I'm not a libertarian. I'm a Christian. I agree though with not using coercion, which most libertarians agree with, with the exception that many of them wrongly believe that there is a place for government coercion (violence; hypocritical) when it comes to protecting capitalism and so-called private property even in many cases against voluntary socialism, which real Christianity fulfills and more.
Libertarians aren't for much in the way of taxes. Real Christians aren't for taxes at all. Taxes are coerced.
Libertarians are for free trade and making money. Real Christians aren't for any medium of exchange (money), because we're for giving and sharing all with each other and for giving our all to serving each other. We aren't for trading. That's holding out for recompense. We're for giving and being gracious receivers.
The anarchists are closer to real Christianity. They aren't for government coercion on any level. However, anarchism isn't for unselfishness and harmlessness in all things whereas real Christianity is.
The following is from a libertarian perspective:
From the Heartland to the Border
Daily Article by Jim Fedako | Posted on 6/11/2008
Boquillas is a small village just south of the Big Bend in the Rio. This village used to be the home of 200 people who made a living trading with park visitors. Just a handful of years ago, the border in this area was relatively open, and park visitors and village residents could cross at will. That all changed with 9-11 and the fear subsidized by government and prodded by politicians. Now, it is illegal to cross the border. But the traders to the south still venture across the knee-high waters in order to sell their wares: walking sticks, painted rocks, etc.
The park newsletter notes that items purchased from these Mexicans are considered contraband and will be confiscated by officers. In addition, US citizens who cross the Rio and attempt to reenter the US are liable for a "fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment for up to one year or both."
With a stroke of the pen, the United States criminalized free trade, and Boquillas is now a dying village. Are we safer? Absolutely not. Criminalizing activities does nothing more than create criminals on both sides of the border.
The "illegals" we encountered were very friendly, just business folks looking to put food on the table. Regardless, someone under threat of government will react differently than the storekeeper in some situations. In the end, it is the park visitor who likely ends up the criminal, simply by crossing a river to make an exchange that benefits both parties, and harms neither.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)