Subscribe now

Christians rightly oppose that which engenders greed and creates an insatiable appetite for more. Critics of capitalism believe that because businesses are always pursuing profit by trying to please consumers, both producers and consumers are always wanting more and more in an endless cycle of materialistic hedonism. They say this creates an unhealthy economy.

Yet at its heart, capitalism is about creating new and innovative ways of using scarce resources for human flourishing. The very term “capital” denotes the use, not depletion, of resources. It is unfortunate that our modern Western economy is labeled “capitalism” because there are large parts of it that depend on the demand for more. In fact, the dominant economic theory most at play is Keynesianism, which is a consumerist vision of the economy. It is inaccurately named “capitalism.”

What critics of capitalism often ignore is the significantly better outcomes for human flourishing that have resulted over the past 200 years. Yes, some people are materialistic, but that isn’t a guaranteed outcome. Capitalism has created a space for humans to flourish materially, and many are now ready to think about and ponder deeper spiritual realities.

Subscribe now

The most popular misunderstanding about free markets results from a misunderstanding of the term competition, probably because we use it in sports where there are winners and losers in a zero-sum game. Yet not all sports are zero-sum (some competitions have various tiers of “winners”), and the free market is especially not a zero-sum game.

A better way to think about competition is that it drives people to pursue the best interests of their customers in ways that rival other businesses. That is, good businesses compete in how much better they can serve customers, and customers reward the businesses that serve them better. This is not a situation of conflict, nor is it an either/or outcome. Even the “lesser” of the two businesses can still win a different customer base. And in reality, most of us want bad businesses to fail so owners can appropriate their resources to more productive uses for society.

In reality, free competition in the market aids in creating a more vibrant and dynamic economy where the needs of everyone are met to a greater degree. When the state is involved, it doesn’t create healthy competition; rather, it sows discord and breeds conflict because it causes businesses to compete for attention, favors, and special privileges. This kind of competition is a destructive force in an economy.

Subscribe now

Many Christians argue against the pursuit of profit, citing Paul’s admonition in 1 Timothy 6:10 that “the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” Libertarian Christians concur that the pursuit of money as an end in itself is sinful and damaging to oneself and to others. Anything good and useful that is made ultimate is a form of idolatry. It is not wrong to seek more money because you possess very little and need to make ends meet, or because you wish to provide meaningful work for others. Money used as a tool is wise stewardship. Money as an end-in-itself is where we go astray.

Economic profit-seeking and “the love of money” are not the same concept. In an economic sense, pursuing profit is another way of saying we are utilizing scarce resources to create value for ourselves and others. This does not guarantee good results, but the profit-and-loss system signals to humans that resources are being used properly, not abused.

Pursuing profit is what everyone does every day when they choose to go to work, because both parties agree that they are better off by making the trade. This includes labor. Therefore, every time we go to work, we are engaging in an exchange resulting in us profiting off of the work. From manual laborers to high-level managerial work, everybody seeks an income which covers their expenses, plus some. What is done with that “plus some” is up to each person to decide. Charity, reinvestment, savings, spending—all these are options each individual must decide is right for them (see Question 49).

Subscribe now

The market is where people use their scarce resources—time, land, commodities, and money—to make themselves useful in the service of others. While this requires some guesswork, this process will eventually lead to reward or failure. This is the profit and loss system at work, and it is a very effective way to know if the choices we make with our time and money are wise. Nobody wants to waste their time, money, or other resources on something that doesn’t reward us, or “pay us back,” in some manner.

Profits are a signal that the scarce resources we put to use were of value to others, while losses signal misallocation of scarce resources and encourage us to redirect them toward better uses. Even if someone believes there are things worth doing that sustain losses (e.g. collecting stamps or helping refugees), it cannot be overlooked that it took profits in the past to fund those efforts that are sustaining losses.

Additionally, this profit and loss system tends to steer individuals in an economy toward innovation and efficiency, allowing the accumulation of profits to be stored for future use. This is called capital formation, and it is a key component for both sustainable charity and for further job creation that enables savings and investment, which drive productivity. When many market actors are doing this peacefully, we can say that the market is cooperating toward human flourishing.

Subscribe now

In addition to the moral temptations that money can present, there is a strong relationship between justice and money. When covetousness and the love of money leads a person to steal from or defraud others, those dishonest acts are not merely sinful. They also violate the rights of those other people. There are also many cases where a person may improperly damage the property of another person. These problems were present in ancient times just like they are present today. That is why God gave clear directions to the ancient Israelites in the Torah about how to go about addressing acts of injustice. Often, money played an important role in the divine prescription for righting wrongs.

Personal injuries resulting from either intentional acts (Exod 21:19) or negligence (Exod 21:32–34) could sometimes be settled by payment of money damages. When a person was caught stealing livestock, the thief who still had the stolen livestock in his possession was required to pay two-fold (Exod 22:3). The trespasser who allowed his animals to devour another’s field had to pay with the proceeds from his own field (Exod 22:4). Negligent damage to a neighbor’s crops (Exod 22:5) or failure to protect entrusted livestock (Exod 22:9) both required compensation. People guilty of embezzlement, other forms of theft, or any sort of fraud were required to return their ill-gotten gains and to pay an additional amount of money restitution (Lev 6:1–5), in addition to bringing certain designated sin sacrifices to the priest (Lev 6:6–7).

