From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Libertarianism vs. Christianity
Message-ID: <1990Aug4.172942.27161@athena.mit.edu>
Date: 4 Aug 90 17:29:42 GMT

[My apologies to Mr. Rosenblatt et al for taking so long to
respond to this.  Also, I realize that maybe this should go into
talk.politics.theory and/or talk.religion.misc, but (a) I don't
read those newsgroups (tried 'em once and my eyes glazed over and
fell out) and (b) what the heck, this thread started here in
misc.legal so let's keep it here for now.]

In article <13431@smoke.BRL.MIL>,
    matt@smoke.BRL.MIL (Matthew Rosenblatt) said:

> Mr. Starr has not told us WHY the American people should throw
> away their away their Western Christian heritage where that
> heritage conflicts with his belief in libertarianism.  Are we
> "bad people" for keeping the Christian influence on our legal
> system, considering that:
>
> > ...it's impossible to be both a good Christian and a good
> > person, since the former requires that one swear allegiance
> > and obedience to a deity whose policies are opposed to
> > individual freedom and self-determination.  [W. D. Starr]
>
> Only if "individual freedom and self-determination" are the
> _summum bonum_, the highest values of all.  And indeed, what
> Mr.  Starr is telling us, in effect, is "Accept individual
> freedom and self-determination as the highest values because I
> think they are the highest values."  Surely he must have more
> persuasive arguments than this _ipse dixit_.  Let's hear them!

Okay, let's try this:

Given: All humans<*> are, by their very existence, endowed with
       equal rights.

        <*>For the sake of simplicity, let's limit ourselves to
           competent adult humans here, without going off on the
           "what is a person?" tangent and getting tangled up in
           animal rights, children's rights, alien rights,
           Artificial Intelligence rights, etc.

Given: Human pleasure is good, and human anguish is bad.<*>

        <*>I'm using "pleasure" as a general term that includes
           happiness and its relatives; please don't confuse this
           premise with pure hedonism.  "Anguish" is, I think,
           self-explanatory; I use that word rather than "pain"
           so as not to insult any masochists out there. :-)

It follows therefore that that is good which either increases
pleasure and/or minimizes anguish, and that that is bad which
either increases anguish or minimizes pleasure.

And from that it follows that a good policy (be it an
individual's policy or a state's) is one that is intended to meet
the above goals, is is designed to meet the above goals, and is
likely to meet the above goals (where "likely" means "more
likely, under reasonable analysis, than a competing policy").

At this point, we examine the two competing proposed policies,
libertarianism and adherence to Christian rules.

Libertarianism (with a small "l") is generally defined as the
idea that anyone is free to do what he wishes provided that by
his acts he does not violate or recklessly endanger the rights
of others.<*>

    <*>There's some debate over whether "does not threaten to
       violate the rights of others" should also be in that list;
       let's leave that aside for now.

This creed is, I think, derived from the idea that each person
should, to the largest extent possible, have the right to make
all decisions about his own life, and that creed, in turn is, I
think, derived from two points:

   (1) It is overwhelmingly (though not absolutely) the case that
       a person is far more strongly affected by his own actions
       than by the actions of others, and it is more fair that
       the person who is going to have live with the policies and
       their results be the person with the most control over
       those policies.  (This is the premise of "enlightened
       self-interest," the idea that the person with the most at
       stake will be the person with the most motivation to try
       to do it right, combined with the premise of self-
       responsibility, the idea that a system should be designed
       so that when a screwup does occur its negative impact will
       fall most heavily upon the person responsible for it and
       least heavily upon innocent bystanders.)

   (2) It is overwhelmingly (though not absolutely) the case that
       a person knows far more about himself and his relation
       with the outside world than does any other person or set
       of persons, and it is therefore logical that the person
       with the most data on the topic be the person with the
       most control over the development and implementation of
       the policies which directly affect that person.

Applying the "all persons have equal rights" principle to the
above points leads us directly to libertarianism, a system in
which the self-determination of the individual is maximized to
the greatest extent possible.  (That is, the greatest extent
which is also consistent with the idea that the self-
determination of all other individuals also be maximized; the
"equal rights" premise mandates that everyone get an equal
share.)

Christianity, as near as I can tell from a lifetime of looking at
it from the outside and scratching my head, is founded in the
ideas that (1) God (aka "Jehovah") does exist, (2) he either
matches exactly or to a high degree matches the parameters laid
out in the Old and New Testaments, and (3) he has the best
interests of all humans at heart.

*If* those three points are indeed true then an adherence to
Christian ethics would indeed be a superior policy to adherence
to libertarian ethics, since God, by definition, would have a far
better idea of what policies would serve to maximize pleasure and
minimize anguish in humans (being omniscient will give one that
ability, after all).  To refuse to follow the advice of an
*all-knowing* being who *really wants what's best for you* would
be an act of insanity even in the absence of any explicit threats
of sanctions imposed for disobedience (e.g., damnation).

*However*...  At no time in the recorded history of man has there
ever been put forth the slightest iota of *proof* that the tenets
of Christianity are in any way founded in reality.  No one has
yet succeeded in even proving that *any* supernatural being
exists, let alone that this hypothetical being matches the
parameters of the Christian God, let alone proving that the
hypothetical Christian God is telling the truth when he says (or
implies) that he really loves all humans and has their best
interests at heart.

Indeed, while point #1 may be demonstrable, I hold that it is
*impossible* for anyone, even the hypothetical Jehovah, to prove
points #2 and/or 3 -- any being powerful enough to claim to be
God would, by definition, be powerful enough to lie seamlessly
and perfectly on any topic; he would, paradoxically, be too
powerful to be believed.

All of this leads me to the conclusion that adherence to the
tenets of Christianity for no reason other than that they are
(allegedly) divinely inspired is an act of irrationality which
borders on (and perhaps crosses into) insanity.

Earlier, I stated that:

    ...a good policy (be it an individual's policy or a state's)
    is one that is intended to meet the above goals, is is
    designed to meet the above goals, and is likely to meet the
    above goals (where "likely" means "more likely, under
    reasonable analysis, than a competing policy").

where the "goals" were the maximization of human pleasure and the
minimization of human anguish.  I submit that if the competing
policies are (a) those based upon the tenets of libertarianism
and (b) those based upon the tenets of Christianity, the former
will score much higher on the "reasonable analysis" test than
will the latter, because the former is based upon rational
observation of humanity and the world as they appear to be, while
the latter is based upon a set of untenable superstitious
beliefs.

[Note: I realize that in this essay I've skirted dangerously
close to the Fallacy of the Binary Choice; that in concentrating
on libertarianism vs. Christianity I've acted as if those two
ideologies were the *only* options available to man.  Obviously,
there's at least a zillion other ideologies out there which also
deserve consideration; although I do feel that libertarianism is
generally superior to any other ideology of which I've heard, it
is *not* my intention to attempt to prove that, or even to
address that issue, here.  One thing at a time, folks.]
--
William December Starr