I realized the state police were searching for fireworks, which were legal just across the border, in Virginia and West Virginia, but were not legal in Maryland. I told this to Adele. She asked, why aren't fireworks legal in Maryland? I replied, because the state of Maryland doesn't want people to celebrate Independence Day.

This isn't the way they see it in Maryland. To them, it's okay to celebrate the 4th of July as long as you do it in a safe and legal way. Of course, if the patriots had stayed safe and legal, we'd have nothing to celebrate on the 4th.

Among libertarians, it's traditional to share how and when you discovered you were a libertarian. My own awareness goes back quite a few years. But, the occasion of Adele's birth re-invigorated a political activism that had become dormant during my years in the military.

I had always thought of myself as a big and strong man. Able to take care of myself in our often violent and unjust world. But Adele, when she was born, was so small and innocent. She deserved better than what I got. This reminded me that I deserved better too. That we all deserved better. So I got back involved in politics.

My choices regarding political activity weren't ideal. Romans 13 says that government is established by God to be a terror to evil and to praise those who do good. This is a clear endorsement of limited government--one that uses its coercive force only to prosecute evil-doers. A government that only uses encouragement to promote good-doing. The Libertarian Party comes close to, but misses the mark set out by Romans 13 because it declares itself neutral on moral issues.

First of all, moral neutrality is simply impossible. Government officials, in their words and in the example of their lives, inevitably display what behavior is exemplary and what behavior is, by contrast, unacceptable. There's a difference between not using the coercive powers of the state to force people to be moral, and using one's legitimate economic and social abilities to try to persuade others to be moral. Instead of saying that the Libertarian Party does not take positions on moral issues, it should affirm that virtue is only possible in a free society, that a free society best induces virtuous behavior, and that the candidates of the Libertarian Party will, if elected, promote virtue through non-coercive means.

And, just as government officials are to encourage good-doing through personal example and praise, we--as members of society--in our roles as parents and as teachers, as employers and as landlords, as friends and as benefactors, in all of our private relations with others, we too are to encourage moral behavior.

Because we are commanded to love one another, we cannot be morally neutral. But because we respect the limits on our authority, and we trust in God's plan of salvation, we do not violently intervene into the lives of others.

There's another problem with "libertarianism." This isn't a problem with the Libertarian Party, or with what we understand to be the meaning of the word libertarianism. It's a problem with a connotation that some other people ascribe to the word. The problem is that, for other some people, libertarianism implies irresponsible freedom. Some people think libertarianism means a "devil-may-care" attitude. "Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die." And, "In the long run, we are all dead."

For some of these people, this irresponsible freedom means that each person is to be immunized from the consequences of his decisions. This view leads to all kinds of interventions--to re-distribution of the wealth, for example, so that those who make poor choices do not suffer as a consequence of their poor choices. When you think about it, this is exactly the opposite of libertarianism as understood by the Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party is absolutely against redistribution of the wealth. Indeed, the Libertarian Party has worked to remove the connotation of irresponsible freedom from the word libertarianism. But, to some extent, the connotation is still there, and we have to continue to rehabilitate the word.

To the Christian, the world is so arranged as to bring each person to salvation. Realizing the consequences of one's choices is viewed as part of this process, as an education. Hopefully, a person making poor choices, by suffering the consequences, will come to be motivated to change. We call this kind of motivation "fear of damnation."

A person who turns away from bad choices, and starts to make good choices, will see that good choices lead to benefits, and step up to being motivated by "promise of reward." Ultimately, we hope that the person will step up to being motivated by "love of God."

But, some people mistakenly think that libertarians want to cut-short this educational process. For example, that libertarians would want to redistribute the wealth, so people who make poor decisions don't suffer as a consequence. But why should sinners repent if there is no punishment for poor decisions and no reward for good decisions?

The most pure motivation is "love of God." A martyr accepts torture and death because of "love of God." But few people start out with this motivation. They need reward and punishment.

And, besides, how do we know what is God's will unless we observe the feedback we receive. God's will is revealed to us through the laws of nature and history. It is wrong for the government to try to protect us from, and thus undermine the laws of nature and history. Tradition can be and often is a good source of knowledge about what is most conducive to human happiness. And it is altogether proper for us to transmit the values we have received from the past, and further developed ourselves, to the next generation. But it is also good for the members of the next generation to question these values, to test them out, and, ultimately, to adopt them for themselves not because we taught them but because they choose them.

The Greek philosopher Aristotle described this phenomenon as "human flourishing." And Thomas Jefferson described it as "the pursuit of happiness." As long as the government keeps the peace, which is its legitimate function, we will choose virtue. We don't need the government to uphold moral behavior. That which works, doesn't need to be subsidized.

We might--actually I should say--we will make mistakes, but as long as we suffer or benefit from our choices, then we will come to discover what is consistent with human happiness.

Alanis Morrisette puts the idea this way:

"You live, you learn.
You laugh, you learn.
You cry, you learn."

This is the first story you find in the Bible. Adam and Eve, in the Garden, choosing between the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge. Some people think it was unfair. What was God thinking? Didn't he know that man would make the wrong decision? Was giving man free will some kind of Cosmic April Fools Day? No, it wasn't. It was part of God's plan of salvation. God made man in his image. He made us moral creatures, with the God-like power to choose between right and wrong. Thus, the Old Testament describes his relation to us with the passage "Deep calleth unto deep." And, Jesus once responded to a question concerning his own divinity, "Is it not written that we are all (little "g") gods?"

But how can we beneficially use this God-like power to choose, if we are protected from the consequences of our choices? Without feedback, we will merely pursue the objects of our prejudice, we will not discover what is God's will.

The Zulu tribe of Africa describes humanness with the term "buntu." It means that man is a self-defining value. But, this self-definition, this choice, does not occur in a vacuum. It occurs in the context of nature and society.

