Just yesterday I was on the Live Chat and these two people were arguing about Catholics and Libertarians. I really didn't understand what they were arguing about. One person was saying that Catholics have a big connection to libertarianism while the other person was saying that there was no connection at all. They start debating on whether religion plays a part in Libertarian theory.
Well first off, I dont get how people mix religion and political theory together. And, in general, Libertarians are diverse. There are several libertarians that are old or young, rich or poor, and religious and not religious. There are even anarchists that support Libertarian theory.
Its these types of arguments that keep Libertarian theory to progress. These arguments are useless and will only tear Libertarians apart.
I really don't care if people believe in Jesus, or Buddha, or Mohammad, or Moses, or don't have any faith. As long as you are trying to help Libertarianism progress, I really don't care.
So in conclusion, stop with these useless arguments.
My Blog: http://www.anarchico.net/
Production is 'anarchistic' - Ludwig von Mises
Believing in / Worshiping a God and being a following & practicing member of a religious institution are two different things.
Religious leaders and institution of religion is all about control. Back when church and state were involved, the church / religious leaders would tell the people that it was God's will for individuals to listen and follow the rule of government. Then the gov't would subsidize the church. Church and State would share in governing power. Then Libertarians (I believe it was them) tried to separate church and state to break this structure of power.
Religion and religious leaders are all about power and control. If you're catholic you can't wear condoms. If your Jehovah's Witness you can't do much anything that involves self education or having an opinion based on your own reasoning.
bearing01:Believing in / Worshiping a God and being a following & practicing member of a religious institution are two different things.
The only alternative to organized religion, is disorganized religion that is nothing but superstition, the two necessitate each other.
bearing01:Then Libertarians (I believe it was them) tried to separate church and state to break this structure of power.
Libertarianism had yet to be formulated when the debate about the nature of the church and state became heated in the 1700s.
bearing01:Religion and religious leaders are all about power and control.
It is about service, prayer, and sacrifice. Only a very arrogant, and naive critic could look at an organization like the Vatican, and believe that it is all about control. Really, if it were all about control, most religious leaders could not live the lives they are expected to live for there are easier ways to achieve power than through religion.
bearing01:If you're catholic you can't wear condoms. If your Jehovah's Witness you can't do much anything that involves self education or having an opinion based on your own reasoning.
None of this is about control. All of this is trying to live a life in accordance with God's will.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
you are totally missing my point about religion and libertarianism. You comment is more of trying to educate me on religion but frankly I could care less about the practices of different types of religion
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
I would think that the moral values that lead a person to such concepts as the NAP are based in their religious beliefs. So I think they would be linked. Now, that doesn't mean that everyone in Religion A will arrive at Libertarianism just because a follower of A feels that A supports it.
If I may threadjack a little on a related idea - if there is a Supreme Being who created everything, then all property rights initially belong to Him/Her... even the right to our own bodies. So, if two people are working for a third, and one of them sees the other misusing the owner's property, is he in the wrong for protecting the owner's property?
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. -- River Tam
I aim to misbehave. -- Malcolm Reynolds
Isaac "Izzy" Marmolejo:They start debating on whether religion plays a part in Libertarian theory.
Religion does not play a part in Libertarian theory. Yet, Religion, especially catholicism, plays an important part in the historical development of liberalism (using this term in the original sense).
To understand this part a good introduction -even more than an introduction- is Ralph Raico's lectures on Liberalism.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
Libertarianism and classical liberalism have deep religious roots and are intrinsically connected to natural law/rights. Free-market economics was first cultivated by Catholic Jesuits. Mariana, for example, claimed that assassinating a political leader who taxes without consent or debases the currency is not only justified but required.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
nhaag:To understand this part a good introduction -even more than an introduction- is Ralph Raico's lectures on Liberalism.
Very good lecture series. Dr. Raico is excellent in giving a dialectical approach to the development of liberalism throughout the ages. I would also recommend Dr. Wood's book on the Catholic church. I have not personally read them but I have read several other works by Dr. Woods and he is a wonderful historian.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Esuric:Libertarianism and classical liberalism have deep religious roots and are intrinsically connected to natural law/rights.
Well yes during the Middle Ages. Before then it was a classical ideal. Aristotle, Stoics etc. The thing is with natural rights, you can have either deity based natural rights or reason based natural rights. I tend to side more with the reason based.
