Subscribe now

Plato and Aristotle described the existence of political factions in classical Athens, and this dynamic is still characteristic of politics today. Modern political parties as we know them first began emerging in the 18th and 19th centuries. These parties sprang from political ideologies and existing—often pragmatic—political coalitions. In some countries, third parties play a substantial role in government. However, in the United States, there are two dominant political parties, and third parties are limited by ballot access rules, debate participation, and other constraints that drastically limit both their success in electoral politics and their ability to effect change in government.

Libertarianism is not really about party affiliation at all. Rather, it is first and foremost a theory of justice: a philosophical framework of rights and responsibilities. Some libertarians choose to become active in the Libertarian Party or another political party in order to try to influence elections or to have the opportunity to share libertarian ideas in a public forum. Other libertarians prefer to avoid electoral politics altogether. The formation of the Libertarian Party of the United States in 1971 was opposed by some prominent libertarians. The Libertarian Party remains controversial among libertarians today. Christians should be led by their convictions and prayerful reflection on the best ways to help build God’s Kingdom and regenerate goodness into society’s structure.

Subscribe now

Glad you asked, because God has a plan for the state and its machinations, and we get to join into his plan through Jesus and his church. Of course, we have hope in the gospel message itself that brings salvation both right now and in the future. We have the Holy Spirit that indwells us right now and sanctifies us throughout our life. We have the ability to make a difference right now, and we have the great hope of final victory in the end. After all, as the book of Revelation shows us, we know that the final destination of these “powers that be” is destruction.

Remember all that weird language around “Babylon” in Revelation? We hear about the fall of it as a city, and it is even personified in three ways in the book: as the dragon, as the “beast out of the sea,” and even as the “Mother of Prostitutes and Abominations.” (Gross!) Theologians have debated how to interpret the Revelation to John for centuries, but the attentive reader can see in “Babylon” both the Roman Empire of John’s day and the symbolic connection to Babel from Genesis. The symbol is a culmination and representation of statism—of violent, aggressive power—for all time.

God assures us that no matter what, Jesus has won the victory against all sin, all death, and all competing powers. Even the first time Babylon is specifically mentioned in Revelation, it is when an angel declares, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the Great!” (Rev 14:8) In the end, God wins.

Subscribe now

A major theme of the New Testament is the contrast between the Kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world. Jesus says one seeks to dominate and the other to serve (Matt 20:25–26). Which do you think Jesus wants us aligned with?

More importantly, Jesus’ temptations in the desert give us a special insight into the nature and allure of state power. We read in Matthew 4 that Satan offered Jesus the Kingdoms of the world if only Jesus would bow down and worship Satan. Did Jesus respond with “What do you mean? They don’t belong to you; you couldn’t give them to me if you tried!” Nope. If that were the case, it wouldn’t have been a temptation at all. Instead, Jesus gives tacit recognition that Satan could do what he offered, and retorts with “worship the Lord your God and serve only him” (Matt 4:10). The message to us, evidently, is that the state is inherently on board with Satan, not God.

Interestingly, Paul says in Ephesians 6:12 that our struggle is “not against flesh and blood” but against “the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” Even if we take that list as being primarily spiritual, we must still try to understand how Paul could say this while knowing that the Roman government was oppressing so many, especially Christians. We then realize that Christians can show godly love toward those in government positions while still seeing their power as evil.

Subscribe now

Yes, there are examples in recent memory that show this approach has merit.

Portugal adopted a policy of drug decriminalization in 2001. That policy shift was followed by a dramatic drop in Portugal’s overdose deaths, which are now five times lower than the European average. New HIV diagnoses dropped by over 90 percent among drug users most at risk of infection—those who use injectable drugs. More people entered treatment. Despite the reduced criminal penalties, drug use does not seem to have significantly increased among young people in Portugal since that time.

