Does the rise of Christianism increase libertarianism?

Andrew Sullivan cites a Gallup poll which indicates that a decreasing percentage of Americans think the government should be promoting moral values. 60% in 1996 compared with 48% today.

Sullivan thinks that "the rise of Christianism has achieved the opposite of its intent: it has made us more aware of the need to keep government out of our private lives and moral choices."

Maybe Sullivan has been reading Robert Heinlein's posthumous first novel For Us, the Living. In Heinlein's imagined future, a religious populist type takes over the country in the early part of the 21st century, and the people hate it so much that they revolt and form a new government based on libertarian principles in which the government cannot restrict any activity which doesn't directly harm someone else.

The new government also gives everyone a guaranteed income, an idea which I kind of like.

Comments

[SciFiGeek]

What an interesting idea! I would not be surprised; even people who don't like Howard Stern don't like people poking their noses over their shoulders and keeping them from listening to Howard Stern.

[JewishAtheist]

It probably increases social libertarianism, but I don't see a connection to fiscal libertarianism.

[Jody]

Or a different interpretation:

There's been an across the board rise in liberal social attitudes. This has emboldened those of social liberals to assert their worldview in society leading to acceptance of homosexuals in the military and in general, acceptance of divorce and abortion, dissaproval of school prayer, and societal shock when a President says he puts his faith in God.

Social conservatives, for whom their attitudes had been the societal norm are understandably unhappy about the change and have organized to halt the change.

I.e., I'm arguing that cause and effect are reversed.

[Don Marsh]

Does Heinlein's book tell us that eventually the religious people are targeted for extermination? That would be realistic...

[jimbo]

How the hell can a libertarian government give everyone a guaranteed income? When you come right down to it this is the current Democratic platform in a nutshell. We will never acheive a polity in which 100% of the voters are libertarian. A government, or any body, that gives money to others will either expect something in return or tie the way the money is to be used. In the course of enacting legislation that give a guaranteed income to everyone compromises will be made. Some people might want a prohibition on using the money for drugs. Others may want to ensure that convicted child molesters should not see any of the money. Others may want to ensure that the money is not spent on guns, or cigarettes, or junk food, or pornography, or religion, whatever. Current welfare is limited to just enough to get by, and there is little danger that recipients will have enough left over to spend it on something someone does not like. But look at the restrictions on Food Stamps and Medicaid. Look at how much the government intrudes into the lives of current welfare recipients in order to 'prove' that they 'deserve' a handout. It is human nature not to see one's money wasted, however one defines 'wasted'. Why should anyone think that people will willingly give up their tax dollars on 'wasteful' spending? They don't now. In their wisdom or ignorance, Bush and the Republics, are finessing this question with both tax cuts and guaranteed income for all with pork barrel spending. If libertarian has any meaning, it means to limit government in every way, and that includes fiscal limits. As Gerald Ford, I think, said, [paraphrase] if you depend on government for everything, you give up your freedom.