Subscribe now

Governance is a lot bigger than government. There is a thriving market for a variety of accountability and protection products and services. The invention of financial bookkeeping made sophisticated financial audits possible. Computer software has made managing these records and auditing them faster and easier. Many journalists have made careers out of revealing scandals of public concern or reviewing products to expose the dangerous and unreliable ones.

Underwriters Laboratories has been a leading product safety testing and certification firm for more than a century, and it earns billions of dollars every year doing it, largely motivated by concerns of insurance companies that would lose money if policyholders suffer a loss. Burglar alarms, security cameras, fences, locks, and self-defense products are all produced by entrepreneurs serving the demand for protection against wrongdoers.

Make no mistake: we live in a fallen world. In this fallen world, we will face a variety of perils to which we apply our God-given talents and material resources. Libertarians do not promise a utopia. Libertarian Christians benefit from the insight of scripture. We know that a perfect human society is not possible so long as the world is in the thrall of sin. As Christians, we should prepare for tomorrow with prudence and diligence. We must be careful, though, to always put our trust in God, not in our own strength or in the plans of secular leaders. We do not always know how God is planning to work things out. However, we know our God is good and that he will lead us if we acknowledge him and look to him for guidance (Prov 3:5–6).

Subscribe now

Bible references to money, wealth, and possessions are numerous, starting with God’s instructions to Abraham on the occasion of their landmark covenant (Gen 17:12–13). The Bible discusses many practical and beneficial uses for money: the purchase of land (Gen 23:9-13, 33:19), livestock (Ezra 7:17), and food commodities (Gen 47:14), the payment of wages (Exod 2:9) and civil damages (Exod 21:34), and even as a means for rebuilding the Temple of the Lord (2 Kgs 12:9–11, Ezra 3:7).

However, sin has infected all aspects of life in a fallen world, including our relationship with money. Both the Old Testament and New Testament are full of warnings against temptations related to money. People are tempted to steal money entrusted to them (Exod 22:7). We are tempted to withhold timely payment of it to our employees (Jer 22:13). We are tempted to use money to satisfy our fleshly lusts (Deut 23:18). We are tempted by bribes (Prov 17:23, Mic 3:11).

All of these misuses of money are rooted in the love of money (1 Tim 6:10), a sinful heart attitude that comes from discontentment with what God has provided (Heb 13:5). Christians need not reject the practical and beneficial uses of money. Indeed, we should be trustworthy in our handling of money (Luke 16:11) and good stewards of all that is entrusted to us (Matt 25:14–30). But all believers must always be wary about putting our trust in money or other forms of material wealth (Matt 6:19–21). We should instead emulate the widow who dramatically demonstrated a confidence in God rather than in money (Mark 12:41–44).

Subscribe now

The Bible speaks often of seeking and applying wisdom to our daily lives, whether in the home, in our work, or in the public square. Jesus taught his disciples to demonstrate a life of obedience, and used economic metaphors like “estimating the cost” (Luke 14:28) and “bearing fruit” (John 15:8). Because our lives are constrained by the realities of scarcity, an economic way of thinking will help us yield better fruit and live wisely in obedience to God.

At home and in our work, our appreciation of human dignity and cooperation will deepen as we gain a better understanding of economics. This helps us understand our own contribution to the world around us, and how it connects to meeting the needs of others. This can have a powerful compounding impact when more of us see our work (and the work of others) as meaningful service to the glory of God.

In the public square, our good intentions will be held in check by a sharpening of our thinking about trade-offs and unintended consequences. It can enhance our witness by aligning our compassion and sense of justice with effectiveness. It can help guide our actions to productive service and reinforce themes like honesty, justice, and love of neighbor. In short, it can prevent us from acting naively in ways that work against human flourishing.

Subscribe now

On the contrary, libertarians don’t assume people are good at all. James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, “If Men were angels, no government would be necessary.” The libertarian takes this even further by saying that it is precisely because humans are not angels that a government founded on aggression should not exist. Humanity cannot be trusted with the reins of power as such, even if it is purportedly given “checks and balances.”

Madison believed a state must first be “enable[d] to control the governed,” and then “oblige it to control itself.” But how is this to occur but for the same non-angelic people that we said could not govern themselves to begin with? The libertarian suggests that institutionalizing aggression in government is nonsensical because humanity is not inherently good enough to hold that power without corruption. No coercive government can be structurally set up to get around this; such is the nature of aggression and power.