Switzerland implemented a health-focused drug policy in the 1980s and 1990s, involving public education campaigns, therapy and treatment, and harm reduction strategies like clean needle exchanges and even medically supervised use for the addicts who were deepest in addiction. These policies resulted in a massive reduction in Swiss crime, as fewer addicts were stealing to support their addictions. Homelessness fell, employment increased, overdoses fell, and HIV rates dropped. There was not a discernible increase in new users, and the addict population seems to be getting older, suggesting that fewer young people are becoming newly addicted.

Subscribe now

Full Question in the book: “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?”

More than the secular libertarian, libertarian Christians should be able to recognize that drug abuse and addiction are symptoms of a spiritual problem, not merely a physical health problem or a criminal matter for courts to sort out. Anyone who serves a master other than Jesus is guilty of idolatry, and drug addiction can be one of the more visible forms of that ancient sin. As believers, we recognize that all have sinned, and that all need to repent and believe in Jesus.

Rather than holding disdain in our hearts for drug addicts, as Christians we should have compassion for them and a desire to help them escape the consequences of sin through the gift of salvation. As Christians, each of us has come to the realization that we are not enough in ourselves, but that we can be more than enough in Jesus. That hope—a hope that is absurd and impossible according to the world’s wisdom—should give us a boldness in reaching out to other sinners who have yet to repent of their sins and seek the only lasting escape from them through our Lord and Savior. This compassion is in keeping with the great commandments of Jesus and honors him.

Subscribe now

No one can guarantee that any solution to addiction will totally eliminate it from society. However, we can minimize the extent to which well-meaning government policies incentivize and enable this sort of destructive behavior. We live in a fallen world, and sin is a part of that world. Those of us who are strong are called to bear with the weak and build them up despite their infirmities, and to seek their good pleasure rather than our own (Rom 15:1–3, Phil 2:3–4).

In such an environment, rather than relying on government sanctions to make temptation impossible—a strategy which does not seem to be working anyway—we would instead be called to demonstrate self control, not merely for our own sake but to help the weaker brother not to stumble (1 Cor 8). Taking personal responsibility and choosing to take care of the needs of others seems harder than relying on external restraints, but by following Jesus’ example, we can aid the weak and serve them far more effectively than government ever will (Gal 5:13, 1 Thess 5:14).

Libertarians believe in personal responsibility, and personal responsibility is the best remedy for destructive personal vices. Under modern states, policymakers attempt to address social problems relating to addiction in a number of ways that they characterize as “harm reduction.” These programs may include problem-solving courts, needle exchanges, controlled distribution of allegedly safer drugs like methadone, and taxpayer-funded support of drug rehabilitation programming. Libertarians reject the compulsory socialization of the costs of drug abuse.

Instead, many libertarians would argue that being left to face the consequences of poor personal decisions would be a better alternative. Other libertarians favor solutions that appear to be similar to those listed above, but which are paid for through voluntary charity or family funds. Rather than threatening criminal punishment while granting taxpayer-financed welfare benefits, recourse to private charity replaces legal entitlement with voluntary assistance, something that the evidence shows results in stronger community and peer support, lower overall costs, and an element of spiritual growth instead of a purely secular public health approach.

Other symptoms of drug abuse may include homelessness and petty crimes that would cease to be a significant problem under a private property regime as proposed by libertarians. Government managed “public property” often becomes a haven for drug addicts, enabling self-destructive behaviors by providing a location for incorrigible abusers to congregate and live out their addictions. Private property owners can remove such people from their grounds, while governments are often unable or unwilling to dissipate homeless camps that are set up on public property.

The Libertarian Christian Institute operates without the marketing budget of a major publisher. We wrote Faith Seeking Freedom because we believe Christians deserve better than the two political defaults on offer. Getting it in front of the people who need it is the last mile, and we can’t run it alone.

If you want to help this book find its people, here’s how:

1. If you run a Substack, recommend ours.

This is the single highest-leverage thing anyone reading can do. Recommendations appear every time someone subscribes to your publication, and they compound over time. Even a small newsletter recommending LCI puts us in front of readers who already trust you.

