# Ask the Libertarian Objectivist Christian **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 21, 2000, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130 "2000-06-21T20:27:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130/41 "2000-06-22T16:35:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Kimstu said: > And picmr, my cynical take (not that anybody asked me, of course!) on the use of the word “objectivism” by Randians and neoRandians despite its epistemological inappropriateness is that it just sounded nicely “rational” and “scientific.” That’s what I thought too, but our **Libertarian** is no fool, so maybe there is a good reason for it. picmr ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130/42 "2000-06-22T16:57:19Z")
**Picmr** > [@](#): > > _I am confused by the use of the term “objectivism”. I personally think Rand was confused about this (having read what you have already had to say I know this won’t annoy you as such)._ I don’t think Rand was confused, per se, although she wiggled an awful lot. > [@](#): > > _In my profession (economics) libertarians tend to be radical subjectivists. That is personal choice is beyond value criticism in that only an individual can know their own preferences and that their subjective evaluation of the world is what counts (I’m thinking GS Shackle, FA von Hayek and J Buchanan here)._ The economic theory most compatible with libertarianism, in my opinion, is that of [the Austrian School](http://www.qjae.org/), particularly well articulated by [Ludwig von Mises](http://www.mises.org/) in his masterwork, [_ **Human Action** _](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0930073185/o/qid=961692061/sr=8-1/ref=aps_sr_b_1_3/103-3919617-8417452). Hayek, of course, was a student of Mises. That said, a society may be communist in a libertarian context, so long as all are volunteers, though implementation might be problematic. > [@](#): > > _Obviously you do not feel constrained by Rand’s dogma, but you hang on to the term. Why?_ Because of the philosophy’s metaphysic, objective reality. > [@](#): > > _In your system (sic), aren’t you saying that the individual’s subjective knowledge of god’s spirit/ essence/ plan is what’s important? Isn’t this the opposite of objective?_ Well, that’s putting the cart before the horse, otherwise known as a [wrong direction fallacy](http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/wrong.htm). What’s important, of course, is **God’s** perspective, or frame of reference. It behooves us to coincide ours with His. Ours is indeed subjective. But His is Absolutely Objective. Knowledge, per se, is irrelevant in matters of the Spirit. God cannot be “known” by the brain, but only by the heart. By the way, the word “system” makes me cringe a bit. Libertarianism is not a system, but a context in which any arbitrary system composed of volunteers can work. ---
**Author:** ![vanilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/f19dbf/32.png) [@vanilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vanilla)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130/43 "2000-06-22T16:59:16Z")
I oppose taking chocolate by force. But seriously, you said you oppose the Initiation of force. So what if force has already been started? Do you then agree to its use if you weren’t the one who “inititated” it? Are Libertarians pacifists? Can they be atheists? I will go check out a link to get more information and will be back with more questions. This is interesting. Can one be a libertarian and not know it? ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130/44 "2000-06-22T17:32:35Z")
Thanks, you have answered my question. Rather elegantly. Perhaps “philosophical schema” would have been better than “system” in my question. My question should then be directed to athiest Objectivists, who do not have recourse to your answer. (Note, not atheist libertarians in general) Mind you, from my point of view calling something “obective” based on invisible means of support is _really_ putting the cart before the horse. picmr ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130/45 "2000-06-22T17:51:49Z")
