St. Patrick: Christian Libertarian

March 17 is known as "St. Patrick's Day." Like most other once-religious holidays, most Americans -- atheists in practice -- know nothing of its Christian significance. Most Americans -- imperialists in practice -- know nothing of its libertarian significance.

Saint Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland, was born in Roman Britain about AD 385, originally called Maewyn. He died on March 17 in AD 461. During these years, Christians were replacing the collapsing Roman Empire with what we today call "Western Civilization."

If you were to be transported in time back to St. Patrick's day, and had your choice, how would you choose to live:

• under the direct sway of the Roman Empire;
• under the direct sway of unconverted Irish;
• under the direct sway of a Christian monastery

"Choice," of course, was not something most people enjoyed in those days.

• Rome was an "empire" because it was imperialist, conquering people and subjugating them.
• At the age of 16, St. Patrick was sold into slavery by a group of Irish marauders that raided his British village.
• And the daily schedule of monastic work and prayer would hardly suit the do-as-I-please-whenever-I-want mentality of most Americans.

But hard work is what raises our standard of living, and prayer and faith transform slave-traders into monks.

I was going to say "businessmen" instead of "monks," but that word has negative connotations for too many Americans. Too many people feel that businessmen don't make a valuable contribution to our way of life; that they're "greedy" and fundamentally unethical. But medieval Irish monks were businessmen, inventors, farmers, scientists, and educators, as Thomas Cahill has documented in his book, How the Irish Saved Civilization. And the other alternatives -- the slave-traders of Imperial Rome or the slave-traders of pagan Ireland -- represent the antithesis of Christian Civilization.

Libertarian historian Thomas Woods has written a wonderful book that has an appeal well beyond its sectarian title: How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.



Woods understands the distinction drawn by Franz Oppenheimer in his book The State: Its History and Development Viewed Sociologically . Oppenheimer distinguishes between "Economic Man" and "Political Man."

"Economic Man," like the Irish monks, takes natural resources and transforms them into something more useful to human beings, and under a division of labor, trades most or all of what he produces for the fruit of the labor of others. Both producers in such a voluntary trade are better off than they were before the trade.

"Political Man," on the other hand, uses force to seize the wealth produced by "Economic Man." This was the operating ideology of Imperial Rome and pagan Ireland.

St. Patrick, and Christians who followed him, laid the libertarian foundations of Western Civilization, raising Biblical family morality out of debauched pagan sexuality, and creating "Liberty Under God" by denying that the State is god.

So drink some green beer if that's your choosing, but honor St. Patrick by making sure that you're "Economic Man" rather than "Political Man."

North Korea

Consider this video:

glumbert.com - Escape from North Korea

Which of the following is the Christian character:

(a) "Yes, I work for the government arresting those who try to escape, but I need to feed my family. The Bible says if you don't take care of your family you're worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5:8). Government is ordained by God (Romans 13). I'm just doing my job."

(b) "I have the right to bear arms. I don't care if those commmies kill me. Better dead than Red. And I'll take as many as I can with me."

(c) "If I turned down all government contracts and subsidies, my business would go under. The Bible says if you don't take care of your family you're worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5:8). Government is ordained by God (Romans 13). I'm just doing my job."

(d) "Yes, I know it's illegal to give them food. I'll keep helping them until the government executes me."

(e) Add your suggestion for "e" as a comment.

MEK

During every campaign, I am asked by various organizations if I support them, and they inform their constituencies of my position. Last year I was contacted by MEK, Mujahideen al-Khalq, an organization that opposes the current regime in Iran. They had been listed as a "terrorist" organization by the State Department, but a number of Congressmen, including Tom Tancredo, disputed this designation and supported MEK. The MEK has provided the United States with "valuable intelligence information on Iran," and has rejected Islamic fundamentalism.

A publication that reports on Congress, The Hill, has commented on support for MEK among some in Congress.

More recently, William Grigg has described MEK as "a bizarre terrorist cult whose official ideology is a fusion of Marxism and Sufism,' noting that "The Warmakers in and around the Bush Regime have embraced the MEK as an ally in the low-intensity war underway between Washington and Tehran."

Sam Adams and George Washington would have been called "terrorists" in 1776 if the word had been fashionable in Britain, so State Department denunciations will not seal my opposition to any group. In fact, the opposite is more likely true, and any organization which can be described as an "ally" in any of Washington D.C.'s many unconstitutional "low-intensity wars" has my suspicion, if not my condemnation.

I won't "oppose" any group that opposes the current Iranian regime, but as a candidate for Congress, I will not "support" any group that does not support the endangered Libertarian party pledge:

I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.

It appears that MEK repudiates this commitment.