2. Restack this post with a note.

A restack with your own comment lands in the Notes feed and reaches your followers plus their networks. One sentence about why the book matters to you carries far more weight than a silent share.

3. Forward this to one specific person.

Think of the friend, pastor, small-group leader, or thoughtful skeptic who needs this book. Copy the URL, send it in a text, and tell them why you’re sending it. A targeted share to the right person outperforms a broadcast every time.

4. Subscribe if you haven’t.

If you’re reading without a subscription, hit the button. Free works fine. It signals to Substack that this publication is worth surfacing, and it keeps you in the loop on author Q&As, chapter excerpts, and the conversations this book is starting.

Subscribe now

Why we’re asking

Every reader here is one click away from putting Faith Seeking Freedom in front of people we can’t reach on our own.

What we have is you — readers who care whether this book gets into the right hands.

Subscribe now

It is true that wealthy political donors can obtain ready access to elected policymakers in a way that other people cannot. This is true despite complicated campaign finance laws and limitations on how and when money may be donated. Taxing wealthy people more cannot change that—they will still have plenty of things that others want.

Even where campaign contributions are not at issue, lobbyists often get their way for another, seemingly benign reason: lobbyists are usually experts in their policy areas. Politicians learn to rely on lobbyists to efficiently explain complex legal and policy issues to them. It should be unsurprising when the “students” later reach the same policy positions as their “teachers.”

Lord Acton, a 19th century English historian, famously said that “power tends to corrupt.” The libertarian solution is to rely more on markets and to rely less on political policymaking. Markets are ultimately controlled by consumer preference and the realities of business. Though individuals make mistakes sometimes, when they are engaged in market activities the personal consequences of failure naturally motivate them to exercise great care.

Economists sometimes refer to a problem called “moral hazard.” Moral hazard exists when a decision maker has an incentive to increase risk because they are not directly impacted by the consequences of that risk. For example, many libertarians are concerned that banks engage in riskier conduct because of the prospect of government bailouts. The decisions politicians make are chiefly about other people’s resources, not their own. Private entrepreneurs and investors are financially accountable for their actions in a way that politicians never are.

Christians know that perverting justice, especially for money, is an abomination to God (Deut 16:18–20). Politicizing and bureaucratizing justice does not promote equality before the law. In fact, political and bureaucratic incentives can facilitate further injustice. We know this from economic theory. We also know it from scripture (Eccl 5:8–9).

Subscribe now

People often disagree with each other about what life ought to look like. As Christians, we believe that we ought to live as Christ taught us to live. Scripture tells us that the world hated Christ and that it hates Christ followers, too (John 15:18–19). Despite living in a world that hates us, we should do our best to live at peace with everyone (Rom 12:18). In his letter to the Philippian faithful, Paul reminded them of Jesus’ self-humbling, self-sacrificial example. Loving peace and avoiding disputes are habits that are practically beneficial “in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation” (Phil 2:15). They allow us to “shine like stars” in a dark and sinful world (Phil 2:15–16).

We are to be so conflict-averse—and loving towards others—that Christ admonished us to respond to presumptuous demands with a charitable response that goes above and beyond what is demanded (Matt 5:38–42, Luke 6:27–36). This is commanded even towards our enemies (Matt 5:43–48; Luke 6:32–36).

Paul exhorted the faithful in Corinth to abstain from using secular courts to sue other believers (1 Cor 6:1–8). Jesus told us the appropriate steps for making a godly appeal to an offending brother or sister in Christ, and that process is in the context of a local fellowship of believers (Matt 18:16–17).

Subscribe now

The fundamental principles of self-ownership and non-aggression are self-evidently true (see Questions 14–17). In other words, people intuitively know them. In fact, you’ll find that arguments against them are derived from premises which assume they’re true. How can this be? God’s creational order entails laws written into the fabric of reality. This involves physical laws (e.g., the law of gravity), but also involves normative laws (e.g., “you shall not murder,” Exod 20:13). God’s law is written on the hearts of humankind (Rom 2:15), even if they try to suppress the truth of it (Rom 1:18).