Subscribe now

Libertarianism only speaks to what is just or unjust for an individual to do. The boundary between justice and injustice is based on the ownership of property, including your own body. Libertarianism categorically rejects violations of other people’s property rights as wrong. However, if an act does not violate another person’s rights, it is not “unlibertarian,” which is to say that it is not an injustice. Libertarians agree that the use of force against others is only permissible if they are aggressors whose actions violate the rights of others. Otherwise, libertarianism leaves the individual free to choose what to do with his time and property.

But remember, libertarianism only speaks to what should be legal. As Christian libertarians, we recognize that a thing’s being lawful is not enough to make it good. Believers must also consider whether a particular choice is spiritually expedient; that is, whether it glorifies God (1 Cor 6:12, 1 Cor 10:23–29). Justice tells us what people can be compelled to do or not do. The teachings of our Lord in scripture and through the moving of the Holy Spirit show us how we ought to live in order to please and glorify him (2 Tim 3:16, 1 Cor 2:6–16).

If you’re a Founding Remnant member on this Substack, I want to welcome to the “premium” subscriber level. Some of you have been added since you are a monthly supporter (an “LCI Insider”) of the Libertarian Christian Institute. If you’re not a supporter, please check LCI out and consider becoming a monthly donor.

So what is the “Founding Remnant”? Well,…

Read more

This question is from Faith Seeking Freedom: Updated & Expanded, launching June 2026 in paperback, PDF, and Kindle. Subscribe to this Substack so you don’t miss updates, previews, and the launch announcement.

Subscribe now

As Christians, we know that sin has consequences both in this temporal life and in eternity. A person who diligently works to provide for future needs will usually receive favorable consequences from his actions: he and his family will eat! Labor is often unpleasant, but it brings the joyful reward of the harvest. “May those who sow in tears shall reap with shouts of joy! Those who go out weeping, bearing the seed for sowing, shall come home with shouts of joy, carrying their sheaves” (Ps 126:5–6).

A person who is lazy and irresponsible will eventually be both humbled and hungry (Prov 10:4, 13:4; 20:4). The sin of idleness is not just something that has consequences for the idle person. Scripture warns that failure to provide for one’s family members, especially one’s own household, is a denial of the Christian faith (1 Tim 5:8).

There are many other vices that are currently treated as crimes by the state: activities related to drug and alcohol abuse, prostitution, gambling, and so forth. As Christians, we should counsel our brothers and sisters to avoid polluting their bodily temples. We should encourage wise stewardship instead of frivolous frittering away of the resources with which God entrusts us. But the Bible does not teach us to use violence to exhort others to good works. Indeed, strict, external enforcement of rules about touching, tasting, and eating forbidden things does not help to restrain sensual indulgence (Col 2:16–23). Using violence for reasons other than responding to violent aggressors is not a proportionate response to wrongdoing (Lev 24:19–21).

Subscribe now

Satan was originally created by God too, but we do not presume to think that makes Satan good or that everything Satan does is approved or justified by God. Consider that even in the case of Job, God was permitting Satan’s actions but not approving. Likewise, we can recognize that God created everything in this world, including the state, but this fact neither makes the state a good institution nor justifies its activities.

God gives no special privileges of position to do evil or to let ends justify means (Jas 2, Rom 2:11, Rom 3:8). Therefore, we should oppose institutions that claim such power to coerce and the privilege to commit aggression against others—which is inherently what states do. This does not mean we take up arms and fight every chance we have against such institutions, but rather, we act peacefully to persuade and help people realize that there are better ways to organize ourselves and solve problems than committing acts of aggression against each other.

God has given his creation a measure of self-determination: the ability to “choose this day whom you will serve” (Josh 24:15). We see Satan as choosing to rebel against God and thus fall from grace, and God allowed it. Humans commit a similar rebellion through the institutionalization of aggressive force—that is, the formation of the state—and God allows it as well. Romans 13 gives us an idea of how to act within it, but the passage does not morally justify its existence or behaviors.

Subscribe to this Substack so you don’t miss updates, previews, and the launch announcement.

Subscribe now

Chapter 1: Why Should I Care about Politics?

1. Politics isn’t a gospel issue, so why should I be concerned about politics?

2. Jesus said his Kingdom was not of this world. Isn’t political engagement being concerned with “this world”?

3. Isn’t political engagement a distraction from the real mission of the Church?

4. So what does God have to say about government?

5. Doesn’t the Bible say that governments are established by God?

6. What scriptural support is there that the state is inherently bad?

7. But didn’t the Israelites have kings? Doesn’t that mean having a state is okay?

8. If the Old Testament is not favorable toward government, what about the New Testament?

9. Government rule, then, might not be the right way to go. What hope do we have against powerful states?

10. Does being a libertarian mean joining a political party?

Chapter 2: Libertarian Basics

11. What makes somebody a libertarian?

12. How is the non-aggression principle (NAP) consistent with a Christian worldview?

13. How do libertarian Christians account for people who violate the non-aggression principle (NAP)?

14. Why are property rights so important to libertarians?

15. How do property rights relate to human rights? I thought humans weren’t property.

16. If Christians believe that God owns all things, isn’t it inaccurate to say humans can own something that really belongs to God?

