by Brandon Presley
The classical liberal (libertarian) perspective on government is intriguing. On the surface, a person having complete freedom to do what he or she wishes as long as they are not harming others (the non-aggression principle) seems complementary to the American ideals of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. For example, in a 2018 speech before the Christian Student Leadership Conference, the junior senator from Kentucky, Rand Paul, presented his view of a libertarian society, stating,
The non-aggression principle means that under a libertarian society, if we had one, you could pretty much do whatever you wanted as long as you didn’t hurt somebody else. . . . Most of us don’t rape, murder, do all these horrific things, not because there’s a law against it, but because we have a sense of right and wrong, we have a moral compass. We have something grounded in religion. We have this sense of virtue. . . . Government is not going to make us a virtuous society.[1]
While Paul’s statement contains some validity, it also presents several problems—not only concerning government but also regarding the human person and human condition.
The Human Condition
The major philosophical distinction between classical liberalism and classical conservatism is their respective views on the human condition. How we as humans decide to govern is based largely on how we view the nature of man. Is man basically good? Or, is man totally depraved with a nature that is, as Saint Augustine put it, curved in on oneself (incurvatus in se)?[2] The orthodox Christian perspective holds that man is fallen in his nature. His appetite and will no longer desire his Creator on its own; rather, he longs to please himself. As the apostle Paul wrote in his epistle to the Romans,
What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands, no one seeks for God. All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one” (Rom. 3:9–12, RSV).
Here, the Apostle contends that no one naturally seeks God and that sin corrupts everyone. By contrast, classical liberalism claims that man is born as a tabula rasa, or clean slate.[3] However, that belief stands in direct contradiction both to Holy Scripture and human experience.
In his epistle to the Romans, the apostle Paul states unequivocally that every person in every time is born with the law of God written on his or her heart: “When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them” (Rom. 2:14–15).
By God’s grace man has a general knowledge of what is right and wrong. Yet, in his own desires, man has chosen to suppress the truth, to go against God’s law, and to follow his sinful appetites. This background explains part of why God has divinely ordained government to set up laws that help provide a barrier against, and a punishment for, man’s evil desires and behavior (Rom. 13). Thus the Scriptures ordain that the government should punish evil and promote good.
Additionally, Scripture strikes a balance between governments that are too authoritarian and others that lack the necessary structures to punish evil and to promote good adequately. Authoritarianism does not properly recognize the liberties that God gives to us on the one hand, and classical liberalism does not adequately acknowledge the depravity of man on the other.
Many will justify their belief in a bare-bones government by saying, “You cannot legislate morality.” The problem with that sentiment is that the government legislates morality by matter of course. For instance, laws criminalizing murder reflect a specific morality. Even so, people still commit murder, though it is against the law; but, murder rates and crime rates would increase further still, since man is wicked, if not for restraint of government.
Let’s return to what Rand Paul said: “Most of us don’t rape, murder, do all these horrific things, not because there’s a law against it, but because we have a sense of right and wrong, we have a moral compass.”[4] This view does not adequately account for the many people whom the law restrains. For many in society, the consequences of evil actions provide a stronger restraint than one’s conscience. Furthermore, Senator Paul says that government will not create a virtuous society. However, if a law that the government has passed discourages any man from killing another through the law, the government has already created a more virtuous society—at least in practice.
Russell Kirk, a key voice of modern conservatism, identified numerous principles of conservatism. One of these principles states that humans are not and cannot be perfect. Kirk noted that a utopian society is not possible because man suffers from “irremediable fault.”[5] Because of this fault, a utopian society is not possible, and thus man requires laws to help restrict his sinful appetites and desires. If the laws of the “old institutions and moral safeguards are forgotten, then anarchic impulses in man break loose.”[6]
Social Issues Examined
While classical liberals would acknowledge the need for certain laws because of their commitment to the non-aggression principle, they would not acknowledge the need for, or even the good of, laws against illicit activities like prostitution or drug usage. A common belief among classical liberals is that a person has complete autonomy over their own body, with which the government should not interfere. To the extent that legislation becomes tyrannical, classical conservatism would agree with that principle.
However, the government is right to legislate a whole host of issues, including those regarding our bodies, such as those concerning drugs, marriage, and prostitution. The reason that conservatism believes the government has a rightful place in such areas is that God has divinely ordained government to correct evil and to promote good. Of course these remarks assume that government is acting in accordance with what is good and right, as opposed to that which is not. But the question of how it rules is different from that of whether it should rule.
To use the examples I’ve already identified, recreational drug use does not benefit those in society and, consequently, should be against the law. They not only negatively affect the person using them, but also they affect those around them in society. For similar reasons, prostitution is illegal. Prostitution within a society degrades women, treating them as recreational tools for men. If this were not bad enough, prostitution also erodes the divine dignity of humanity.
Similarly, the government also has a say in the sphere of marriage. Even today, the practice of polygamy is illegal in all (or at least the vast majority) Western countries influenced by Christianity. Similarly, at least up until the last half-century, the governments of most world countries declared the illegality of homosexual marriage (in fact, it is still illegal in several countries), because public officials believed that heterosexual relationships gives society a benefit that other relationships could not. Moreover, they thought that traditional marriage provides the ideal context for the bearing and nurturing of children.
Because marriage has such a significant moral influence on society, Scripture and church tradition have both asserted that the state has an important voice. However, neither granted the government the prerogative of redefining marriage. As such, the government should affirm a Scriptural (and historic) definition of marriage. In doing so, the state more aptly recognizes the traditional institution of marriage, while also promoting a marital relationship that best encourages the building of a family and society.[7]
Conclusion
Conservatism recognizes that our Creator has blessed us with liberty. But liberty is not without content. Thus conservatism also recognizes that unrestrained liberty is simply license that allows men to act in ways that hurt not only themselves but also endanger those around them, which inevitably erode the moral fabric of a society. As Edmund Burke wrote in his criticism of the French Revolution, “The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please: we ought to see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations, which may be soon turned into complaints.”[8] For these reasons, I am not a classical liberal. I am a conservative.
About the Author: Brandon Presley, 23,
is from Knoxville, TN, where he currently resides with his wife, Dakota. He is
a 2018 graduate of Welch College. Brandon is working towards earning a master’s
degree in theology from Welch College, as well as a master’s degree in history
from Arizona State University. He is a member and teacher at Wooddale Free Will
Baptist Church and currently works at a local Knoxville bank. Brandon enjoys
reading classic literature and watching the Tennessee Volunteers sports teams.
[1]Rand Paul, “Rare: America’s News Feed,” 25 January 2018; https://rare.us/rare-politics/rare-liberty/rand-paul-tells-christian-students-that-government-is-not-going-to-make-us-a-virtuous-society/; Internet.
[2] St. Augustine, Concerning the City of God against the Pagans, book XIV, ch. 28, trans. by Henry Bettenson (London, England: Penguin, 1984).
[3]John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 27th ed. (London: 1836), 51.
[4]Paul, “Rare: America’s Newsfeed.”
[5]Russell Kirk, “Introduction” in The Portable Conservative Reader (Kingsport, TN: Viking Penguin, 1982), xvii.
[6]Ibid., xviii.
[7]Wayne Grudem, Politics According to the Bible: A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 223, 225.
[8]Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (New York: P. F. Collier & Son Corporation, 1969), 149.
Recent Comments