Caleb Smitherson, Chris Brown and I have been involved in a debate of sorts regarding what the Book of Mormon says regarding tax and limited government. Caleb’s position is that God has authorized some coercive taxation and limited government. Chris Brown’s position is that Caleb Smitherson has misinterpreted his quoted Book of Mormon passages. This debate continues with Caleb Smitherson’s latest, found here.
My own views on using scripture to justify public (secular) government are laid out here. As well, a look at the libertarian principle of self-ownership by Caleb Smitherson is here, which kicked off this discussion (with my response). Whatever the merits of Caleb Smitherson’s And Chris Brown’s arguments, I leave those to them to refute. The purpose of this short article is to make a few corrections to Caleb Smitherson’s explanation of libertarianism and his interpretation of scripture regarding it.
Monopoly on The Use of Legitimate Force
Smitherson begins his essay quoting Alma 11:1-3, and then states, “In these verses, the government is established as the sole service provider (monopoly) of adjudication.” I’m not sure where he reads that the government described in these versus operates as a monopoly. A monopoly only exists if there is not “free entry” into an industry. Nowhere does it say that this is the case. I’m not arguing that there was free entry, only that such a conclusion is not based on the text itself, rather an assumption.
The Use of Retaliatory Force
As part of his scenario following the explanation above, Smitherson only demonstrates the government’s use of retaliatory force. There is nothing among these examples that is incompatible with the libertarian principle of non-aggression. Any private defense or arbitration agency could legitimately perform the functions of the government described by Simtherson. Upon entering into a voluntary contract with Jones, Smith agreed to the contract laws theretofore established within their society. Apprehending him for breach of contract, including appearing for contract dispute, holding him to the judgment rendered, and forcing him to cover the expenses, falls within the definition of retaliatory force.
The Stewardship Principle
What Smitherson continues to fail to understand is that the libertarian principle of self-ownership only concerns what actions are just among men. As I quoted in my first response to him, with a bracketed change for context and additional emphasis added,
“When we say that one has the right to do certain things we mean this and only this, that it would be immoral for another [mortal man], alone or in combination, to stop him from doing this by the use of physical force or the threat thereof. We do not mean that any use a man makes of his property within the limits set forth is necessarily a moral use.”
The claim of self-ownership is relative to other men. Jones does not own Smith. Nobody owns Smith, therefore, relative to everyone else (except God) Smith owns himself. Relative to God is a different story. The greatest political struggles in the world center around this distinction. Communism and Socialism claim state ownership of persons. This is obviously immoral and illogical, tantamount to slavery. When it concerns the coercive hand of the state, a proponent of liberty must recognize and apply the self-ownership principle.
Quotes by Gary North are then used to justify government actions. I find this particular part of North’s analysis peculiar,
“The State is therefore to enforce legal boundaries that are established by private contract.”
Concluding his justification of the state with this shows me that what North regards as “the State” is nothing more than a private defense and/or arbitration agency. If “the State” is only there to enforce boundaries established by private contract, then it is not the same type of “State” described by libertarians.
The God of Abraham
As part of Smitherson’s conclusion he claims that, “modern libertarianism rejects the God of Abraham’s authority to delegate to the State the authority to adjudicate.” This is simply untrue, and Smitherson’s use of the term “the State” follows North’s. Therefore, the God of Abraham’s delegation of adjudication to any entity is completely compatible with the libertarian principle of non-aggression. Adjudication is not necessarily public nor paid for by taxation, although it can be.
Let the debate proceed!