17. But if humans are stewards, how are we held accountable in our stewardship?

18. The book of Acts says the early church shared things in common. Doesn’t this go against the idea of property rights?

19. Libertarianism just seems like a selfish philosophy to me.

20. Libertarianism feels too individualistic to be compatible with Christianity.

Chapter 3: Christian Misconceptions of Libertarianism

21. Don’t libertarians think greed and selfishness are virtues?

22. Aren’t libertarians hedonists who just want to live however they want to?

23. Why do libertarians seem to think all people are good and don’t need a state to control them?

24. Why do libertarians seem to reject the sinful nature of humanity?

25. Why do libertarians seem to have simple answers to complex problems?

26. Doesn’t libertarianism reject morals and make decisions on cost-benefit analysis?

27. Is Libertarianism an all-encompassing worldview?

Chapter 4: Government

28. Isn’t the government an institution created by God? How can a Christian square this truth with being anti-government?

29. Okay, so maybe not all governments are established by God. But isn’t the state needed to keep sinful people under control?

30. Sure, the state isn’t great at managing society, but surely they keep the peace, right?

31. If the government doesn’t make laws, how will people know what authority to obey?

32. Do libertarians believe any and every government is illegitimate?

33. Wait a sec, are you saying there’s a difference between governance and government?

34. Why do governments need to be limited? Shouldn’t they be able to do whatever it takes to keep the peace?

35. The government is a special entity. It sounds like you’re holding it to the same ethics as individuals have to obey.

36. What sort of legal order would a libertarian support?

Chapter 5: The Limits of a Free Society

37. Shouldn’t there be limits on individual freedom? People can’t just do whatever they want without consequences!

38. What limitations do I have as an individual under libertarianism?

39. What keeps others from victimizing me under libertarianism?

40. What if other people don’t like what I do or how I live?

41. What about people who have more wealth? They can buy votes and rig the system in their favor!

Chapter 6: Economics and the Christian

42. Why should Christians be interested in economics?

43. Would understanding economics make me a better Christian?

44. What are the consequences in society of poorly understanding and applying economic principles?

45. What are the core economic principles every Christian should know?

46. Does the Bible teach us any economic principles that apply today?

47. What does the Bible say about money?

48. Is there a relationship between justice and money?

49. What is the role of profit in the market?

50. How is wealth created?

51. What about people who get rich from exploiting the labor of others?

52. Why did Jesus seem to have harsh words for the wealthy?

53. What role does capital play in an economy?

54. What roles does labor play in an economy?

55. What role does the state play in an economy?

56. What sort of economy should Christians advocate?

Chapter 7: Capitalism and the Christian

57. How can a Christian support the pursuit of profit when the Bible discourages the love of money?

58. Doesn’t capitalism create winners and losers through competition and conflict?

59. Doesn’t capitalism promote consumerism and materialism?

60. What about the inequalities that capitalism creates?

61. Is economic growth all libertarians care about?

62. Why are some people poor when our country has so much wealth?

63. What is there to do about concentration of wealth, such as in large corporations?

64. How could a free market respond to misconduct and economic crises?

65. Aren’t markets inherently unstable and detrimental to human flourishing?

66. This sounds great, but when we have global capitalism, don’t we still need governments to manage trade imbalances and protect the national economy through tariffs and price controls?

Chapter 8: Libertarianism and Christian Ethics

67. Should Christians support gun ownership?

68. Does that mean there should be no restrictions on who can own guns or what kinds of guns can be owned?

69. Wouldn’t I have to endorse prostitution if I’m a libertarian?

70. If addictive/harmful drugs are legalized, doesn’t that mean more people will use them?

71. What does a libertarian Christian suggest to keep greed in check in a truly free market?

72. How do libertarian Christians account for gay rights or women’s rights?

73. Should the government play a protective role with marriage licenses?

74. If society becomes more libertarian, won’t this mean a cultural collapse into hedonism?

75. Do libertarians support the right to kill oneself?

76. How can a libertarian expect a free society without a safety net to provide for the poor?

77. How can a Christian fulfill Jesus’ command to care for the poor in a free society?

Chapter 9: Public Goods and Services

78. Without the state, who will build the roads?

79. Wouldn’t it be inefficient for all roads to be tolled?

80. Who will educate our children? Isn’t public education a cornerstone of the American Experiment?

81. Who will protect children from child abuse, or rescue abused children?

82. Who will catch the criminals?

83. Who will regulate air traffic or prevent future terrorist attacks?

84. Some libertarians say public safety should be handled by insurance companies. What about people who aren’t policyholders?

85. How would parks exist if not for the state?

86. What about people who can’t afford to pay for these privatized services?

87. But surely libraries should be handled by the government, right?

Chapter 10: Democracy, Voting, War, and Patriotism

88. Should Christians have a favorable view of democratic government?

89. How should a Christian approach the idea of political participation?

90. Should Christians seek positions in government office because having believers in office will have better outcomes for Christians and for society?