Laughing Man:Well yes during the Middle Ages. Before then it was a classical ideal. Aristotle, Stoics etc. The thing is with natural rights, you can have either deity based natural rights or reason based natural rights. I tend to side more with the reason based.
Well, I do not claim that natural rights are set by a deity, reason is the natural means to find rights for human beings. Whether one beliefs the world is made by a creator or an accident doesn't matter much at the level of our being so. Reason is our way to survive and so yes, natural rights are reason based.
Regarding the classical ideal, it was, but only in the greek democracies.
nhaag: Laughing Man:Well yes during the Middle Ages. Before then it was a classical ideal. Aristotle, Stoics etc. The thing is with natural rights, you can have either deity based natural rights or reason based natural rights. I tend to side more with the reason based. Well, I do not claim that natural rights are set by a deity, reason is the natural means to find rights for human beings. Whether one beliefs the world is made by a creator or an accident doesn't matter much at the level of our being so. Reason is our way to survive and so yes, natural rights are reason based. Regarding the classical ideal, it was, but only in the greek democracies.
Just expanding on a point you made.
If I may threadjack a little on a related idea - if there is a Supreme Being who created everything, then all property rights initially belong to Him/Her... even the right to our own bodies.
Esuric:Libertarianism and classical liberalism have deep religious roots and are intrinsically connected to natural law/rights. Free-market economics was first cultivated by Catholic Jesuits. Mariana, for example, claimed that assassinating a political leader who taxes without consent or debases the currency is not only justified but required.
I think Juan has a quote on his sig that shows just how serious the scholastics were about the committment to natural rights.
I think religion is just bad reasoning, on the one hand, and systematic ideological repression structures in human history. Our modern media and university systems are more of this. It is allowed for people to believe any sort of insane nonsense they wish to, but that does not make them compatible with either reality or a libertarian society. Sure, everyone could be a libertarian national socialist, but it's hard to see why one would be.
“Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government.” - Proudhon
I've always seen a strong correlation between my religious ideas and my libertarian political beliefs, however, I see Libertarianism as political theory for people of any religion, due to its tolerance of belief through its love of free will and liberty.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Spiritual belief systems trancend the classical compartmentalized structures we call science, politics, economics, etc. So mixing spiritual beliefs with politics or economics is not only common, but appropriate to the individual in question.
It's inappropriate to paint spiritual belief systems with one big, broad brush that suggests such beliefs are: bad, superstitious, oppressive, ignorant, etc. They are not equivalent, and are based upon the individual. While formal religious institutions have their own policies and practices, ultimately it's the individual who chooses which policies and practices to follow. Just because you have some bad actors in the past doesn't mean you can indict everyone with spiritual beliefs at that time, nor can you indict the people under the same religion today for sins of the past. Each person would have to be judged separately - if you even believe they need to be judged at all.
The part people with spiritual beliefs had to play in the history of classical liberalism and even libertarianism is a point of fact that requires no debate. It is the commonality of belief that draws many people to these schools of thought - granted, I wish more people did share these views. Religion, as an institution, and many people of spiritual belief had a large role to play in the creation of the State - that too is an undeniable fact. Depending on how state-like a religion is, you have the same State-Individual construct - so it's no wonder why you see such dichotomy among religions and their congregations.
The argument over whether the Catholic Church had connections to libertarianism or not is a moot point. Catholics were contributors to both the State and Libertarianism. I do find, however, that the offical Church positions lean heavily toward the State whether individual Catholics care to follow them or not.
I'm inclined to think that the whole God thing might be a semantic argument. Our higher consciousness is just software, right? If a computer operating system, inasmuch as it is personified itself, perceives its BIOS as a God, is it incorrect? The BIOS itself is real, right? Is the computer which chooses to extend the fiction of its own higher consciousness to include its BIOS any more or less correct than the first computer?
that sounds like a very modern analogy for deism.
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Great OP, totally agree.
I was a libertarian way before I lost my religion, and was just as consistent then.
EDIT: Lol, didn't know this was an old thread. Just as old self said.
Back when church and state were involved
The two have never been more incestuously involved than they are today.
