The following is a response to this comment here, which reads in part:
OK, well, first, God established the first constitutional republic. Remember, this is the first govt. form the Israelites had after leaving Egypt and before the Israelites demanded a King (they were not 'punished,' they demanded it).
I think we find some 'push-back' from 'Libertarians' on this issue because it DOES open the door to some social control of moral issues. It is necessary to maintaining social order and is the primary area where I believe the Libertarian and 'American conservative' differ.
I believe the Constitution was the best possible compromise possible (still is), we just stopped following it.
I've always thought I understood libertarianism pretty well. case in point: the ideology tends toward pacifism to the point of suicide. Remember, there were AF's who didn't want to fight the Revolution …
Also, anarchy is the very definition of chaos, so I would offer a word of caution here
They Have Forsaken Me
In response to the Israelites demand for a king, the Lord declared "they have forsaken me, and served other gods," and went on to enumerate the horrible "manner of the king that shall reign over" them. If that isn't a list of punishments, there's no such thing. The Lord confirmed this, saying, "And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day."
When Satan tempted Christ in the desert, he "sheweth Him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto Him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me." Did Jesus laugh at Satan's inability to deliver? Did Jesus mock Satan for "tempting" Him with kingdoms that actually belonged to God? No and no. In fact, it would've been no temptation at all if Satan couldn't deliver. So what does that tell you about to whom those kingdoms belonged?
Bethlehem … Herod the king felt threatened by the birth of this "King of the Jews," so "he sent forth and put to death all the male children who were in Bethlehem and in all its districts, from two years old and under." If Joseph and Mary had not escaped as fugitives - in defiance of the state - the baby Jesus would have been slaughtered. But of course, it was the state that eventually crucified Him.
As far as the Constitution is concerned, it is not Holy Writ. It is a secular document that creates a secular institution.
The state, as Franz Oppenheimer defined it, is "that summation of privileges and dominating positions which are brought into being by extra economic power." But as Murray Rothbard noted, "above all, the crucial monopoly is the State's control of the use of violence."
While it may be possible for local governing authorities (see Nock, or Burke's "little platoons") to exist without unnecessary violence, the state cannot. Because the very essence of the state is force, and its only tools are violence, the threat thereof, and outright theft. In other words, the state's very existence relies on anti-Christian (and anti-social) principles.
The world doesn't revolve around foreign policy. The non-aggression axiom applies to everything. Think for a moment, did Jesus exact violence upon the prostitute? What about the state?
Agents of the state must be held to the exact moral standards as individuals. If it is immoral for me to visit armed violence upon my pot-smoking neighbor in order to kidnap him and lock him in a cage, it is also immoral for the state to do it. If it is immoral for me to steal my neighbors bread, even for "noble" means, it is also immoral for the state to do it. There are no exceptions. No moral relativism. The ends do not justify the means. The means must be justifiable on their own.
As far as pacifism is concerned … While there may be libertarian pacifists, the non-aggression axiom does not rule out the use of force altogether. For example, libertarians are the boldest advocates in America of the right to bear arms - for self-defense. That's hardly a pacifist position.
Thomas Hobbes was wrong. Man in a state of nature is not "solitary, poor, nasty, [and] brutish." Nor does the state save us from a war of "all against all." If you ask me, Hobbes' bizarre notions are anti-Christian indeed. "Liberty," as Pierre-Joseph Proudhon correctly observed, "is the mother, not the daughter, of order." See David Theroux's thoughtful 3-part analysis here: C. S. Lewis on Mere Liberty and the Evils of Statism.
Coercion, on the other hand, is chaos. Toddlers being routinely molested at airports (by the state) is chaos. I can tell you this much, my mother has never been threatened by a Muslim, but she was sexually abused by the TSA. So if you ask me, the bipartisan regime occupying Washington, DC is the "greatest threat this nation has ever faced."
Nothing is more chaotic than the state with it's arbitrarily decreed rules, Rube Goldberg bureaucracies ("the stream–lined men who think in slogans and talk in bullets" in the words of Orwell), and bizarre interpretations of the plain language of the Constitution that affirm Nock's assessment that "anything may be made to mean anything." The system is so chaotic that the average American commits 3 felonies per day.
For another example, how about the economic crises taking place all over the globe? What do they have in common? A central bank and fiat money printed out of thin air!
As conservative stalwart Joseph Sobran put it:
[I]t's the state that is truly chaotic, because it means the rule of the strong and cunning. They imagine that anarchy would naturally terminate in the rule of thugs. But mere thugs can't assert a plausible right to rule. Only the state, with its propaganda apparatus, can do that. This is what legitimacy means. Anarchists obviously need a more seductive label.
"But what would you replace the state with?" The question reveals an inability to imagine human society without the state. Yet it would seem that an institution that can take 200,000,000 lives within a century hardly needs to be "replaced."
Anarchy is not a system. Anarchy is an ethical position which finds the state (again, see Nock (or even Obama for that matter) for the correct definition) both unnecessary and harmful. "We must obey God as ruler rather than men."
The idea that the state is good, or even necessary, belongs to the same secular faith that leads people to believe that the state (and/or science) can right the worlds wrongs while voluntarily restraining itself.
That "we just stopped following" the Constitution, and that the federal government is hopelessly corrupt, should surprise no one. Power is a dangerous drug that should be kept out of the hands of fallible men. Men are not angels. Especially when given power.