91. How should Christians view the practice of voting?

92. Don’t governments need to follow the will of the people?

93. Don’t countries have the right to self-determination?

94. Doesn’t a country need a common defense?

95. Can a Christian serve in the military?

96. Shouldn’t Christians honor those who sacrifice their lives for their countrymen?

97. Should Christians say the Pledge of Allegiance?

98. Should Christians be thankful to live in a free country?

Chapter 11: Social Justice

99. Shouldn’t human flourishing be the goal of good government?

100. Private charity can’t cover everyone’s needs, so don’t we need government?

101. Didn’t Jesus care about the poor? Isn’t that really what social justice is all about?

102. If the early church in Acts shared all things in common, is this a good model for society?

103. How do libertarian Christians propose addressing racism, both as a personal moral issue and as a systemic social concern?

104. Isn’t government necessary to protect people from predatory and dangerous business practices?

105. Are there historical examples where libertarian principles have successfully led to economic prosperity and social welfare?

106. How should we then think about global and social issues such as immigration or the environment?

Chapter 12: The War on Drugs

107. Why do libertarians oppose prohibition, including the War on Drugs? Are you saying all drugs should be legal?

108. How would drug legalization reduce problems associated with drug smuggling, including empowering cartels, gang violence, and human trafficking?

109. If drugs were legalized, wouldn’t that lead to more drug use, more drug abuse, and more deaths by drug overdose?

110. If drugs were legalized, how would a libertarian approach handle the social harms caused by drug use?

111. If drugs were legalized, how can we be sure our communities won’t be overwhelmed by addiction and its consequences?

112. Perhaps these policy ideas make sense to a libertarian, but why should a Christian accept them? Are you saying you want to treat the health matter of drug abuse separate from the legal matter of drug abuse?

113. Are there real-life examples of how shifting to a treatment-oriented or social-oriented approach toward addiction improves outcomes for people?

Chapter 13: Immigration

114. What does the Bible have to say about immigration?

115. Didn’t God establish nations to keep people separate?

116. How does immigration affect a country’s economy, culture, and social stability?

117. If open immigration policies raise concerns, what solutions do libertarians propose to address them effectively?

118. If libertarians affirm property rights, isn’t a nation’s borders an analog to personal property?

119. What is the best libertarian position on immigration?

120. Why do some libertarians disagree with the classical open borders position?

121. Without tough border restrictions, how do we protect people from foreign threats?

122. Is immigration to the United States to blame for drug smuggling and addiction crises?

123. Wouldn’t allowing poor immigrant laborers into the country permit others to take advantage of their status as poor?

124. Shouldn’t we abolish the welfare state before we allow open immigration?

125. How would a mass number of immigrants effectively integrate into their new host country?

126. Wouldn’t allowing open borders create a “brain drain,” where the able and intelligent in poor countries leave the poorest of the poor behind?

Chapter 14: Abortion

127. Does abortion violate the Non-Aggression Principle?

128. Why are some libertarians pro-choice if abortion violates the NAP?

129. Are there pro-life libertarians?

130. How is fetal self-ownership reconciled with the mother’s prior claim to bodily autonomy?

131. How does the case of rape affect the argument about fetal and maternal self-ownership?

132. How do you reconcile fetal self-ownership with its dependence on the mother?

133. Does being a libertarian mean I should be personally opposed to abortion but favor legal abortion?

134. How does the libertarian approach justify abortion restrictions in non-rape cases?

135. Do personhood laws enacted by the state protect unborn lives?

136. If libertarians oppose state intervention, how can they protect the unborn while also supporting women in crisis pregnancies? Would this approach work without authoritarian enforcement?

137. Why don’t libertarian Christians take the simpler approach, which is to call abortion sin and demand repentance?

138. What should be done with women who have an abortion?

139. What should be done with doctors who perform abortions?

140. Post-Dobbs, how can you balance supporting state abortion bans despite those bans also including language that violates a woman’s self-ownership?

141. How does the libertarian Christian approach differ from the Abolitionist approach to abortion?

142. How can the libertarian Christian view avoid alienating potential allies among other pro-life supporters and other libertarians?

143. Shouldn’t I vote for a party or candidate that is pro-life? I just can’t stomach voting for a pro-choice candidate!

144. If you can be libertarian and pro-life, how does the Libertarian Party address abortion?

Chapter 15: Environmental Stewardship

145. What does the Bible say about our responsibility to the earth’s wellbeing?

146. What is the best way to understand our relationship to the environment?

147. How could a free society protect the environment?

148. Doesn’t the corporate drive for profit come at the expense of the environment?

149. Even if we are improving the planet, what about adverse effects like pollution?

150. What is the free market solution to climate change?

151. Since many in the world do not accept libertarianism, are there legitimate compromises that libertarians can make that would be considered good stewardship?

Chapter 16: The American Revolution and the U.S. Constitution

152. If libertarians emphasize freedom from government, can the American Revolution be considered a libertarian movement?

153. Did the American Revolutionaries, many who claimed to be Christian, violate Romans 13 or Jesus’ teachings about turning the other cheek?