Beyond this, disputes arise as human beings come in contact and interact with one another. Along with voluntary human action comes disagreement; this is inevitable. There are two ways people would know what authority to obey if the government didn’t create new law: contracts and dispute resolutions.

First, with contracts, the rules governing parties are established at the onset of the relationship. This is useful when dealing with an exchange of services (if you do this, then I’ll give you that), where stipulations aren’t self-evident and therefore need to be defined. But contracts cannot foresee all possible outcomes and disputes arise. For these disputes, resolutions need to be made by third-party arbitration. These might be courts or private agencies. Part of any good contract you find today is an agreement to use third-party arbitration in the event a dispute arises. So our society is already acclimated to this form of governance.

If the dispute happens to be a common problem, then the resolution could become common practice where it’s effective and upholds the property rights of the parties involved. In our current system, we might refer to this as “case law.” And even case law can (and would) be challenged in a libertarian society. No doubt, there will need to be a way of keeping track of effective dispute resolutions, which means there will be a market need for impartial record keeping. Some have suggested that blockchain technology could serve this purpose. But whatever the solution, the need for contracts and resolution necessitates a market response, not a monopoly response from a state government.

Subscribe now

It’s helpful to understand what is meant by “keep the peace.” This phrase has become a rather meaningless idiom. We used to call our judges “justices of the peace” and our law enforcement officers “peace officers.” Supporters of law enforcement often (and, in our view, mistakenly) associate Matthew 5:9 (“blessed are the peacemakers”) with law enforcement officers. But it’s a contradiction to attribute “peacekeeper” to people who regularly initiate force and violence upon others.

If the state exists to keep the peace, then they sure aren’t doing a very good job of it! Criminal justice reform is a regular campaign issue. On the one hand, there are problems with the administrative side: police brutality, no-knock raids, corrupt or careless judges, etc. On the other hand, there are problems with the effectiveness of the policies: high recidivism rates, mandatory minimums, overcrowding and rising cost of prisons, etc.

How much peace we enjoy today is really due to market forces and not because of (or in spite of) government policies?

There are a couple of ways we can conceive of civil governance as “keeping the peace.” One classic metaphor is the “night watchman.” Another is a “referee.” Either way, the peacekeeping role of civil governance necessitates the impartiality of the peacekeeper in a given dispute. Historically, the difficulty has always been holding the peacekeeper accountable when disputes arise involving them. This is part of the ongoing dialogue between libertarian anarchists and libertarian minarchists (see Question 32). The aim of both, however, is that civil governance is only successful in “keeping the peace” when it’s properly and effectively limited.

Subscribe now

No. It is true that libertarians firmly believe in property rights. A property boundary marks where one owner’s claim begins and another’s ends. That boundary should only be enforceable if the owner really owns the tract of land within. But that is where the analogy comparing government borders to private property breaks down. Government does not own all of the property within its borders. Though government-held lands are extensive in the United States, the majority of American ground is privately owned. Not all of these private owners agree about how to enforce the national borders, or even the idea that they should be enforced by government at all.

Libertarians would agree that a person should not trespass on another person’s property. But unlawful immigrants usually are not trespassers. The vast majority (approximately two-thirds) of such immigrants enter their destination country legally and simply overstay their entry visa. This means that they do not enter by trespassing. Instead, they enter the country by the same means as any other traveler. These immigrants then rent apartments from willing landlords, obtain employment from eager employers, and buy goods from eager retailers. The accusation that they are trespassers is simply false. A person who moves from Mexico to Texas is no more a trespasser than a person who moves from Georgia to Texas, whether they have government approval or not.

