User:ClauLeo/sandbox: Difference between revisions

The most prominent difference between Rothbard's brand of [[Austro-libertarianism]] — as espoused in his book, ''The Ethics of Liberty''<ref>{{Harvnb |Rothbard|1982|}}.</ref> — and libertarian Christianity revolves around his rejection of the [[social contract]] theory of government. Libertarian Christians have Bible-based concepts of natural law and the social contract. In contrast, Rothbard believes in natural law, but he does not believe in any viable social contract theory.<ref>See {{Harvnb |Rothbard|1982|}}, pp. 5-26 (re: natural law) and pp. 147, 232 (re: social contract).</ref> In John Locke's ''Second Treatise on Civil Government'',<ref>{{Harvnb |Locke|1690|}}.</ref> Locke speaks of people surrendering natural rights in the process of entering a social contract, or more specifically, trading rights for the benefits of participation in the social contract. He indicates that this is a voluntary and consensual process. But Locke fails to show how, once the social contract is established, the offspring of the original contract-makers volunteer into the contract, and thereby perpetuate the consensual nature of the original contract. This is the first of two major problems that Rothbard sees in the social contract. Rothbard recognizes this flaw not only in Locke's philosophy, but also in the organic documents of the United States. The second problem arises by way of Rothbard's commitment to a strict "title-transfer" theory of contracts.<ref>See {{Harvnb |Rothbard|1982|}}, Chapter 19, "Property Rights and the Theory of Contracts".</ref> Because of these two problems, Rothbard rejects the social contract theory of government entirely. — Rather than rejecting the social contract because of these two problems, libertarian Christians use biblical exegesis to discover non-[[statist]] solutions to them. To solve the first problem, libertarian Christianity shows how offspring of the original contract-makers either enter the contract voluntarily and consensually, or do not enter it at all (thereby removing themselves from the social contract's jurisdiction).<ref>{{Harvnb |Porter, III|2019|}}, Part II, Chapter 8, Sub-Chapter 7, section (ii), "Social Compact", pp. 337-343; {{Harvnb |Porter, III|2006|}}, "Article I, Section 8, Clause 4".</ref> To solve the second problem, libertarian Christians hold to a "property-interest" theory of contracts that allows for the alienation of interests in labor and actions.<ref>{{Harvnb |Porter, III|2008|}}.</ref> Because Rothbard appears to embrace a [[metaphysical libertarian]] definition of the human will, libertarian Christians generally eschew his belief that the will is utterly inalienable. Nevertheless, they find an extremely important place for his title-transfer theory of contracts in the secular arena, but not as a negation of the social contract. In their view, Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism is inherently dysfunctional without a social contract that is understood to have a perpetual existence.

 

 

== Other ramifications ==