One of the calumnies of those espousing an ever-expanding view of the state in determining social outcomes against those who would prescribe any limitations on what the government could do is that it is pure “selfishness.”  Indeed, it is alleged that opponents of a larger state believe in a “rugged individualism” where, as President Obama has claimed, “you’re on your own.”

Why is this a slander?  Because it is patently untrue for almost everyone that wants a smaller state.  Most libertarians, and certainly all Christians, are in favor of robust civil institutions to address society’s ills, and to simply live life.  Man is a social animal, and we generally enjoy each other’s company and love to do things together.  And many of the problems we face are best addressed collectively as they are usually too large for any of us to individually handle.  Many of our social institutions have evolved precisely to address problems that individuals could not.  For example, Lion’s Clubs and Elks clubs originally began to support charitable goals.  Our houses of worship, our private schools, our social clubs, our PTAs, etc., etc. are all part of a vibrant social order where problems are addressed collectively but voluntarily.  And did I mention the free market?  For those wanting a smaller government, this in no way means they want smaller collective action.  Rather the concern is they want more voluntary social action as contrasted with more forced coercive social action.

For Libertarians (as well as many conservatives), voluntary social action is the essence of freedom, which libertarians value intrinsically.  For Christians, voluntary social action allows the body of Christ to function effectively and to bring glory to God.  Christians understand that man is created not only with a dichotomous nature of Imago Dei yet fallen, but we are also created both as individuals but also part of broader social groups (beginning from birth in a family).  We therefore celebrate God’s marvelous plans for social action.  Yet forced social action seems antithetical to God’s purposes.  For example, forced “compassion” accomplishes nothing in God’s economy; for God loves a cheerful giver (2 Cor 9:7).    Beyond this, most Libertarians (and other small state proponents) will point out the numerous failures of government to actually accomplish its social action goals.

Thus the real debate is not over individualism vs. collectivism, rather it is forced social action vs. voluntary social action.  The state is a prime example of forced social action whereas the market is a prime example of voluntary social action.

So don’t buy the lie that there is anyone promoting a “rugged individualism” that wants to eliminate all social concern and action.  But there is a huge contest ongoing on how we will address issues and problems collectively.  Will it be voluntarily or coercively?  And, does God have a preference?