Theocrat Gary North: No ally of mine.

Reading Gary North’s articles at lewrockwell.com, it’s easy to think he’s a hard line anti-statist. He takes an axe to the idea of bankers and politicians all over the place. So it’s tempting, to be happy to offer him a place at the table of anarchists. However digging deeper , you’ll quickly come across his religious views. North is a Christian Reconstructionist. Hearing it described , you’ll start to worry. It sounds like authoritarian fundamentalist hell , covered by a fig leaf of liberty. You’ll feel this nagging concern. But then you might think “not to worry, Gary North’s an anarchist” right?…. right?

Well no. He’s not. And if half of the libertarians who claim to be fans of him, knew his true views they would neither like him nor associate with him. Gary North is not only NOT an anarchist he’s a thoroughgoing authoritarian. He’s in every way contrary to the spirit of anarchism or even moderate libertarianism .I will show why.

First let us look at his cultural views.

He is not just pro-patriarchy in the way a cultural conservative might be, but radically so to the extent that he runs right up against the historic anarchist opposition to patriarchy. He writes “The man is head of the household. He represents God before his wife and children. They are to obey him.”( P17 on sidebar , THE SINAI STRATEGY )

North continues to tick all the boxes on the authoritarian front. He favours authoritarian family relations, arguing ” When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death. Clearly, cursing God (blasphemy) is a comparable crime, and is therefore a capital crime (Lev. 24:16).” (P82 sidebar ,same book as above)

That should suffice to highlight why North is a hardcore authoritarian.

Now we turn to his political views which are much less than anarchist, nor even meeting the standards of a Ron Paulesque Minarchism.

Is North an anarchist? In The Failure of the American Baptist Culture , (THE INTELLECTUAL SCHIZOPHRENIA OF THE NEW CHRISTIAN RIGHT P41 in the sidebar), he states “The point is: freedom of religion does not, in a Christian commonwealth, involve total license. There is no such thing as legitimate Christian anarchism. The civil government is allowed to restrain public evil.”

In North’s mind ,Anarchism is equated with immorality making his work with Anarcho-Capitalisms seem strange at best.

On P45 side bar he plainly says “On the other hand, if they are proclaiming radical libertarianism as the only theoretical alternative to statism, then they are laying the foundations for an ethical and political backlash which will aid those who are seeking to expand the autononomous powers of the State. Men will not live under anarchy; libertinism (sexual and otherwise), which is necessarily a consequence of abolishing all civil laws (anar chism), creates the backlash.”

So if not anarchism, what kind of government does North favour?

Allegedly he aims at a limited government claiming “Limited civil government is one of the two political preconditions of a free market economy. “ (P38 sidebar ,same book) yet his libertarian government is not the typical monarchist one in that it will enforce biblical law. According to North, “The biblical program is clear: government under revealed biblical law, with various aspects of this law enforced by a biblical revealed system of decentralized courts” (P37 on sidebar ,The Sinai Strategy) Furthermore North is aware this is a monopoly and it does not concern him.

North sets out too, what he would like to see criminalized and carried out in his theocratic world.

“The biblical view of the State unquestionably and irrefutably affirms the right and obligation of the State to execute men, for the Bible sets forth God’s law. God has delegated this power to the State.” (P119 of above book)

Furthermore North is Pro-stoning. ” That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the re- introduction of stoning for capital crimes indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians” (P147 sidebar ) Considering North considers humanist an insult, he is not being complementary.

Should someone object to his arguments for this he has ready replies.

Should someone object to his capital punishment advocacy on Christian grounds, he responds “Critics of capital punishment could argue that men are not to avenge, and that we view capital punishment as a transgression of God’s sole and exclusive monopoly of execution. This argument is wrong. The institution of civil government is entrusted with this responsibility . The individual may not execute another man, as if he were an autonomous agent of judgment, but the covenanted political community may. In fact, this power reduces the likelihood of blood vengeance by close relatives of the slain (p139 on the side bar to the left) and “Furthermore, by denying this right of execution to the State, the opponents of capital punishment me implicitly turning over the power of execution (as distinguished from the right of execution) to murderers and rebels. It reduces their risk of permanent bodily judgment. “ (P120 sidebar, of same above book )

At this point ,I’m thinking I should be worried about what I’ve typed. Why? “The existence of this theocentric commandment against distorting the truth concerning God has created a unique property right: the right to a name. A man is entitled to his good name. Slander is therefore a form of theft. The civil government has an obligation to defend the right of an individual to use a particular name, both personal and corporate, both familial and institutional. The civil government must also defend that name against false witnesses.”(209 on sidebar) Thankfully everything I’ve said is absolutely true , with no signs from North of having repudiated or disassociated himself from these views. It makes you wonder why Paleo-libertarians choose to associate with him in the first place. Now I’m all for working with individuals or groups who are not anarchist on an issue by issue basis where our views align but it must be noted North is not libertarian and should not be claimed as a great champion of liberty. Hopefully those who know of his views do not share his agenda.