In attempting to reconcile libertarianism with Christianity, one of the main obstacles is the divergence of the moral visions. For libertarianism, the highest good is liberty and human autonomy. For Christianity, the highest good is summarized in the first commandment which is to love Lord with all of one's strength, above all things, and render obedience to the same. No matter how much libertarians may swear up and down that theirs is a "morally neutral vision," any philosophy which claims to differentiate between what is good and what is not good, bad or even evil, contains an implicit moral vision rendering it morally non-neutral. If that were not the case, then libertarian philosophy would merely state, in raw utilitarian terms that violations of individual liberties are merely "undesirable," rather than some act of injustice.
For Christians attempting to be libertarians or engage libertarianism from a minarchist perspective, the conflict in the moral visions is a profound one because Christianity carries with it many assumptions and demands which limit human liberty. Christianity does not recogize a right of autonomy in marriage, in parenting or even refusing a genuinely needy person from taking a loaf of bread to keep from starving. In fact, in these, and some other areas, Christianity actively negates human autonomy and denigrates it to the point of labeling it evil. That is not to say that Christianity forces most of these things on anyone, but rather that it firmly, immutably denies the right to shirk off these arrangements once made, as well as basic duties to one's neighbor.
Libertarians must likewise limit their ideology in some cases to bring it back down into the realm of reason. For example, most libertarians recognize that it would be utterly insane to not punish parents who abandon their children like unwanted pets. There is a great tendency among libertarians to defend positions like opposition to adultery (adultery laws being a restriction on individual sexual autonomy) on the grouns that they are a violation of a contractual agreement, but these defenses tend to be stretched absurdly thin to bandage over where libertarian ideals and views on humanity begin to tear when in put up against human nature.
The libertarian moral vision also often finds itself at odds with the way that the majority of people relate to one another. Most people do not believe that it is an act of injustice to be taxed or pushed to support their fellow man in a time of need. Indeed, the reason that opposition to the welfare state faces such inertia is because it does not feel particularly burdensome to the majority, and they believe it is simply a decent and necessary thing for a civilized society. Unfortunately for libertarians, the majority of the language that would actually appeal to the public in this matter to greatly limit or abolish the welfare state outright is based on a different moral vision: corrosion of work ethic, family life, personal morality, etc. This moral vision is shared by a much higher percentage of the public than the libertarian one, but it is unlikely that libertarians could truly make this argument convincingly since it would require using the language of a vision that is not theirs.
The reconciliation between the two paths would begin by jettisoning the libertarian view of liberty as the highest good, while adopting liberty as the essential foundation of moral conduct; any good behavior which cannot exist outside of coercion is worthless as a matter of personal character. Christians already implicitly recognize that there are many moral matters which the state cannot handle, and libertarianism can help them better understand where the dividing line is between morality which has an impact on life, limb and property that the state can effectively judge and moral matters which are too nebulous or dangerous for the state to prosecute.
Liberty may not be the highest good, but it is a high good, an important good that cannnot be underestimated in its value. In particular, it is an invaluable tool for the Christian Church in helping it identify the character of individuals for most wolves do not feel the need to conceal their identities in a free society. An openly libertine individual is knowable and avoidable, while a secret libertine is a threat to the reputation of everyone who associates with them.
For Christians attempting to be libertarians or engage libertarianism from a minarchist perspective, the conflict in the moral visions is a profound one because Christianity carries with it many assumptions and demands which limit human liberty. Christianity does not recogize a right of autonomy in marriage, in parenting or even refusing a genuinely needy person from taking a loaf of bread to keep from starving. In fact, in these, and some other areas, Christianity actively negates human autonomy and denigrates it to the point of labeling it evil. That is not to say that Christianity forces most of these things on anyone, but rather that it firmly, immutably denies the right to shirk off these arrangements once made, as well as basic duties to one's neighbor.