**Tymp** > [@](#): > > _When there is not a libertarian candidate available and you vote for the next best thing, do you find yourself supporting one non-libertarian political party more than another?_ I do not vote for the “next best thing”, nor do I support any particular political party, including the Libertarian Party. Statists and tyrants can and do rear their ugly heads from practically everywhere. > [@](#): > > _How can you be certain that, although you are voting for a candidate based on his merits as an individual thinker, you are not supporting the agenda of his political party that might be in conflict with your ideals?_ I cannot. That’s one of the reasons I don’t like majoritarianism. I prefer a monarchy, operating in a libertarian context, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130/46 "2000-06-22T18:02:15Z")
**Kimstu** > [@](#): > > - > > > [@](#): > > > > _vanila asked: “Whats a libertarian?” You answered: "A person who opposes the initiation of force or fraud. " I oppose the initiation of force or fraud, and yet I am not a libertarian. Congratulations. That makes you a living paradox. “Libertarians are, by definition, those who oppose the initiation of force.” — Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy by Joseph Knight._ > > Silly. I could compose a statement that said “SDMB members are, by definition, those who have purple feet.” If a Doper writes in to deny that he or she has purple feet, then maybe he or she is a “living paradox”—or maybe I just need a better definition.\* Let A be a libertarian. Let B be a person who opposes the initiation of force. Let A1 be a Doper. Let B1 be a person with purple feet. Libertarian asserts: A \<==\> B. Vanilla asserts: B =/=\> A. You assert: (A1 \<==\> B2) AND (Not(B1) ==\> A) I’m afraid there’s no analogy here. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130/47 "2000-06-22T18:15:40Z")
**Vanilla** > [@](#): > > _I oppose taking chocolate by force._ Unless, of course, it is yours and has been stolen. > [@](#): > > _But seriously, you said you oppose the Initiation of force. So what if force has already been started? Do you then agree to its use if you weren’t the one who “inititated” it?_ Yes. As Will Smith’s character said to the giant cockroach in _Men in Black_, “Don’t staht nuttin’, won’t _be_ nuttin’” > [@](#): > > _Are Libertarians pacifists?_ Some are. Some aren’t. See the excellent brief essay, [_ **Understanding the Libertarian Philosophy** _](http://www.libertarian.org/libphilo.html) where you’ll find this: * * * "Libertarians are, by definition, those who oppose the initiation of force. Some Libertarians are also pacifists. They decline the use of any force. Libertarianism is broad enough to encompass pacifists. All oppose the initiation of force. Some Libertarians are militant. They have no qualms about defensive and/or retaliatory force. Libertarianism is broad enough to encompass militants. The common factor is opposition to the initiation of force. Opposition to the initiation of force (the NON-COERCION PRINCIPLE) is the essence of the libertarian philosophy." * * * As you can see. **initiation** is a key term. > [@](#): > > _Can they be atheists?_ Yes. > [@](#): > > _I will go check out a link to get more information and will be back with more questions. This is interesting._ After Joseph Knight’s essay, you might take a look at [**Free-Market**](http://www.free-market.net) from which you can find thousands of articles, books, publications, essays, reports, and links. > [@](#): > > _Can one be a libertarian and not know it?_ Yes, of course, just as one can be a solipsist and not realize it until he stumbles across a definition of solipsism. ---
**Author:** ![Tymp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Tymp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tymp)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130/48 "2000-06-22T18:18:03Z")
Wow! You mean you’re really a Libertarian Objectivist Christian Monarchist? How many people are there who share with you this very specific social philosophy? I’m just wondering if there is a LOCM Movement and what their conventions are like. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130/49 "2000-06-22T18:19:38Z")
**Kimstu** _ **ERRATUM** _ You assert: (A1 \<==\> B2) AND (Not(B1) ==\> A) ought to have read You assert: (A1 \<==\> B1) AND (Not(B1) ==\> A) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130/50 "2000-06-22T18:23:43Z")
**Tymp** > [@](#): > > _You mean you’re really a Libertarian Objectivist Christian Monarchist? How many people are there who share with you this very specific social philosophy? I’m just wondering if there is a LOCM Movement and what their conventions are like._ Sometimes, our convention is in the same city with the Black Jewish Lesbian Republicans. You can imagine the chaos. But honestly, I am not a Monarchist in the sense that I am a Libertarian Objectivist Christian. I simply _prefer_ a monarchy over other government forms with some reluctance. ---
**Author:** ![Tymp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Tymp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tymp)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130/51 "2000-06-22T18:29:56Z")
My Dear Libertarian Objectivist Christian Monarchist, How would a ruling body be established in a libertarian monarchy? How would the authority of that monarch be maintained? You may safely consider my mind thoroughly boggled as I attempt to imagine this scenario. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130/52 "2000-06-22T18:47:27Z")
