But if we truly take Christ seriously, we *have* to part ways from the libertarians when they say “charity is optional.” Charity–uncomfortable, sacrificial charity–is essential to what Christ referenced when he said “Do this and you will live.”

Bryan Caplanoffers, in the question-answer format of a catechism, one of the most succinct summaries of true libertarian thinking (I’m not talking about the Tea Party here). He summarizes the thinking simply:

These common-sense ethics regarding strangers, ethics that almost everyone admits, are unequivocally libertarian. Yes, you have an obligation to leave strangers alone, but charity is optional.

The whole post is very much worth reading, as are the first ten or so comments (and probably more).

Now, I am highly sympathetic to libertarian thinking in most dimensions. If you forced me to categorize my political views, I’d label myself ‘pragmatic libertarian,’ a term I stole from economist Scott Sumner. But my political views take a back seat to my Christianity, and it’s important to acknowledge that Christianity is *not* a libertarian religion. Think about the One who said these words:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

And consider that in the story of the good Samaritan, Jesus emphasizes that we are obligated to love even those who hate us (and who we equally hate) if we are to live.

Would this Jesus have agreed with the following?

What are you morally forbidden to do to a stranger? You may not murder him. You may not attack him. You may not enslave him. Neither may you rob him.

What are you morally required to do for a stranger? Not much. Even if he seems hungry and asks you for food, you’re probably within your rights to refuse.

Now, part of the problem is that Caplan equates your obligations with another’s rights. It is entirely possible for you to be morally obligated to give generously, and yet if you fail in your obligation the beggar has no right to extract from you what your obligations says he is due.

I’ll also readily admit that there is an important distinction between being obligated to give generously and being obligated to give to a particular person. Similarly, just because you are morally obligated to give generously doesn’t mean it’s the duty of the state to extract such giving from you. There is a lot of room for compatibility between libertarianism and Christianity.

But if we truly take Christ seriously, we *have* to part ways from the libertarians when they say “charity is optional.” Charity–uncomfortable, sacrificial charity–is essential to what Christ referenced when he said “Do this and you will live.”

Libertarianism doesn’t show us our need of the gospel. Real Christianity does.

Norman Maynard is a PhD candidate in the Department of Economics at the University of Oklahoma. His areas of research include applied macroeconometrics, economic growth and development, and Bayesian econometrics. This article appeared at the blog The Institute and is used with permission. [Editor’s note: the original URL (link) referenced is no longer valid, so the link has been removed.]