Bringing It Back to . . . Well, Her.

Let's look at some of Keely Emerine-Mix's rather uncharitable views regarding Libertarians and conservative Christians.

She does not name any names, so before we get into it, we should admit that what she has to say about these groups can probably be applied to someone, somewhere. I'm glad to say that I don't know any of them personally. She tells us,

'I am not a Libertarian. In fact, I think that many of our local Libertarians are, unlike my son, "Libertarians" who rest in that particular philosophy because in it they find abundant comfort in their disregard for the poor, a disregard that manifests as a Christian mandate to stand against any non-military taxation from the State.'

As I said, I don't doubt there are probably some people who call themselves libertarians who fit that description. However, such a position is hardly characteristic of Libertarians in the United States.

The Libertarian Party clearly states in its platform, "The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service . . . American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups."

Here is a link to a representative article at the Cato Institute about the dangers of American military dominance.

The Ludwig von Mises Institute and its sister news and opinion portal LewRockwell.com are very strongly against America's huge standing military and its network of hundreds of military bases around the world, and current levels of military spending are typically viewed as grossly unnecesary and, in view of of the immorality of the way America's military is abused, obscene.

Almost all of Ron Paul's many followers -- although it is not selling as well has his No. 1 bestseller The Revolution: A Manifesto, his book End the Fed is currently ranked 49th overall in books at Amazon and earlier it was ranked at No. 2 among nonfiction books -- are strongly in favor of drastically downsizing America's military.

Bringing up the rear of the most influential Libertarian organizations, The Acton Institute and Reason Magazine are far more supportive of the military than any of the above.

Those are currently the most influential Libertarian organizations, by a large margin, and among them support for military taxation is a definite minority position. The majority sees the military as something that needs to be cut back considerably -- even reduced to a tiny fraction of its current size.

"I've learned that not all Libertarian economic thought is malicious in both origin and intent."

Well that's a mighty charitable thing of Mrs. Mix to say.

Ahem. Let's get one thing out of the way -- there is an ugly perspective, called Objectivism, closely affiliated in many observers' minds with Libertarianism. It was founded by Ayn Rand and it behooves us to consider what she had to say about charity: "My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue."

Now Ayn Rand's views expressed above are clearly hostile to the Christian faith. Her hostility should come as no surprise given that her life was characterized by what the Bible would describe as gross sexual immorality. She equated Christian charity with Communism. (Maybe she had learned about Christianity through the writings of Keely Emerine-Mix?)

It is important to distinguish clearly between Libertarianism and Ayn Rand's Objectivism. In End the Fed, Ron Paul says,

Although Ayn Rand never spoke kindly of libertarians and I never contemplated becoming a supporter of objectivism as a total philosophy, I did read all her novels and received her objectivist newsletter essentially the whole time it was published. She challenged many of my beliefs that I had taken for granted and forced me to understand and defend them better. However, she never convinced me of her definition and application of altruism. Equating voluntary Christian charities with Communism made no sense to me. But she also built up my excitement for championing freedom."

Now if there is any group that is likely to resist accepting the thinking of Ayn Rand, it is Christians. So if you are talking about Christians who also happen to be Libertarians, the likelihood that they will lean toward Ayn Rand's thinking regarding charity and the poor will be very small indeed.

Now we get to the point where Mrs. Mix differs clearly with my thinking, with Libertarianism, and with the Bible.

"I lean strongly toward a democratic social safety net provided by government for the interest of the poor; in fact, how something affects "the least of these" is the lens through which I view any socio-political issue. Poverty and the socio-economic structures that ensure it is, to me, the defining problem of this age, a problem that begins when good Christians are fed "Biblical" exegesis that excuses them from considering the righteousness of Christ toward the poor, manifested in governmental policy, as a legitimate exercise of power. For me, it's all about caring for the poor, and I believe Christians are called to expect from the State attitudes and actions that aid them."

This perspective is jam-packed with errors. The Bible definitely teaches the need for a "social safety net" for the interests of the poor, but it is definitely not one provided by the civil magistrate. In fact, when the civil magistrate attempts to provide such a safety net, it brings disaster upon society.

We have a great example of this in 2 Samuel 24. David's taking of a census of the people was enough to anger God so that He brought a plague upon the land that killed 70,000 people. That should tell us what God thinks of the Welfare-Warfare State.

There is one thing I particularly want to stress to Mrs. Mix with regard to how we as Christians are to manifest our love for the poor:

GOVERNMENT WELFARE PROGRAMS ARE TO THE POOR WHAT CARBON CREDITS ARE TO GLOBAL WARMING: THE ONLY DIFFERENCE THEY MAKE TO THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE POLITICIANS AND BUREAUCRATS BEHIND THE PROGRAM GET FATTER, AND THE WHOLE SOCIETY BECOMES POORER.

In the case of global warming, it is not such a big deal -- after all, the problem only exists only in the fantasies and goosed-up computer programs of some scientists with vested interests in proving that the Hockey Stick From Hell is real. However, the poor are real and they will be with us always, so we had better find ways of helping them that are actually going to help them and not just serve as a superficial band-aid to appease our guilty consciences.

For Mrs. Mix, if it really is all about caring for the poor, we can happily affirm that her heart is in the right place. But that does not alter the truth that her anti-biblical, Hegelian perspective ends up nourishing only the State.

Sadly, Mrs. Mix is living in a fantasy world, one in which we can go into debt to the tune of a hundred trillion dollars (and counting), spending our way to the realization of God's kingdom on earth. We have already virtually condemned our children and grandchildren to joining the ranks of the poor, and if the kinds of social policies that she supports are implemented things will only become worse.

There is also a great irony in that the expansion of government welfare programs in America has always gone hand-in-hand with the expansion of government warfare programs. The wars that we wage are resulting in the death and impoverishment of millions of innocent people around the world for no good reason except to fatten the merchants of death. FDR did it, LBJ did it, and Bush-Obama are doing it.

And for the life of me I cannot fathom how getting a faceless government bureaucracy to substitute for direct Christian action qualifies as fulfilling God's commandments regarding the poor.

The degree of confusion and gross distortions that Mrs. Mix gives us in the next paragraph is astounding.

"Put another way, if the Church spent as much energy in advocating for and serving the poor, through taxes as well as their own efforts, as it does in scouring the Old Testament for proof-texts that government is evil and the poor always complicit in their poverty, we would have the kind of revival here and abroad that truly shows the light of Christ working within us. But a cottage industry of "Christian" works promoting blame, insouciance, comfort and entitlement has sprung up, books and speeches and ministries that assure affluent believers that the poor are to be judged, feared, and ultimately ignored. In the name of Christ, of course."

Let's get one thing very clear: to the extent that we are taxed by the government, our ability to serve the poor with our money is accordingly reduced. Currently we work about half of each year just to pay taxes. The total debt burden of the United States amounts to about one-third of a million dollars per person. And the situation is continually worsening. This is an impossible situation and cannot go on indefinitely. Sooner or later -- probably sooner rather than later -- the entire house of cards is going to come crashing down. Furthermore, the last sentence in the previous paragraph is a slander of Christians. Essentially Mrs. Mix is saying that if left to our own devices we would indeed just sit by and let people starve to death. That's why we need to have the government hold a gun to our heads. I don't know about Mrs. Mix, but I have faith that the Holy Spirit actually does indwell Christians.