154. Did the Revolutionary War meet the criteria of just war theory?

155. In what ways might the American Revolution conflict with libertarian principles like non-aggression and voluntary association?

156. How did Christian leaders during the American Revolution use the Bible to support liberty and independence?

157. How libertarian is the United States Constitution?

158. Would returning to the original intent of the Constitution move us closer to a more libertarian society?

159. Does the presence of slavery in the founding era complicate the libertarian and Christian perspective on the American founding?

Chapter 17: Healthcare

160. How would people acquire healthcare in a free society?

161. If healthcare is a basic human need, is it really something the free market should handle like any other service?

162. Won’t the free market result in higher costs and unequal access to healthcare services?

163. How would a free-market approach keep health insurance costs in check if companies are still driven by profit?

164. Without government regulation, how would proper medical standards and patient safety be guaranteed?

165. How could a libertarian approach meet the needs of the poor and uninsured without relying on mandatory insurance or government programs?

166. How would malpractice and medical negligence be addressed?

167. What role should personal responsibility play in a libertarian approach to healthcare and public health?

168. How would mental health and addiction treatment be handled in a society without state-run healthcare?

169. Should parents have the legal right to refuse life-saving medical treatment for their children?

170. How should libertarians approach emerging and risky medical technologies like gene editing, mRNA treatments, neurotechnology, or AI-driven diagnostics?

171. How does the medical freedom movement align with core libertarian principles such personal choice and limited government?

Chapter 18: Public Health and Pandemics

172. Can a society without a centralized public health agency guarantee health and safety for everyone?

173. How should a government balance the need for public health with respect for personal freedoms?

174. How does the concept of the Harm Principle apply to libertarian policies on public health and safety?

175. In a libertarian framework, who bears responsibility for harm caused by exposing others to infectious disease?

176. In a public health crisis, does the Non-Aggression Principle permit the state to have emergency powers such as lockdowns and business restrictions?

177. In the absence of federal mandates, how would coordination work across state or national borders during a pandemic?

178. How do libertarian principles apply during an infectious disease outbreak, and do those principles offer real protection for the most vulnerable?

179. But didn’t the lockdowns help slow the spread of COVID-19?

180. Have decentralized approaches to pandemics worked in practice, and what are some examples?

181. What do personal responsibility and informed consent actually look like during a public health crisis?

182. How can accurate health information be shared during a crisis without resorting to censorship or restricting free speech?

183. How do we uphold freedom of assembly and religion when public health crises put pressure on civil liberties?

Chapter 19: The Culture Wars

184. What are the culture wars, and how do they relate to political and social conflicts?

185. How do libertarian Christians engage in the culture wars in contrast to both progressives and conservatives?

186. What is the libertarian Christian approach to addressing the increase in identity politics and cultural tribalism?

187. If freedom is meant for doing what is right, not just what is permitted, how should libertarian Christians think about the limits of moral liberty?

188. How is the “live and let live” mentality of libertarianism compatible with a Christian view of sexuality?

189. How should libertarian Christians respond to a culture that seeks to normalize sexual immorality?

190. How do libertarian principles guide public policy on gender identity education in schools?

191. Should the government define what it means to be male or female, or should that be left to individuals and private institutions?

192. How should libertarian Christians approach the issue of transgender women participating in women’s sports and entering female-only spaces?

193. Are you arguing that the public square can be neutral?

194. If cultural decline threatens moral and social order, shouldn’t Christians support a state that enforces biblical values?

195. Don’t we need a Christian culture in order to save sinners through the sharing of the Gospel?

196. If we expect to be blessed with a free and flourishing society, don’t we need to use the state to force moral conformity?

197. How should libertarian Christians think about compassion and empathy when the right often sees it as excessive and the left sees it as insufficient?

Chapter 20: Family and Education

198. How do libertarian Christians prioritize the importance of the family as it relates to society as a whole?

199. What are the key cultural debates surrounding the role and structure of the family in society?

200. How does libertarianism inform the balance between parental rights and children’s rights when cultural trends challenge parental authority over a child’s well-being and identity?

201. Does the state have a role in regulating medical treatment for minors, given libertarian opposition to state control and minors’ limited capacity for informed consent?

202. How do libertarian principles apply when parents, children, and the state clash over what’s best for a child?

203. How can the rights of parents be reinforced to protect their children from premature decisions about gender or sex without relying on government overreach?

204. How should libertarians respond to concerns that an unregulated internet exposes children to dangers like exploitation, trafficking, and mental health issues?

205. How should libertarian Christians respond to the cultural normalization of non-traditional sexual and family relationships?

206. Should public funds be used to support pro-family and pro-natalist policies?

207. Haven’t government policies such as no-fault divorce already weakened marriage and the family, and wouldn’t a libertarian society risk accelerating that decline by eliminating legal constraints on divorce?

208. Without government oversight of education, what practical alternatives to accreditation can ensure academic rigor and intellectual integrity in schools?