It is natural and good that we are not free of the consequences of our choices. God, in his mercy, gives us the feedback we need in order to choose well.

To the Christian, we are both individuals with rights endowed by the Creator, and members of society--where society is understood as including government, but as being more than government. Society includes family, economic, church and civic institutions. And, government itself is seen as consisting of both local and national components.

Properly understood, the Christian position is that it should be for us, privately, using the advantages that are rightfully ours, to try to encourage moral behavior in others. It is not for us, through the coercive powers of government, to try to legislate morality. This is such an important point, let me refer to a Bible verse. In 2 Thessalonian, Paul writes,

"For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. But ye brethren, be not weary in well doing. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."

It's with loving kindness, not coercive force, that we are to uphold each other.
And what of the person who will not accept admonition? For this person we are to bear in mind the story of the prodigal son. Everybody knows that this parable teaches us to joyfully accept the repentant sinner. But it also teaches us to trust in God for the salvation of those whom we love who reject our good counsel. The father who celebrated his son's return, is the same father who waited patiently for that return.

And, because I suspect that there are some who question whether it was fair for the father to accept back the prodigal son, when his other son had remained faithful, let me tell you "the rest of the story." When the faithful son brought the question of fairness to his father's attention, the father told him not to worry. That the father knew that the prodigal son had already spent his inheritance, and that all of the father's wealth would still be the faithful son's.

This story not only demonstrates that we are to joyfully accept the repentant sinner, and that we are to trust in God for the salvation of those who are wayward, it demonstrates that God is all just as well as all merciful.

During the past hundred years the idea of communism has corrupted the church. Pietist Christians have come to preach a "social gospel" of government intervention, a political platform that incorporates a lot of the Marxist doctrine. In our own country, Woodrow Wilson is a good example of a pietist Christian who thought that enlightened government could usher in God's Kingdom on Earth.

In the late 19th century, the church tried, unsuccessfully, to distinguish a Christian society from both classical liberalism and communism. Communism was wrong, and on this everybody today agrees, because it denies the personhood of the individual and because it deifies the state.

Classical liberalism, supposedly, was also wrong, because it deified the individual, and made freedom an end into itself, because it failed to sufficiently emphasize personal responsibility, and because it ignored the need for community. Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclicals Libertas, in 1887, and Rerum Novarum, in 1891, attacked classical liberalism both as a social philosophy and as an economic system.

Yet, the attack on classical liberalism was an attack on a distorted variation of it. It was an attack on a straw man. I've read Adam Smith, Lord Acton, John Stewart Mill and the other classical liberals, and they all embraced the elements of what we would recognize to be a Christian society.

Yes, they--like Pope Leo--recognized the advantages of the private property, free enterprise system. But, they were not advocates of greed and selfishness, or of social darwinism. They were advocates of a healthy mix of competition, cooperation and compassion in society.

In the writings of the classical liberals you will find discussion of the family, and of the fraternal and charitable institutions that characterize a free society. The classical liberals--just like Pope Leo--thought that "homoeconomicus," or economic man, was a ludicrous concept, and that greed is not enough to organize society.

Jesus said "Is it not lawful [i.e., in accordance with the Torah] for me to do what I will with mine own." Certainly it is, and, just as certainly, Jesus wants us to do good with what is ours. Freedom is not an end in itself, freedom is a means to do good.

In the last generation, the church has reconsidered the positions it formerly expressed concerning classical liberalism. In his encyclical Humanae Vitae, in 1963, Pope John XXIII, took the first, giant step, and finally put the Catholic Church on record as favoring religious freedom. For those of you who are into church history, this completed the reformation.

The next giant step was taken by the current pope, Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Centisimus Anus, in 1991. In it, the pope described the private property, free enterprise system as the only economic system compatible with human dignity. What's most important is that there is no longer the animus previously directed against classical liberalism. We're still against greed, and we're still for justice and charity, but the church recognizes that a Christian society must be both a free and virtuous society.

During his recent trip to Baltimore, Pope John Paul II described the past hundred years as a century of sorrows, and not just because of the wars and genocide, but also because of the idea of big government, both in its totalitarian form and its welfare state form. Looking ahead, he expressed the hope that the next hundred years will be characterized by freedom. And he reminded us that we, in America, must live up to the ideals for which our country stands.

The pope has designated the year 2000 to be a year of jubilee. The specific occasion, of course, is the second millennium of Jesus Christ. But, I note that, in the Old Testament, it is during a year of jubilee, that we are to "proclaim liberty throughout the land and unto all the inhabitants thereof."

In 1985, the Libertarian Party National Convention was held in Philadelphia. For a memento of that convention, I bought a small bronze replica of the Liberty Bell to give to my daughter Adele. As you probably know, the Liberty Bell is inscribed with that Bible verse, "proclaim liberty throughout the land and unto all the inhabitants thereof."

This little Liberty Bell must have worked on Adele's mind. Sometime after I gave it to her, she said to me, "Daddy, do you know why the Liberty Bell has a crack in it?" "Why does it have a crack?" I replied. "Because America isn't truly free," she said. "When America is truly free, God will make a miracle and fix the Liberty Bell." We who are engaged in the work of making America truly free would enjoy the miracle of the Liberty Bell. But the real miracle will occur when Americans embrace the true meaning of freedom.

As Laura Ingalls, of The Little House on the Prairie, realized one 4th of July, working with her mother to prepare for the family picnic, freedom means that you have to make yourself be good.

About the Author: Clifford F. Thies is a professor of economics and finance at Shenandoah University in Winchester, VA 22601; cthies@su.edu. This essay was adapted from a speech delivered to the 1996 Libertarian Party National Convention, in Washington, D.C., on the 4th of July.