Clayton -
1) Helping libertarianism progress is probably a form of religion. The reality is libertarianism (wha ever that may mean) can only concern itself and will stop at nothing to help libertarianism progress. As you, weather or not you admit it or not will do the same for yourself (whatever that may mean). The minute you trick yourself otherwise (which most people do), it gets a bit odd
2) Classical religion has pretty much been called out and is no longer relevant to think about, other than for an ego boost by a teenage atheist to make themselves seem intellectually superior at a low cost. It will be gone in all relevant thought within a generation or two (I am not concerning myself with 2nd or 3rd world countries, as there is no need) as it is no longer of any use.
3) What will still exist will be the other religions; Humanity, The Good Cause, "for the children" maybe even the nation (the last piece of relevency for the right), etc. That is the one you ought to concern yourself with, let the past bury itself and move on.
Libertyandlife: Great OP, totally agree. I was a libertarian way before I lost my religion, and was just as consistent then.
Haha, yeah it is... this was one of my first posts :P (maybe "the" first)
It will be gone in all relevant thought within a generation or two (I am not concerning myself with 2nd or 3rd world countries, as there is no need) as it is no longer of any use.
Not to be especially picky or anything, but that's exactly what has been said about each generation since the Enlightenment.
I wouldn't be surprised if it is already done in. It isn't even a part of polite bourgoise society in any place other than a few pockets in America, that are of tertiary importants as to how culture will evolve. It is possible that we just haven't seen the full effects of it yet, because we are in the middle of the eye of the hurricane so to speak.
I could be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised.
I don't think the Queen of England is a casual Anglican. Certain European superstitions are certainly dead - flat earth, geocentrism, Young Earth, etc. But religion itself is stronger than ever. Try being charged in a "secular" court of law with child neglect as a Satanist or atheist and contrast that with being charged with child neglect as a devout Roman Catholic or Mormon who is known for his/her devotion to God. That should give you a hint as to why religion is so powerful.
The Church and state are certainly not involved in an "incestuous" relationship that is stronger than ever. Such a statement denotes a lack of historical understanding as well as a distorted view of current events. The Roman Catholic Church is against just about every war that the west is waging (Iraq/Afghanistan/etc). If they had such a relationship those wars would not be going on right now.
The Church has very little power in meaningful political decisions. I think in general this is a good thing. Unfortunately they don't have as much power in terms of encouraging moral decision making.
I say this as a Catholic convert working in a private Catholic school run by Dominica sisters.
I get the impression that the world's billion Catholics aren't really on the same page about much politically, but their need to feel and appear unified far outweighs such concerns.
Most folks that call themselves Catholics make no attempt to live as such.
I don't think the Queen of England is a casual Anglican.
Maybe, but she is also old hat. She is only one or two generations removed from when religion was completly dead in the water to begin with, and was still somewhat a part of mainstream non intellectual thought. That is over with now.
Try being charged in a "secular" court of law with child neglect as a Satanist or atheist and contrast that with being charged with child neglect as a devout Roman Catholic or Mormon who is known for his/her devotion to God.
Well satanist, scientologists, or whatever are well know jokes that were never taken seriously or were never a part of a polite cosmopolitan society that matters anywhere so that is a big difference. If you want to be foolish enough to chose a losing position
on a patently false idea that is out of line with most peoples obviously false ideas and conflict with overwhelming customs, go for it but what the hell would you expect to happen?
Try being charged in a "secular" court of law with child neglect as a Satanist or atheist and contrast that with being charged with child neglect as a devout Roman Catholic or Mormon who is known for his/her devotion to God. That should give you a hint as to why religion is so powerful.
I can't back up the fact that religion as we discuss it (and not good, the left, libertarianism, or whatever) is a dead horse and you may be correct. I just don't see it. I don't see theists who matter, and I don't see it in a position to matter over culture outside increasingly retreating local pockets in America. My guess is it is pretty much gone in W Europe and most of E Europe already. And my guess is this is not only the effect of loopy leftism (which is probably more openly hostile to religion) but the liberal, technocratic, market mentality as wel (which just simply doesn't care about religion and due to that, it fades away due to actual life demonstrations and a clarity as to what actual human behavior is doing).