209. How can parental concerns about ideological indoctrination be addressed without government oversight of education?

210. How can educational freedom help preserve shared moral and cultural values while preventing society from fragmenting into isolated or ideological groups?

211. How is educational quality preserved if anyone is allowed to start a school, even without formal training or credentials?

Chapter 21: Christian Nationalism

212. What is Christian nationalism, and how do its proponents defend it?

213. What are the main biblical and theological arguments against Christian Nationalism?

214. How does Christian nationalism align or conflict with libertarian principles?

215. Is it better to have Christian leaders in government than to have leaders indifferent or hostile to Christianity?

216. How has the rise of Christian nationalism affected various denominations within Christianity in the United States?

217. Can well-meaning Christians unintentionally support Christian Nationalism by confusing cultural influence with political power?

218. How viable is Christian Nationalism in today’s political landscape, and does it pose a real threat to the wellbeing of society?

219. How should libertarian Christians respond to the rise of Christian Nationalism?

220. How can libertarian Christians expose the theocratic agenda hidden behind Christian nationalist rhetoric that borrows libertarian language?

Chapter 22: How do we get to a Free(r) Society?

221. How should we work to promote a freer society and persuade others to embrace the values of liberty?

222. What are the most effective ways to challenge the rise of anti-liberalism from both the left and the right?

223. How can we persuasively explain libertarian principles to people who may be skeptical or unfamiliar with them?

224. Given libertarianism’s limited influence in national politics, should Christians who value liberty consider partnering with other political movements to advance meaningful change?

225. Is lasting change more likely to come through local action, or should we focus on national and global efforts to advance liberty?

226. How do approaches such as decentralization, privatization, and peaceful secession contribute to the pursuit of liberty—and how should they be prioritized?

227. If decentralization, privatization, and secession offer paths to greater liberty, how can they be pursued seriously while still accounting for their potential risks?

228. Beyond education and politics, what meaningful contributions can individuals make to help build a free and flourishing society?

229. How can Christians fulfill their duty to God’s Kingdom while residing in a state system in rebellion to God?

230. How can Christians integrate their faith and daily work in ways that support and sustain a free society?

This question is from Faith Seeking Freedom: Updated & Expanded, launching June 2026 in paperback, PDF, and Kindle. Subscribe to this Substack so you don’t miss updates, previews, and the launch announcement.

Subscribe now

Libertarians don’t promote libertinism (the total disregard of any form of authority or social convention); we’re just about promoting liberty.

Libertarianism is not a full moral or aesthetic theory, but only a political theory, which is a subset of moral theory dealing with the proper role of violence in public life. Libertarianism suggests what the proper role of civil government is and how it should behave (if at all), since it claims for itself the power to coerce others with physical force. Ultimately, libertarians say that everyone should be free to do as they will so long as they do not initiate aggression against others. That may make it possible for people to live as a certain kind of hedonist (again, so long as they don’t commit aggression), but libertarianism doesn’t make a claim about every activity surrounding human life, much less condone hedonism.

With liberty, though, one is free to act upon their deeply held moral principles without fear of violent reprisal, and that includes the religious freedom that Christians have sought since the beginning of our shared faith.

Thank you for joining the Substack for Faith Seeking Freedom: Updated & Expanded — your support allows us to share this book widely!

If you enjoy Faith Seeking Freedom: Updated & Expanded, it would mean the world to us if you invited friends to subscribe and read with us. If you refer friends, you will receive benefits that give you special access to Faith Seeking Freedom: Updated & Expanded.

How to participate

1. Share this Substack with others. When you use the referral link below, or the “Share” button on any post, you'll get credit for any new subscribers. Simply send the link in a text, email, or share it on social media with friends.

Refer a friend

2. Earn benefits. When more friends use your referral link to subscribe (free or paid), you’ll receive special benefits.

• Get a 1 month comp for 3 referrals

• Get a 3 month comp for 5 referrals

• Get a 6 month comp for 25 referrals

Visit the leaderboard

To learn more, check out Substack’s FAQ.

Thank you for helping get the word out about Faith Seeking Freedom: Updated & Expanded!

This question is from Faith Seeking Freedom: Updated & Expanded, launching June 2026 in paperback, PDF, and Kindle. Subscribe to this Substack so you don’t miss updates, previews, and the launch announcement.

Subscribe now

Every proper authority in society is necessarily limited. The authority of parents is limited to their own family. The authority of church officers is limited to the church. The authority of an employer is limited to the sphere of business. Government is not an exception. To treat it as an unlimited touchstone of societal order is to make an idol of it. Libertarians believe that we should evaluate questions of justice uniformly, regardless of whether a person is an agent of the state or a private individual. The American Declaration of Independence recited a radical claim about governments “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Consent is the crucial difference between competitive boxing and criminal battery. Consent is the essential ingredient that must be present in order for any government power to be just. The claim that consent is relevant even for the sovereign logically implies that justice is not just a matter of what government says. Justice is a standard not subject to modification by any mortal person.

