Comments on: A Christian libertarian examination of blackmail

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:05:24 +0000

I’ve been imposing upon Jeremy Pierce(Parableman) about this question, trying to get a handle on it.
You say
“At the root of Christian libertarianism is the biblical conviction that God grants men the freedom (never the permission) to sin.”
but what is the God-given responsibility of government in Christian Libertarianism? It seems that the philosophy is ignoring the injunctions to authority and the example given in the Mosaic Law that God has a purpose for government as well as granting men freedom of choice. There is balance in the system.
Is it not out of balance to suggest that only a personal religious conviction should govern men?
Is the Christian answer to the “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” a collective sigh of relief that “nothing” is owed?
I think some of the idea “it does mean that as a default rule, the responsiblity in addressing sin should lie with the church and community, not the state. This seems to be not only a biblical approach, but also one that maximizes spiritual growth.” is unrealistic and naive. Candide, indeed.
what about our present situation where Church is increasingly resented, targeted for lawsuits, and communities are held subject to a vociferous protest outside themselves and their consituents?
ajmac’s point is well-taken, I think ( but I,too, am unfamiliar with “Christian Libertariianism”)

By: Parableman

Parableman — Mon, 21 Mar 2005 17:05:44 +0000

Christian Carnival LXI

The 61st Christian Carnival is at ChristWeb. My contribution is The Moral Value of Meanings of Words. I’ve already discussed the posts at Evangelical Outpost and In the Agora on whether libertarians should oppose laws against blackmail. I’ve also comme…

By: Joel Thomas

Joel Thomas — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:05:39 +0000

Actually, blackmail often works against those who haven’t done anything wrong just because the “victim” can’t afford to have reputation hurt or business lost.
Many frivolous lawsuits are a form of legalized blackmail, which is why I support some manner of tort reform.

By: Osama_Been_Forgotten

Osama_Been_Forgotten — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 19:01:43 +0000

blackmail only works against those who are ashamed of what they did.

By: Parableman

Parableman — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:33:39 +0000

Libertarians and Blackmail

Joe Carter and Josh Claybourn are discussing whether a political libertarian should seek to remove laws against blackmail. The arguments are fairly straightforward, but I think both are fallacious. First is what you might call the combinatorial argumen…

By: ajmac

ajmac — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:16:10 +0000

I admit that I have never before encountered the notion of “Christian libertarianism.” Seems like an internally-conflicted theory.
For example, you offer victims’ “rights” and harm to the victim as alternate justifications for anti-blackmail laws. Which is it? Does the victim have rights, which must, by definition, be derived from a pre-existing moral and legal order, or is it merely the felicific calculus that counts?

By: Joel Thomas

Joel Thomas — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:14:40 +0000

Even if there is a philosophical argument that blackmail is victimless, I think one would see a deterioration in society at large if it were legal. Does it have to be proved that any one specific individual would be harmed or would it be enough to prove that if blackmail is legal the community partially but significantly disintegrates?
This allows me to also share one of my complaints that some conservative evangelicals emphasize personal holiness almost alone over social holiness and that far too many Christian progressives emphasize only social holiness.

By: Ex Nihilo

Ex Nihilo — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:50:51 +0000

Libertarian Politics and Biblical Blackmail

Joe Carter, erstwhile champion of moderately intrusive moral states, has used his pictures of the now-infamous Christian libertarian Cancun chicken wrangling fiasco to blackmail Vox Day, Josh Clayborn, and myself into proffering a moral and political d…

By: Joshua Claybourn

Joshua Claybourn — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:52:06 +0000

Well clearly from my post I don’t think blackmail is victimless either, but I don’t think it’s as clear as you let on. Block makes an interesting argument that it isn’t.

By: Nick B.

Nick B. — Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:48:56 +0000

Blackmail is a crime because it is merely a non-physical form of coercion. It is still coercion.

Just as threatening to beat up someone IF they don't do as you say is wrong, so to is threating them emotional or social loss. Note that this can go too far, of course -- Is "forcing someone to work for their food" blackmail? No. The essential difference has to do with motivation and mutual exchange.

The blackmailer gives nothing in return which is his to give.

The employer is giving up that which is his right to give up in return for the labors and results thereof of the employee.

It is not the dissemination which is the crime, it's the threat.

Victimless? Don't be ridiculous. The one being coerced is a clear victim.

They may (or may not have) done something wrong (not all exposure is for something wrong, but for things "socially unacceptable"), but that is between them and God (and perhaps a matter for the State to deal with under its limited protection-of-others power).

For example: Was it wrong to be a Jew in Nazi Germany? It was certainly something one might be blackmailed for. It doesn't really even have to be something a rational society would agree is wrong.

Joel's comments above also offer an example of how lack-of-blackmail laws might impinge on innocent individuals.