**Tymp** > [@](#): > > _How would a ruling body be established in a libertarian monarchy?_ _Ruling body?!_ How delightful! Libertarian governments do not “rule” in the sense that word might easily imply. They merely secure the rights of their citizens. > [@](#): > > _How would the authority of that monarch be maintained?_ The authority for _any_ legitimate government is derived solely from the consent of those it governs. If you have contracted with a libertairan government of any form to secure your rights, you may, upon completion of your contractual obligations, withdraw your consent. > [@](#): > > _You may safely consider my mind thoroughly boggled as I attempt to imagine this scenario._ I understand. Sometimes, a prerequisite to learning new things is to cast off a priori assumptions. Just because a governor is descended from some other governor does not necessarily imply that you must bow or scrape. In a libertarian monarchy, the king or queen is _your_ servant. Remember, any government form can operate in a libertarian context, so long as what it is doing is securing rights, that is, protecting its citizens from initiated force and fraud (heretofore to be called “coercion”). ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130/53 "2000-06-22T18:50:34Z")
**Libertarian** : > [@](#): > > Let A be a libertarian. Let B be a person who opposes the initiation of force. Let A1 be a Doper. Let B1 be aperson with purple feet. > > Libertarian asserts: A \<==\> B. > > Vanilla asserts: B =/=\> A. > > You assert: (A1 \<==\> B2) AND (Not(B1) ==\> A) > > I’m afraid there’s no analogy here. I think you’re wrong in the last conclusion (and I assume your “B2” is an error for “B1” and your last “A” is an error for “A1”). I do not make the second assertion you ascribe to me, I postulate someone else asserting that being a Doper does not necessarily imply having purple feet. In other words, I assert (A1 \<==\> B1) and the anonymous Doper asserts (A1 =/=\> B1). But here’s a better analogy: I state that “Kimstu-worshippers are, by definition, those who post to the SDMB.” Let K be a Kimstu-worshipper and D be a Doper: I have asserted that (K \<==\> D). Another SDMB poster might object that he or she is a Doper but doesn’t worship Kimstu: (D =/=\> K), making the analogy between your and **vanilla** ’s exchange exact. Now I can respond that it’s permissible to **define** “Kimstu-worshipper” by (K \<==\> D) and that most Dopers simply don’t realize that they’re Kimstu-worshippers because they haven’t seen the definition. But most Dopers will resist this line of argument because they suspect, very reasonably, that I would like to use this identification to deduce other characteristics as well, i.e., worshipping Kimstu (which most Dopers don’t, alas :)). Similarly, most people who oppose initiation of force are suspicious of the term “libertarian” because it also implies a lot of other positions that they don’t consider valid. In other words, it’s a **dirty rhetorical trick to pretend you have a claim to the support of people who are actually totally opposed to most of your conclusions** , and all libertarians should cut it out. (As should architects of the Kimstu cult, and so I hereby renounce my assertion that (K \<==\> D).) (Trying to intimidate people with unexplained typewriter versions of formal logic notation isn’t very nice either, but fortunately it doesn’t work that well on mathematicians.) Kimstu ---
**Author:** ![Spiritus\_Mundi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c68b51/32.png) [@Spiritus\_Mundi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiritus_Mundi)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130/54 "2000-06-22T18:52:43Z")
Ah, Lib. So refreshing to see that some things never change. > [@](#): > > Let A be a libertarian. Let B be a person who opposes the initiation of force. Let A1 be a Doper. Let B1 be a person with purple feet. > > Libertarian asserts: A \<==\> B. > > Vanilla asserts: B =/=\> A. > > You assert: (A1 \<==\> B2) AND (Not(B1) ==\> A) > > I’m afraid there’s no analogy here. In the interest of communication, let me propose the idea that Kimsu’s illustration of the arrogance of valuing definition over accuracy can easily be adjusted to “a person with purple feet who is not a Doper.” I am sure that once you have been informed of this startling breakthrough in logical conjecture you will be able to see the analogy and focus your response ont the principal rather than the particular choice of illustrative example. I am also sure that you will do so in a loving, Christian manner. ---