Aggressive border enforcement encroaches on private property and disrupts the normal movement of labor and capital. It also creates dangerous black markets in transportation, housing, and employment. Even worse, restrictive immigration policies interfere with the performance of our Christian duty to be charitable to immigrants and to reach all nations with the good news of the gospel.

Subscribe now

It’s important to recognize that free migration isn’t destined for conflict (see Question 116). People are adaptable, and markets reward peaceful cooperation. Yet open immigration under modern state conditions can create unintended challenges, since governments control land, welfare, and public property—distortions that lead to forced association and perverse incentives. In a free society, migration is regulated by the market. State interventions in borders, welfare, drug policy, and the economy disrupt the market dynamics that would otherwise harmonize migration with demand.

The more we decentralize government, the closer we get to a true polycentric order where society is shaped by markets and local decision-making, not central planners. Rather than federal bureaucracies managing welfare programs or vast tracts of public land, those functions should devolve to the local level—or better yet, to private ownership and market institutions. Local and private stewardship ties decisions to those who bear their costs and benefits, curbing waste, reducing moral hazard, and aligning incentives with genuine community needs. Decentralization and privatization directly reduce the friction and fear associated with open immigration by replacing coercive, one-size-fits-all systems with voluntary cooperation rooted in consent and property rights.

Inflationary policies, taxes, and regulations erode prosperity and drive up housing costs, trapping both natives and newcomers in artificial scarcity that breeds resentment. Likewise, ending the War on Drugs and U.S. military interventions abroad would remove major sources of violence, displacement, and black-market chaos that fuel mass migration. Freer markets and a peaceful foreign policy allow people to move, build, and work where demand exists, turning competition into cooperation. When paired with a fair justice system that neither discriminates against newcomers nor excuses crime, these reforms foster trust, opportunity, and liberty.

Subscribe now

From the economic point of view, laborers who migrate from a low wage area to a high wage area are performing an arbitrage and making the market function more efficiently in the satisfaction of human wants. But human beings are not merely laborers, and they bring with them more than labor hours.

Immigrants bring with them their own experiences and customs, and often their own languages. It is true that a culturally heterogeneous population can experience social friction because different cultures can dictate dramatically different expectations from one another. For example, in some cultures, direct eye contact may be considered presumptuous and aggressive. In others, avoiding eye contact may be viewed with suspicion. This is not only true of international immigration. Cultural differences may also be present within different populations in the same nation-state, such as those between New Englanders and southerners in the United States.

People as social creatures are also immensely adaptable. Customs can be consciously learned, and linguistic features are often acquired without conscious effort or awareness. Every person grows and changes over their lifetime, including in their customary behaviors and language, and they will adapt to their environment.

While some traditions and customs may indeed be ancient in origin, local culture is by its nature a transient and dynamic thing. Attempts to freeze a culture in time to preserve it are based on the mistaken idea that culture is static and stable. It is not. Even if some cultural clashes may greatly annoy adults, such displeasure need not persist in succeeding generations. Indeed, combinations of previously unacquainted peoples have sometimes resulted in explosions of cultural creativity, such as the innovative jazz and blues styles of music that developed in the culturally complex Mississippi Delta region.

Subscribe now

The nations described in the Bible were not nation-states in the modern sense, but rather extended family groups or tribes who shared a common language and culture. The original division of nations occurred early in post-deluge history. Nations are first mentioned in the Bible in Genesis 10, in a passage naming the first generations born after the great flood subsided: the offspring of Japheth, Ham, and Shem. Genesis 11 then focuses on the particular events that led to the division of the nations by language and physical distance. The efforts of a united humanity to construct a tower to their own glory (“let us make a name for ourselves,” v. 4) displeased God. God responded by confounding their language, leading them to abandon their construction project and “scattered them abroad over the face of all the Earth” (Gen 11:8–9).

The children of Israel were selected as a nation set apart as God’s chosen people, and they were commanded to keep away from the corruption and idol worship of other nations. Even before that, the first great order of separation for Israel was an internal schism. Moses separated the wandering people of Israel into groups of faithful and reprobate before the Lord caused the earth to swallow up the followers of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Num 16:23–35).

