Where Faith and Prudence Prevail

Libertarianism as a political philosophy essentially states that:
1.) Government is the organization of force,
2.) Force is bad, unless it’s intended for the protection of basic civil liberties,
3.) Therefore the government should be teeny tiny.

For as long as I’ve thought about politics, I’ve basically accepted that argument. “That which governs least governs best,” says Thoreau. I still accept that means of progress that do not incorporate force of neighbor should be preferred to all others.

In a fallen world, though, is that always possible? If a builder uses bad material, and threatens the safety of future tenants, is the threat of lawsuit or future lost sales sufficient to direct the builder toward doing the project correctly? The pure libertarian will say yes, as the market will eventually persuade -- not force – participants to the end of progress.

When can we safely say that it’s not worth it to learn lessons the hard way? Where does faith in our neighbor to act virtuously stop? And maybe more importantly, where does prudence – the realization that we live in a fallen world and that sometimes people don’t always act virtuously - start?

I think prudence starts the minute that it doesn’t cost us hope. I have a wife and a child, with a second on the way. I have full faith that God will provide for my family if I were to die. Still, a prudent person in my situation would get some life insurance. Does that cost me the hope of living beyond when I’ll need it? I don’t think it does. What if I broke the bank paying premiums attempting to get a $10 million death benefit? Well, at that point, I’d be hoping to die.

So I guess in a roundabout way, I shouldn’t ever have to choose between virtues, but they should always complement one another. As for the use of force? That question may have to remain unanswered for a bit longer, unless you have some thoughts…? But we’re on our way…