Libertarians must likewise limit their ideology in some cases to bring it back down into the realm of reason. For example, most libertarians recognize that it would be utterly insane to not punish parents who abandon their children like unwanted pets. There is a great tendency among libertarians to defend positions like opposition to adultery (adultery laws being a restriction on individual sexual autonomy) on the grouns that they are a violation of a contractual agreement, but these defenses tend to be stretched absurdly thin to bandage over where libertarian ideals and views on humanity begin to tear when in put up against human nature.
The libertarian moral vision also often finds itself at odds with the way that the majority of people relate to one another. Most people do not believe that it is an act of injustice to be taxed or pushed to support their fellow man in a time of need. Indeed, the reason that opposition to the welfare state faces such inertia is because it does not feel particularly burdensome to the majority, and they believe it is simply a decent and necessary thing for a civilized society. Unfortunately for libertarians, the majority of the language that would actually appeal to the public in this matter to greatly limit or abolish the welfare state outright is based on a different moral vision: corrosion of work ethic, family life, personal morality, etc. This moral vision is shared by a much higher percentage of the public than the libertarian one, but it is unlikely that libertarians could truly make this argument convincingly since it would require using the language of a vision that is not theirs.
The reconciliation between the two paths would begin by jettisoning the libertarian view of liberty as the highest good, while adopting liberty as the essential foundation of moral conduct; any good behavior which cannot exist outside of coercion is worthless as a matter of personal character. Christians already implicitly recognize that there are many moral matters which the state cannot handle, and libertarianism can help them better understand where the dividing line is between morality which has an impact on life, limb and property that the state can effectively judge and moral matters which are too nebulous or dangerous for the state to prosecute.
Liberty may not be the highest good, but it is a high good, an important good that cannnot be underestimated in its value. In particular, it is an invaluable tool for the Christian Church in helping it identify the character of individuals for most wolves do not feel the need to conceal their identities in a free society. An openly libertine individual is knowable and avoidable, while a secret libertine is a threat to the reputation of everyone who associates with them.
An interesting topic.
You seem to be placing Christianity and Libertarianism on the same plane as moral codes, and in such I believe you are correct in your assertions. But I see, perhaps wrongly, that Christianity is a system of morality arising from a relationship between the individual and God. On the other hand, Libertarianism is a system of conduct arising from the relationship of the individual to the state.
The primary tool of the state is coersion while that of religion is cooperation. As such, the two systems are at times in conflict and at other times independent.
The Christian virtue of charity is virtuous for an individual to apply, but becomes the Christian vice of theft when the state applies it, even when a majority of Christians vote to permit the state to act on their behalf. There will always be some part of the population who will be coerced into the charitable act. But also, the Christian loses the virtue of charity when the state takes his money by force to use for charitable purposes. The support of the Christian church and its programs and charities has always been voluntary.
The Welfare state is a gross manifestation of anti-Christianism, taking from Christians both the virtue of their charity and the means to give voluntarily. It further uses that money to do harm to the very society it claims to help.
On the other hand, the Libertarian philosophy, espouses the liberty of all citizens, Christians included, to use their own money as they see fit, restoring to them not only the money, the the virtue in spending it freely.
The problem is not the Libertarians, it is the Christians. When Christians vote for a president who promises to steal from the rich to give to them, or to steal from insurance companies and bankers to give them the proceeds that they have not earned and did not pay for, then it is the Christian community that has lost its way.
Nothing in life is free. Everything must be paid for. Everything a government does, it pays for by taking money from someone, by force. It is not possible to love your neighbor while you are stealing from him or coveting what he has.
Certainly, the libertarians have some loopy ideas about the limits of personal freedoms, but when placed in their proper contex, the political realm, their practice is not incompatible with the Christian walk. A proper Christian living in a libertarian society is free to practice his Christian walk without barriers from the government. The same cannot be said for our current system and what we are fast becoming.
The issue of context is key to why they clash. Most libertarians and mainstream libertarian arguments not only don't assume such reasonable limits, but actually vehemently attack them. The animating spirit of cultural libertarianism, which has the high ground in the libertarian in-fighting much like the neocons have it in the conservative in-fighting, is decidedly totalitarian in that respect.