom line is that government should be in place to protect the freedom and rights of the individual from other individuals or entities, no more, no less. Anything else is a corruption of what government is designed to do, and is an expansion that like all expansion of authority and consolidation of power, is highly dangerous. The libertarian position is that individuals are free to practice their faith or belief system or religion as they see fit, providing it does not violate the rights of another individual. Anything more than this is a violation of a seperation between church and state as well as the first amendment. If you want others to join you in your faith, it is up to you to convince them, not to pass laws to force them. If you want to see a change in society, be that change you want to see in the world, do not seek the easy path of power to enforce your vision. If your vision cannot stand on its own merit, then perhaps you need to look closer at the vision, not find new ways to force it on others. Trust your faith, if it is real then it will stand. If you cannot trust it, then you yourself do not truly believe it.