American Rule of Law Must be Based in Biblical Morality.
Legalization of societal poison does not equal liberty.
When the founders established this new republican government, they knew that they had to strike a balance between anarchy and totalitarianism. The did this by establishing what is referred to as people’s law, which falls half way between no government and an authoritarian government. I was a registered libertarian for several years because I like the idea of a government that was hands off, and left people alone. That didn’t last very long as I realized why we have laws against victimless crimes, as the libertarian wing likes to call them. I used to support legalization of drugs, prostitution, and the like, because I viewed them as financial transactions that should be free from government meddling. The realization that I came to as I attended a university in pursuit of a degree in criminal justice, was that these laws against certain immoral acts, had positive societal effects when it comes to communities as a whole. Our laws in America are based in Judeo-Christian principles regarding what is considered moral behavior. That being said, immoral things are not always illegal and sometimes gross violations of moral code are completely legal. Where do we draw the line. How do we maintain individual liberty while preventing incremental destruction of morality, eventually leading to a breakdown of society.
This also makes sense from a spiritual standpoint as allowing demonic forces to operate without resistance makes it much easier to the enemy to establish a stronghold. Whether it is sexual sin, gambling, drugs, each of these worldly desires of the flesh destroy not only the individual, but the family and friends of that individual. There is a ripple effect that exists and each person to fall prey to one of these temptations, creates another sinful ripple. Cumulatively this creates a societal earthquake and the result is, friendships ending, broken families, single parents, children with no supervision, increase in cases of mental illness, etc.
Obviously, implementation and enforcement of law does not make evil disappear. It merely creates a worldly consequence that raises the stakes for a person that looks to act in a immoral act. The Bible teaches free will, and recognizes that without free will faith is meaningless because following Jesus must be a choice. But you encourage the spread of sinful behavior if you allow it to occur without punishment. Morality is the basis for law and the standard for morality is God. Without God as the universal standard for morality, you must conclude that morality is subjective and is open to interpretation. This godless ideology has historically given merciless dictators the justification to kill millions as they enforce their own brand of morality.
I mentioned prostitution and drug use as offenses advocated for by libertarians, while arguing that there are no victims in this “financial transaction” between two consenting adults. There are plenty of victims that suffer as a result of prostitution. The women that sell themselves to men have been known to suffer from PTSD as a result of their work in the sex industry. Arguments have also been made, that legalization of prostitution could allow for an expansion of human trafficking. Those that advocate for gender equality argue that this encourages discrimination and physical violence against women by men. All of these are valid concerns and I think that this illustrates why the issue here is not as simple as legal or illegal. There are societal nuances here that must not be ignored. This is not a binary issue.
The other libertarian argument that I mentioned was the war on drugs and the illegality of so many substances in the name of public safety. Let me clarify, I agree that federal drug laws are 100% unconstitutional, as there is no authority given to congress Article I to ban anything. However, I do think that this should be left to the respective states. If a state wants to use its authority to make law that adversely affects their citizens, then that is their prerogative. State elections should then reflect the feelings that the people have about that brand of poor governance, and bring change. In January 2006 the National Drug Intelligence Center, stated in their National Drug Threat Assessment, that “In 2002, the economic cost of drug abuse to the United States was $180.9 Billion.” This report sheds some light on the effects that drug use has on a drug user’s family and friends. This threat assessment to say, “Children of individuals that use drugs often are abused or neglected as a result of individuals’ preoccupation with drugs. National-level studies have shown that parents who abuse drugs often put their need to obtain and abuse drugs before the health and welfare of their children.”
In conclusion, laws against sex work and the distribution/use of drugs are crucial to public safety. These so called, “victimless crimes” lead to subsequent societal consequences, destroying families and future generations. We must use the creation of law to prevent the enemy from gaining too much ground. We must use biblical principles and Judeo-Christian principles to do that. A little side note to the lefties who are going to scream, “separation of church and state”, you are ignorant and uneducated. That is a talking point of a Jefferson quote taken out of context in a private letter to the Danbury Baptists, that was referencing a concern of Jefferson’s, of the danger involved in the government interfering in matters of faith inside the church. This role of law in society is an important one and we have to remember that morality according to God is necessary to maintain the America that our founders envisioned. As James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, “If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and the next place, oblige it to control itself.”