One thing about christianity, it has the rule "you shall not steal" which presupposes a society where one can own. I always found that fascinating. Christian anarchists probably don't have much to say about that.
What do you mean?
He's probably referring to the Christian anarchists who repudiate property rights. They might agree with Proudhon in saying that "All property is theft," though it's virtually impossible to square these two claims together. It's an inconsistent set.
Maybe that's why the Islamic world was always way more free market then the Christian one?
What? Christian anarchism has had close to zero influence at any time in any point of history--ever.
No. I'm talking about the anti-property principles of Christianity in general. I know the Christian world was way less free market then the Muslim world.
Was? So there is no Islamic world anymore? And second point, didn't industrial revolution happen in Christian West?
Just a quick note as I skim this thread. There seems to be a problem with evaluating religion from the perspective of libertarianism and/or other ethical propositions. Namely, what constitutes the religion itself? Is it doctrine derived from text, or is it in the actions of its adherents, or both? This is never spelled out, and consequently debaters often talk past one another with respect to this stuff. To simply state that Islam or Christianity was spread peacefully or by the sword and is therefore more/less libertarian doesn't really answer anything at all, because such actions may be condemned by the textual foundations which are looked to by other practicioners. For example, Clovis killed people in the name of Christianity, but that doesn't mean we can say Christianity calls for the sword-spreading of itself, unless we lazily define Christianity as "whatever one who calls himself a Christian does." And with respect to the written texts themselves, sure, one can find numerous contradictions in the Bible, or Koran,so long as one ignores context. My (limited) understanding of the Koran is that the passages which call for killing unbelievers were referencing the time of Islam's birth, when the pagan oligarchy of Mecca (Medina?) reacted to the new religion with violence and persecution. Muhammed then justified the killing of their aggressors, justifying the slaying of non-believers in self-defense. Perhaps my understanding is wrong; I don't pretend to be an expert, but it seems worth considering in light of the numerous accusations against Christianity for "crimes done in Thy name."
If one accepts this construction, then it raises the question of whether or not Muslim conquest of the Middle East and North Africa, and its intrusion into Europe, was consistent or not with actual doctrine derived from from the passages in proper context. I don't have an answer, I'm not Muslim, but it seems the point is getting lost or ignored.
ed hardy t-shirt pour enfant,t shirt enfants,tee shirt personnalisé,t shirt enfant pas cher,ed hardy france tee shirt enfant,t shirt pas cher,tee shirt personnalisé enfant,marque pour enfant,magasin pour enfants,t shirt personnalisé enfant,t shirt enfant personnalisé,ed hardy pas cher mode pour enfant,t shirt personnalisé,cadeau pour enfants,t shirt boutique,créer son t shirt,idée cadeau pour enfant,tee shirt enfant,créer son tee shirt,ed hardy casquette,mode pour enfants
Centinel: @vladimir ulyanov in theory anarcho-capitalism promotes voluntary exchange, in practice it encourages the emergence of absolutism.
@vladimir ulyanov
in theory anarcho-capitalism promotes voluntary exchange, in practice it encourages the emergence of absolutism.
What do you mean by absolutism? That's a rather broad term.
Centinel:Moreover, overwhelming empirical evidence confirms that Christian societies are far more peaceful, prosperous, free and stable than any islamic or secular alternative. Indeed, while you hate religion in general and Christianity in particular -- this hate is counter-productive and misguided since it is Christian societies in which austrian economic tenets have best flourished.
Indeed, while you hate religion in general and Christianity in particular -- this hate is counter-productive and misguided since it is Christian societies in which austrian economic tenets have best flourished.
I have to agree with you here. The Greek knowledge transmitted to us by the Islamic societies ironically never produced the rennaissance with those Islamic societies that it within the West.
The modern world took a whole collection of philosophies, practices, and cultural aspects to come together. But it did happen in the West. That's a credit to us, and a boon to everyone else.
For those who write me off as crazy:
Look up: 'Islamic gold dinar and the evils of fiat currency'
Or: 'Islam and anarchism and the state'
I want to leave collectivist civ soon, but if I HAD to live under a state I'd rather live under one that governs according to Islamic law which ENSURES sound money and a more libertairan stance than the western state does.