Subscribe now

It may sound odd that we would speak about human rights in terms of property rights. Isn’t the argument against slavery, for example, that human beings are not property? We completely agree that slavery—owning another human—is both a sin and a rights violation. However, the reason why this is the case is because each individual already owns themself, and therefore no one else has a legitimate claim to own them. We call this self-ownership. You are your own property.

We then come to own things outside of ourselves through the just acquisition of ownership of scarce resources. This is an extension of our self-ownership. Humans have been called by God to “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28; 9:1; 9:7; 35:11; Jer 23:3). Though the immediate sense of these verses are most obviously about human procreation, we also fulfill this call through our own creative work. Biblical theologian, Dr. Meredith G. Kline in Kingdom Prologue notes,

“The procreation mandate was accompanied by the command to work. [Humankind] must labor to secure from [their] environment its life supporting stores for [the] multiplying race... [Humans were] to subdue the earth and rule its creatures. Human labor was to be an exercise of [humanity’s] dominion and a march of royal conquest.... Appropriation of earth’s riches for the cultivation of [humankind] was to be achieved through [humans’] cultivation of the earth.”

We acquire things found in nature and mix them with our labor to create new things. This very concept, articulated by libertarian philosophers and Austrian economists, is illustrated for us in Deuteronomy 8:10–18. This passage references the wealth God gave his people as land, food, homes they build, and herds and flocks. It references part of that wealth is the multiplying of these things, the fact that human action has played a role in the production of these things, and that God is responsible for giving us the ability to produce it all. Add to this the prohibition in the 10 Commandments not to steal and murder, and we can see that we have a God-given right to our property, including that of ourselves.

These new things are our property by virtue of our own self-ownership. And as Matthew 20:15 and Acts 5:4 point out, it is lawful for us to do what we want with our own property, including selling and buying. So the foundations of human rights are very clearly indicated by what God gives us: our life, our ability to produce, the products of our labor, and the multiplicity of those things. We are stewards of these things in our relation to God, but owners of these things in relation to others.

So no one can claim to own you, nor lawfully sell you. Who owns you? Well, you do! And no one may make claims against the products of your labor; those are rightfully given to you by God because you produced them. The ultimate human right and the ultimate property right are one in the same: self-ownership.

Subscribe now

Christians believe that all things are ultimately owned by God in Christ (Col 1:15–17). Humans, as image bearers of God, are given stewardship over themselves and their property. By property, we specifically mean the resources that a person owns in exclusion to others. Good stewardship not only involves fulfilling our responsibility to God, but also respecting the property rights of our fellow humans.

Human rights are foundational in a libertarian society due to their normativity. In the words of Frederic Bastiat, “[rights] do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that [rights] existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” But how do we identify or articulate them? This has been the problem philosophers have faced for centuries, even back to ancient times. Property rights, however, are a useful way to clearly identify human rights. Christians may claim property rights (in their person and of their things) vis-à-vis Christ’s teaching in Matthew 20 (see especially verse 15) and Luke’s reference in Acts 5:4.

In fact, property rights are so useful that Murray Rothbard said they’re axiomatic; that is, self-evidently true. Christians can agree stating this is a God-given norm through creation, which is why they are self-evident. Because property rights are evidenced by nature, human beings (whether believers or not) may operate on the same rules, and we don’t need to teach every individual a contrived political-economic theory.

Property rights are useful because everyone recognizes them regardless of their personal political proclivities. Even socialists believe in property rights; they simply believe the government has the right to a given property. So libertarians operate from a principle of property rights because they are universally understood and self-evident. And Christians may operate from this same principle because it’s supported by scripture.

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.

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

Violations of the NAP constitute crimes. More precisely, they are rights violations. The proper role of civil governance is to administer justice when rights violations occur. Libertarians know these violations are just a fact of life. Christians know these violations occur as a result of the sinful nature of man. So what do we do when these violations occur?

Holding people accountable for rights violations is in many ways not too different from the system we have. The problem with the current system is its propensity to corruption, malfeasance, and an inability of the state to be impartial in its own case. But many of the principles we’re already familiar with, such as presumption of innocence, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and a fair and speedy trial, would still be present in a libertarian system. The punitive system would likely differ; restitution for rights violations would be preferable to prison sentences in many cases. Things such as mandatory minimums, solitary confinement, and special interests jockeying for preferential treatment from the state, wouldn’t likely exist.

A libertarian minarchist society would be a decentralized version of what we have now, while a libertarian anarchist society would be some polycentric iteration which employs these principles. The colloquial use of the term “anarchy” implies a sense of chaos and lawlessness, and Christians are indeed morally obligated to reject chaos and lawlessness. However, this common usage isn’t accurate. The etymology of the term simply means without rulers. The colloquial use implies that, without rulers we would have chaos and lawlessness.

Libertarian anarchists don’t agree. Rather, they hold that chaos and lawlessness is produced through a monopoly on civil governance, since the state’s very existence depends on violations of the NAP, namely theft (through taxation) and violence (through a monopoly use of legal force). In either a libertarian minarchist or anarchist society violations of the NAP can be handled in a just manner.

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

The NAP is premised on the idea that people have individual rights, including the right to their own bodies and the right to their physical property. As Christians, we believe that God made man in his image. Living peaceably with other people (Rom 12:18; Mark 9:50) and treating them as we want to be treated is a thoroughly Christian idea that is specifically and repeatedly commanded in the Bible (Luke 6:31, Gal 5:14).

Refraining from murder (Gen 4:10–11), kidnapping (Exod 21:16), assault (Exod 21:18), theft (Matt 19:18), fraud (Prov 20:23), and other offenses against others is, of course, all in accord with the counsel of scripture. The legal principles set out by God for Israel included detailed protection for property rights and prescriptions for legal remedies (e.g., Exod 22:1–9).

Christians are called to be respectful to everyone, including those who temporarily occupy positions of social authority (1 Pet 2:17). But we should not be swayed by popularity and worldly rank when we are analyzing questions of right and wrong (Rom 2:11–12). A Christian theory of justice must apply equally to all people, including elected officials and people employed by government bureaucracies (see Question 35).

The NAP is not a comprehensive guide to righteous living. It is merely a principle of justice—a rule about when force may be employed as a solution. Its answer is clear: violence is justified only in response to aggression against people and their property.

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

A libertarian is a person who opposes aggression against peaceful people. Aggression is defined as the initiation of physical force, coercion, or fraud against person or property, including credible threats thereof. The central, defining tenet of libertarianism is often referred to as the “non-aggression principle” (NAP). According to the NAP, actions such as murder, assault, rape, theft, kidnapping, slavery, or the like all constitute aggression, and are never justified.

Libertarians desire peaceful, voluntary cooperation with others. Libertarians categorically reject actions that violate the rights of others to their own lives, liberty, and property. A right is a legitimate, enforceable claim upon one’s person or property. Libertarians believe that peace is both ethically preferable to violence and better for making society prosperous. However, the NAP differs from radical pacifism in an important way: it allows for the use of proportional force in retaliation against an aggressor (a person who violates the rights of another person). NAP also differs from the Harm Principle (see Question 174)in that the focus is on the action initiated, rather than the harm caused.

Libertarians do not believe in using physical force to prevent people from indulging in vices or to punish them for their bad habits. This is because libertarians do not believe the use of force is justified when a person’s action does not violate the rights of others. Most libertarians still regard harmful vices as wasteful, undesirable, and even immoral. Libertarian Christians generally maintain the traditional, biblical view on being wise and fleeing from sinful indulgence (2 Timothy 2:22). We deny that force and compulsion are the best means for addressing such sinful behavior and its earthly and eternal consequences.