Mtn Dew: The Church and state are certainly not involved in an "incestuous" relationship that is stronger than ever. Such a statement denotes a lack of historical understanding as well as a distorted view of current events. The Roman Catholic Church is against just about every war that the west is waging (Iraq/Afghanistan/etc). If they had such a relationship those wars would not be going on right now. The Church has very little power in meaningful political decisions. I think in general this is a good thing. Unfortunately they don't have as much power in terms of encouraging moral decision making. I say this as a Catholic convert working in a private Catholic school run by Dominica sisters.
Well, the days when the Pope could issue a public edict to a subordinate monarch are long gone. Anglicanism (breakaway of the English monarch) and Protestantism (breakaway of the German lords) ensured that and the French revolution put the finishing garnish on it. My point is that the idea that the world is becoming "religionless" is nonsense. Religion did not originate in dogma. That dogmatism is clearly dying the world over says nothing about the life-expectancy of religion. The religious impulse is clearly rooted in our biology (there is no human culture that is not religious) and it's not going anywhere. I think this longevity is here to stay because religion plays a crucial role in mate selection, especially among the wealthy and influential. A wealthy man doesn't want his daughter marrying a bum off the street who will end up living on his dime (failing to provide for his wife to the standard of living she is used to receiving from her father), neither does he want his sons marrying a woman whose family is poor and liable to angle for the inheritance after his death, transferring the family wealth out of his name and into the name of his in-laws, or just squandering it altogether. "You can only marry another Catholic" or "You can only marry another Lutheran" provides a minimal safety-net in this regard and plenty of room for negotiation between parent and child, "Well, yes, he's Catholic but his parents are Lutheran, do you think he's really reliable? Maybe this is just a conversion of convenience"... you get the idea and you should know what I'm talking about if you're working in a Catholic school.
By the way, this theory is pretty much my own, I haven't seen anything in the literature to substantiate it. I wish someone would study it since I find the subject fascinating. I will go a little further and suggest that religion is actually a form of "social technology" (human social organization that facilitates production) and that some of the forces behind secularization actually have sinister intent. The purpose of those at the pinnacles of power who understand the role that religion plays in family cohesion have an interest in sabotaging the family and, therefore, religion. How many atheist pot-lucks have you been to? I'm not saying that you have to have fairy-tale books of gods and demons to have family cohesion, that's just the way that it's come about. Religion, in whatever form, plays a crucial role in family cohesion which, in turn, plays a crucial role in maintaining the private property rights of commoners vis-a-vis the expropriatory ends of rulers. Therefore, rulers have an interest in sabotaging religion. This shouldn't be too shocking seeing that the entire Middle Ages of Europe was essentially a tug-of-war between the Pope (religious power) and the monarchs (secular power).
Clayton:By the way, this theory is pretty much my own, I haven't seen anything in the literature to substantiate it. I wish someone would study it since I find the subject fascinating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoQ6vQf3X6Q
I can't back up the fact that religion as we discuss it (and not good, the left, libertarianism, or whatever) is a dead horse and you may be correct. I just don't see it. I don't see theists who matter,
Theism is a dogma. Religion is much more than dogma. In fact, in Eastern orthodox and Islam, the dogma is far less important than ritual. Every man has his own ideas about God (though certain ideas are prohibited from being expressed) but what God really wants is your daily devotion. Western religions have placed much more emphasis on dogma and have suffered badly as religious dogma has taken beating after beating from scientific and philosophical progress.
and I don't see it in a position to matter over culture outside increasingly retreating local pockets in America. My guess is it is pretty much gone in W Europe and most of E Europe already.
What's funny is that is so true and so not true at the same time. Certainly, the masses have become almost completely irreligious. Church attendance is at all-time lows and so on. But almost every politician without exception goes to some church or another. Wealthy families, contrary to popular belief, tend to have a religious affiliation, even if individuals within the family are irreligious. Basically, all the people who matter still go to church while the clubbers and cokeheads are sleeping off their all-nighter on Sunday morning.
And my guess is this is not only the effect of loopy leftism (which is probably more openly hostile to religion) but the liberal, technocratic, market mentality as wel (which just simply doesn't care about religion and due to that, it fades away due to actual life demonstrations and a clarity as to what actual human behavior is doing).
Look, I'm not disagreeing with you on the irrelevancy of theological dogma. It really doesn't matter anymore if you believe Justification is by Faith Alone or by Faith and Works. But it does matter whether you go to church and what church you belong to. I'm saying this as someone who does not go to church.