**Author:** ![Tymp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Tymp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tymp)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130/55 "2000-06-22T19:26:09Z")
Dear Libertarian Objectivist Christian Monarchist, All right, I can imagine a scenario wherein the people of a libertarian society would, in essence, hire a monarch who would work to protect and ensure the rights of the people. I’ve got that part down just fine. My problem comes in understanding how the good citizenry would prevent their leader’s authority from expanding beyond the original limitations of his contract. Would that libertarian society have any better luck in doing so than say a democratic society of roughly 270million people in the Western Hemisphere? Really, what keeps your monarch from declaring drug trafficking among individual citizens to be a threat to the assumed rights of the people, thus justifying the introduction of previously illegal searches and seizures of privately held property? Would this libertarian monarchy have any better luck in preventing such things than the United States has? Why? Why would a libertarian monarchy be any better than any other monarchy? What about libertarian democracy or theocracy would be better than their non-libertarian versions? What is it about libertarianism that makes a previously tried social structure suddenly straighten up and fly right? > [@](#): > > Sometimes, a prerequisite to learning new things is to cast off a priori assumptions. Thanks, Libertarian. I never would have realized this on my own, being brand new to this whole learning thing and all. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130/56 "2000-06-22T19:46:04Z")
**Kimstu** > [@](#): > > _But here’s a better analogy: I state that “Kimstu-worshippers are, by definition, those who post to the SDMB.” Let K be a Kimstu-worshipper and D be a Doper: I have asserted that (K \<==\> D). Another SDMB poster might object that he or she is a Doper but doesn’t worship Kimstu: (D =/=\> K), making the analogy between your and vanilla’s exchange exact._ Yes, now you have a properly analogous structure. Nevertheless, your argument is non causa pro causa, since a Kimstu worshipper is not, in fact, someone who posts to the SDMB, but rather, someone who worships Kimstu. But your red herring seems to be more concerned with what you perceive as audiatur et altera pars. Certainly, you may assert that you’ve made pigs fly by redefining “fly” to mean “wallow in mud”. Just don’t hide your definitions. > [@](#): > > _Trying to intimidate people with unexplained typewriter versions of formal logic notation isn’t very nice either, but fortunately it doesn’t work that well on mathematicians._ How delightfully loaded! Number one, I am trying to intimidate no one. Number two, the notation is neither formal nor cryptic. Number three, I have no recourse but to use my keyboard. And number four, as a mathematician, you are responsible to construct your own analogies. And even after all that, libertarianism, as defined by libertarians is what it is, isn’t it? You might not like a particular definition of the word “gay”, for example. But let us pray that you do not assail a peaceful honest a man who calls himself gay, proclaiming yourself as the Keeper of the Language, and screaming at him about his dirty rhetorical trick. **Spiritus** > [@](#): > > _So refreshing to see that some things never change._ Indeed. Good to hear from you again. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130/57 "2000-06-22T19:56:29Z")
**Tymp** > [@](#): > > _My problem comes in understanding how the good citizenry would prevent their leader’s authority from expanding beyond the original limitations of his contract. [et cetera]_ Mine, too. I know of nothing that can guarantee supression of tyranny other than the eternal vigilance of a citizenry. > [@](#): > > _Thanks, Libertarian. I never would have realized [that sometimes, a prerequisite to learning new things is to cast off a priori assumptions] on my own, being brand new to this whole learning thing and all._ I apologize for how my advice came across to you. Any implication of your weakness in that regard was unintentional. I am constantly reminding myself of the same advice I gave you, and I offered it with a friendly