The good news is that national divisions that came about due to sin and corruption can be overcome by the grace of God. Foreigners who worshipped the one true God were to be welcomed by the nation of Israel (Isa 56:1–8). In the Great Commission, Christ commanded his followers to go to all nations teaching his commands (Matt 28:19–20). Peter preached that God had revealed to him that he “should not call any man common or unclean,” and told his listeners about a faith that offered hope to God-fearing people of all nations (Acts 10:28; 35). National divisions are a consequence of sin. Everyone who repents and believes in Christ can join the eternal, holy nation of God (1 Pet 2:9–10).

Subscribe now

The Bible tells immigrant story after immigrant story: Adam and Eve were exiled from the Garden of Eden, made refugees by their own sin. Joseph was the victim of fraternal violence and was sold into bondage in the strange land of Egypt. Israel made its exodus from Egypt to the then-unfamiliar Promised Land. Ruth was a foreigner who immigrated to Israel. Christ traveled in foreign lands as an infant fleeing for safety from Herod the Great’s Massacre of the Innocents. Our savior identified with the immigrant, and he included the “stranger” as one of the groups whom he called the “least of these” (Matt 25:34–46).

Scripture speaks clearly on the topic of how God’s faithful are to treat immigrants. The Bible tells us that foreigners who come to our country must be afforded equal legal rights to people who are native-born (Exod 12:49, Lev 24:22). More than that, we are to love them as we love ourselves (Lev 19:33–34). Immigrants are a segment of the community who are worthy objects of our charity (Deut 10:14–22). Indeed, it is an outward mark of a righteous man that his door is “always open to the traveler” (Job 31:32). Israel was reminded by God of its heritage as a people who were once strangers in a strange land, and instructed that it would be hypocritical for them to mistreat the alien (Deut 24:19–22). God warns of judgment for those who “deprive aliens of justice” (Mal 3:5, Deut 27:19). Widespread mistreatment of immigrants can lead to national judgment (Ezek 22:7, 29–31; Jer 22:3–5). Treating immigrants justly was one of the conditions for Israel’s continuing to enjoy the blessings of the Promised Land (Jer 7:6–7).

Subscribe now

It is hard to say whether drug legalization would lead to elevated drug use. It might. Legalization might even lead to more drug abuse. But when it comes to overdoses, it seems to be the case that most drug overdoses occur because of a dangerous combination of variable potency of black market drugs and the unwise choices of multi-drug users. Most drug users take drugs to feel good, not to die. According to data reported by the United States National Center for Health Statistics, most of the approximately 100,000 fatal overdoses per year, roughly 85–95 percent, are unintentional (NCHS Data Brief, Number 457. Dec. 2022).

A major cause of these unintentional overdoses is the great variability in the potency of black market drugs. Opioid drugs are the leading drugs found to be responsible for fatal drug overdoses. The original recreational opiate—opium—was introduced to the American market as a drug that could be smoked or eaten, and while addiction was common, fatal overdoses were rare. Smoked opium would usually render the user insensate far before he could consume enough to overdose. Opium-smoking was associated in the popular press with Chinese immigrants, and in 1875 one of the first local laws banning opium dens was passed in San Francisco. Seven years later, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was passed in the U. S. Congress, driven in large part by a stereotypical association of Chinese immigrants with opium.

With the rise of legal and social stigma, some fatal overdoses began to occur as liquid opiate preparations became more common, including laudanum and various patent medicines. While opium was stigmatized and made harder to legally acquire, opioid users started injecting morphine, thanks to the recent invention of the hypodermic needle. Barely two decades after the first anti-opium laws, the Bayer Company began marketing diacetylmorphine (heroin) as a “non-addictive” alternative to morphine. In the early twentieth century, federal law continued to focus on prohibition of the safer, but more “foreign” smoked version of opium, while only requiring accurate labeling of injectable or oral opioids. The Harrison Narcotics Tax Acts of 1914 then outlawed legal opioids for most addicts and sent them to the black market to feed their addictions.