For Christians, these claims should ring true. The Bible tells us that God’s law does not ever change (Luke 16:17). God’s law of love applies equally to every person made in his image, prince and pauper alike. “God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34b, KJV), which means he doesn’t play favorites. Christ-followers must be opposed to the perversion of justice to recognize social station, wealth, or for any other reason (Jas 2:1–4, 8–9).

This question is from Faith Seeking Freedom: Updated & Expanded, launching June 2026 in paperback, PDF, and Kindle. Subscribe to this Substack so you don’t miss updates, previews, and the launch announcement.

Subscribe now

Certainly some libertarians are greedy and selfish—just like some political conservatives and progressives. But there is nothing about libertarian political theory that lauds such behaviors as good and right. On the contrary, libertarianism suggests that the nature of the aggressive political process is to attract those corrupt individuals who are indeed greedy and selfish to positions of power, where instead of having to satisfy others’ needs to gain anything (as in the marketplace), they can use that power to steal what they want from others. While the marketplace rewards those who serve the needs of others through mutual exchange, politics incentivizes direct greed with its very structure.

However, you might also have heard of the “virtue of selfishness” as explained by Ayn Rand, whom many libertarians respect. Some of Rand’s teachings are antithetical to Christian values, but it’s notable that Rand’s use of such language is meant to combat the oft-proclaimed mantra that the state is inherently altruistic and is “better” than the marketplace where everyone is always and only “greedy.” Instead, Rand says that it is good to aspire, to achieve, to create, to act in one’s self-interest. As Christians, we even believe it is in our own self-interest to seek after God because it is the end of man to glorify God and enjoy him forever! So, self-interest in the right perspective is a good thing (see Question 19).

This question is from Faith Seeking Freedom: Updated & Expanded, launching June 2026 in paperback, PDF, and Kindle. Subscribe to this Substack so you don’t miss updates, previews, and the launch announcement.

Subscribe now

Libertarianism is a philosophy that promotes self-interest, so it’s easy to confuse this with selfishness. Selfishness implies a disregard for others. So the question then is, does libertarianism promote a general disregard for others? The short answer is, no.

Self-interested acts that disregard others by violating the NAP are considered criminal. There may be self-interested actions, which do not violate the NAP, that others would not choose for themselves and yet influence how they have to choose differently. This is simply the way life works. In our view, the individual and the community are of equal importance; we are individuals living in communities with one another, yet one is not more important than the other. Some people are inclined to believe that any self-interest is inherently selfish and therefore immoral. So let’s consider what a completely altruistic world looks like.

Imagine a society where you could never say, ‘no.’ Where everyone belongs to everyone else and is meant to serve others. Any form of self-interest is considered selfish - a disregard for others in the community who have a right to your good will. Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel, Brave New World, depicts this utopian-dystopian world where all forms of self-interest are considered selfish. The implications of this sort of society turn out to be very anti-Christian with no monogamy, no family, no church, no love, and no privacy. Christianity is not opposed to self-interest. It is opposed to the general disregard of others. But the world Huxley predicted shows us what happens when we disregard self-interest and the individual right to choose. We are in fact acting selfishly, with disregard for others, when we don’t acknowledge others’ right to choose according to their self-interest. So we must consider self-interest as distinct from selfishness.

When two individuals voluntarily trade with one another, they do so from self-interest and the results are mutually beneficial. If it wasn’t beneficial to both parties, they would voluntarily choose not to trade. As individuals within a community voluntarily trade, communities then voluntarily interact with one another. This too is for mutually beneficial ends as a result of individual self-interest. Libertarianism promotes regard for others through the principles of self-ownership, the NAP, and voluntary (mutually-beneficial) exchanges and associations.

Subscribe now

God does speak about governance in scripture, and there has been much debate about the implications of what he says. Often, the question raised is whether a particular political philosophy is prescribed by God. In other words, would Jesus have been a socialist? A Republican? Alternatively, there is a popular view that Christians must submit to the government regardless of the lawlessness of its edicts. We disagree.

Scripture speaks to the fact of civil governance and its necessity (Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14; Titus 3:1), but it does not explicate a precise way of administering civil governance. In other words, God doesn’t give us an operations manual for providing the service of civil justice. What God provides are norms of civil justice that are evident in creation and are therefore comprehensible by all human beings. However, the systems by which humanity has administered (or attempted to administer) civil justice are human inventions known as political philosophies.

Political philosophies are attempts to articulate the best way of achieving a just system of governance. Libertarianism is one such philosophy, and we believe it’s the best expression of Christian political thought because it most aligns with God-given norms expressed in scripture and evidenced in nature.

One important distinction we make is between “the state” and “civil governance,” and in our view the state is inherently bad and tends to corrupt good civil governance. As Christians, we can take our cue from historic Christian orthodoxy and the historic confessions of faith. These only oblige Christian submission to civil authorities on matters that are lawful ordinances of God. But they don’t obligate abject submission to all edicts and don’t oppose resistance to unlawful or unrestrained sword power. Because of this, we hold the distinction between “the state” and “civil governance” to be legitimate and necessary.