spirit. I do realize that some will come in here to nag me with red herrings, spite, and grudges, but I am doing this for the sake of those with sincere inquiries. It is worth it, in my opinion, to wade through a pasture full of cow manure to help someone who is calling to me. Again, I’m sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Tymp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Tymp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tymp)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130/58 "2000-06-22T20:22:01Z")
Oh, it’s all right, Libertarian. I’m pretty thick skinned. I’d like to point out, though, that not everyone who aggressively questions you is doing so out of spite. There are a lot of strong wills and personalities represented on this board. When they disagree and come to conflict, the fur just starts to fly quite naturally. I know you’re fully aware of this. I just thought I’d mention it in hopes that this delightful thread of yours does not collapse and fall victim to bitter resentment. Now I’d like to pursue my previous theme. In a completely free society, a man would be free to become a tyrant and rule by force in any society if devices for ensuring security were not established beforehand. A tyrant, bent on coercing the citizenry into doing his bidding, can only be stopped if the people abandon their libertarian ideals and force him to stop. Historically, almost all positions of leadership or power have become corrupted, compelling the people to take actions of violence and coercion, thus limiting each other’s rights. How can a libertarian society succeed and maintain its libertarian characteristics under any form of government or leadership? ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130/59 "2000-06-22T20:35:45Z")
> [@](#): > > And even after all that, libertarianism, as defined by libertarians is what it is, isn’t it? Lib, considering what took place a mere page ago concerning what Objectivism is and isn’t, the irony here is somewhat striking. If Objectivism as defined by Objectivists and, indeed, the founder of Objectivism, is in fact atheistic, doesn’t it behoove you to call yourself something else? (Note–I am not an Objectivist and don’t have a vested interest, just like to see people be consistent.) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2000, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130/60 "2000-06-22T20:39:29Z")
**Tymp** > [@](#): > > _In a completely free society, a man would be free to become a tyrant and rule by force in any society if devices for ensuring security were not established beforehand._ Actually, libertarianism defines freedom as the absence of coercion. [Note: for the benefit of curious by-standers, philosophy and other disciplines (including mathematics) _routinely_ define common words in a particular way. For example, force in common usage is a very broad term, but in physics it is mass times acceleration.] Therefore, a society cannot possibly be free, much less _completely_ free if there exists a tyrant who rules by coercion. > [@](#): > > _A tyrant, bent on coercing the citizenry into doing his bidding, can only be stopped if the people abandon their libertarian ideals and force him to stop._ As you’ve seen in Knight’s essay, defensive and retaliatory force are not coercive; they are _responses_ to initial force. Libertarians are not necessarily (though they can be) pacifists. Libertarians do not oppose force. We oppose the _initiation_ of force. > [@](#): > > _Historically, almost all positions of leadership or power have become corrupted, compelling the people to take actions of violence and coercion, thus limiting each other’s rights._ Actually, defensive and retaliatory force secure, not limit, rights. Nevertheless, your point is taken. I am fond of quoting Franz Kafka on this matter: “Every revolution evaporates, and leaves behind the slime of a new bureaucracy.” > [@](#): > > _How can a libertarian society succeed and maintain its libertarian characteristics under any form of government or leadership?_ Who can say? An armed and vigilant populace might help. But I do not embrace libertarianism based on how I think it might go over in the New Hampshire polls, or how it might work with Janet Waco as the queen. I embrace libertarianism because I love its noncoercion ethic, and because I love the notion of leaving peaceful honest people free to pursue their own happiness in their own way. I frankly never expect to see a libertarian government. At least, not until I fully see God’s kingdom. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ask-the-libertarian-objectivist-christian/23130.md?page=4)