A succession of synthesized opioids were subsequently developed, and while many users started addictions with legal pharmaceutical drugs, they maintained their addiction through the purchase of illicit pills, including counterfeit drugs, that were available on the street. Progressing from codeine to oxycodone to fentanyl, the therapeutic dose became tinier and so too did the lethal dose. Overdoses are now commonly attributed to pills that are designed to appear like legitimate pharmaceuticals while actually containing fentanyl. Even though fentanyl is more dangerous, drug smugglers are incentivized to traffic in it instead of safer, less potent opioids, because the risk of smuggling is better rewarded when the contraband is more concentrated and represents more individual doses for sale in the prohibited market. Thus, it is prohibitionist policies that have driven the drug overdose problem.

Subscribe now

Any time there is high demand for a good or service, there is a profit-making opportunity in delivering that good or service. Prohibition creates new types of risks for the prohibited enterprise, and black market entrepreneurs plan accordingly.

In a legal market, competitors may compete for market share, but they typically do not do so through direct violence against each other. They compete based on price, quality, and other factors focusing on appealing to consumers. If an employee or contractor embezzles from the firm, that wrong is addressed in a legal proceeding in the courts.

In a prohibited market, manufacturers, distributors, and vendors all face the constant danger of government violence, confiscation of business and personal assets, and the arrest and imprisonment of their workers. This means that only individuals with a large appetite for risk-taking are likely to participate. It also means that when these individuals have disputes over market share or fulfillment of a contract, there is no legal means available for dispute resolution. This incentivizes violent reprisals instead of peaceful, civilized modes of addressing these conflicts.

Gangs typically develop as a response to a collective defense problem. Rather than fall prey to competing black market actors who want to acquire market share or low-cost inventory quickly through violence, people who are familiar to each other due to previous friendly acquaintance, family connection, or simple physical proximity may band together to provide for their common defense. People who perceive that they are in danger will often do dangerous things. And once accustomed to lawless living, these people are more likely to participate in other forms of unlawful but profitable victimization, like human trafficking, utilizing the smuggling and protection infrastructure that they have already established.

Subscribe now

In the print edition of Faith Seeking Freedom, this question is titled “Why do libertarians oppose prohibition, including the War on Drugs? Are you saying all drugs should be legal?”

There are two primary reasons why libertarians oppose prohibition laws. The first reason is that enforcement of such laws violate people’s property rights. The second is that these laws tend to do more harm than good and fail to address the root problem of substance abuse.

When laws are adopted that impose punishments on people for selling, possessing, or using drugs, the enforcement of these laws requires the use of violence to stop people from doing what they want with their own money and their own bodies. It is inappropriate to use violence to prevent a person from doing something merely because some third party believes that thing is harmful or immoral. Such rules are “simply human commands and teachings” (Col 2:22) and “have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-imposed piety, humility, and severe treatment of the body, but they are of no value in checking self-indulgence” (Col 2:23). Instead of this sort of legalism, Christians recognize that we are under a directive to exercise self-control. We are called to wisely abstain from things that, while within the realm of our possible choices, are not edifying, or even worse, may enslave us or cause another to stumble (1 Cor 6:12, 10:23).

Apart from this moral and philosophical analysis, there is also the question of whether prohibition works. It does not. In fact, drug prohibition tends to result in more concentrated, dangerous drugs, greater associated criminality, more overdoses, and less legal accountability for faulty or adulterated products. And the progress of both alcohol prohibition and the drug war have been accompanied by the abuse of civil liberties through expanded use of warrantless seizures, civil asset forfeiture, broader surveillance by police, and infringements on the right to keep and bear arms such as the National Firearms Act of 1934, the passage of which was made possible by rhetoric about prohibition-related gang violence.