Latter-day Saint Libertarianism: Part 2

One of the core principles of Libertarianism, is the idea that having freedom of choice is more important than avoiding the negative consequences that come when anyone makes a bad choice. In other words, freedom of choice is one of the prime directives of Libertarianism.

The restored gospel teaches us that the same is true for our Heavenly Father's Plan of Salvation. Having the agency to choose was so vital to God's plan that He was willing to lose a third of all His children in the pre-mortal war in heaven rather than take away the agency of man. Even now, in mortality, Heavenly Father almost never intervenes in a dramatic or spectacular way in the lives of His children. And He never takes our freedom to choose from us. He may take anything else away from us, including our very lives, but He will not take our free agency away. This is the case even when it means that the outcome is something He is not pleased with. He allows innocent lives to be taken, souls to be destroyed, and families torn apart by all manner of horrible, unjust, and evil acts every moment of every hour rather than intervene and strip even one person of their freedom to choose. Heavenly Father doesn't just give us the freedom to choose good. If He did it wouldn't really be freedom, now would it? In order for us to truly be free we must also have the freedom to choose wickedness. Now this doesn't mean that there aren't consequences for these acts of evil. There are. There are also consequences for acts of righteousness. We reap what we sow. Just as Heavenly Father doesn't intervene to stop us from making certain choices, He won't intervene to keep us from experiencing the consequences of those choices either.

Rather than interfere with the agency of man, God provides each person with a conscience, He appoints prophets and apostles to teach us His word and He hopes that we will each freely choose to listen and obey, reaping the blessings that naturally flow from doing so. It is "only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; by kindness, and pure knowledge, reproving betimes with sharpness, and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love" (D&C 121:41-43) that He makes His case, not force or the restriction of our freedom.

We are each born with an innate sense of what is just and good, unjust and evil. And we are also born with an innate desire to be free. The gospel calls this the light of Christ and the world almost universally recognizes this as our conscience. Prophets have taught us that we should use this gift to help us judge what is of God and what comes from Satan (Moroni 7:12-19). Remember that Satan is he who desired most that the agency of man be taken away and he has not ceased striving for that to this very day (Moses 4:3-4).

If you were to witness a person voluntarily and willingly giving of his own time and money to provide a homeless man with a meal, the Light of Christ within tells us that what he did was good and right. However, were a third person to point a gun at him and say, "Feed that homeless man or I shoot," the light of Christ cries out that this is unjust and wrong. But why is that? The homeless man gets fed in both situations, the end result is the same. The difference, of course, is that in the first example the free exercise of agency was in play and in the second example coercion and the lack of choice distorted the good into evil.

Now suppose that we were to witness instead that same person voluntarily and willingly robbing a homeless man of what little he does have, our conscience rightfully tells us that what he did is unjust and wrong. On the other hand, insert a third person pointing a gun at him and threatening to use it if he does not rob the homeless man and our conscience holds the threatened man blameless for the evil even though it was he who physically took from the homeless. Again, the end result is the same: in both cases the homeless man is robbed. Why then the difference in our feeling towards the man who did it? Once more, it comes down to the difference between freedom of choice and compulsion.

Libertarianism seeks to apply this principle of freedom consistently and uniformly to every level of society. This means that it should also be applied toward the government as well. To understand what the application of this principle towards the state means, we have to understand how the state works. Take any law, regulation, procedure, process, or policy of the government and ask yourself, "How is it enforced?" In other words, if I choose not to comply, for any reason or no reason at all, what will happen?

Inevitably, the state will threaten and use force to ensure compliance. Some say that paying taxes is "voluntary." If you honestly believe that, go ahead and stop paying them and see how much of a "choice" you have in the matter. First you will be given fines and other financial penalties. If you continue to refuse to pay your taxes and/or the fines and penalties, eventually a warrant for your arrest will be issued. If you resist arrest, force will be threatened, if you continue not to surrender and to physically resist despite the threat of force, actual force will be used. Agents of the government will physically assault you in order to subdue you and you may even be shot at and possibly lose your life. This is the inevitable result of "choosing" not to comply with the government in every case, small or large, be it paying taxes, wearing your seat belt, keeping your lawn's grass from growing over 12 inches tall, and everything else. The only way to avoid the use of violent force by the government is to comply. In essence, every law passed, every regulation issued, every policy decided, points a gun at us and says "Do this or we shoot."

Remember the examples of feeding or robbing the homeless man? When someone points a gun at you, you are no longer free. The choice is no longer yours. This is what government is constantly doing. For example, when laws are passed to provide welfare checks for the poor, no one denies that helping the poor is good. But the libertarian sees that it's not just the end result that matters, it is the means by which that end is reached that matters most. Our very consciences tell us when an individual points a gun to force charity it is unjust and wrong. It is the libertarian that sees the inconsistency and illogic in granting to the government some grand exception to this rule.

Because everything that government does, it does backed up by the threat and use of force, it is our responsibility to limit government and increase freedom. This may mean that some will make poor choices and the natural and eternal consequences of those choices will befall them, but it also means that we will be more free to make good choices as well. For if I freely choose to give of my means to those in need, I reap the blessings of that action. But if I give to the needy because I have no real choice in the matter, then the blessings are not mine to claim. Freedom and agency is the key. Let us do all we can to increase the personal and economic freedom of all of our Heavenly Father's children and in doing so further carry out our Heavenly Father's great plan of happiness.

Next week, I will be on vacation, so it may be a few weeks before I continue this series. Part three will cover some of the differences between Eternal Law and man's law.