I'm just interested in knowing this since the two origins of libertarianism are just polar opposites. Natural rights justice theory and subjective theory of value had it's roots in the Catholic church. Ayn Rand also became a popular starting point in the 20th century.
Nope, neither.
Yes on the Bible, no on Atlas Shrugged, though the Bible has absolutely nothing to do with any belief I carry. Ayn Rand I just don't find a very good writer, though I very little sci-fi or fantasy to be good.
Catholic Church?
Until today I thought that Thomas Sowell was the one that convinced me of libertarianism, but after seeing todays article on Machiavelli I realize that without reading the Prince I wouldn't have been open to Sowell's arguments in the first place. Reading Machiavelli removed the rose colored glasses from my eyes when I looked at politics. Politics stopped looking like the quest from the common good and started looking more like the simple struggle for power over others. Rothbard had mostly nasty things to say about Machiavelli, but I am comfortable describing myself as a Machiavellian Libertarian.
I only discovered the Natural Rights tradition though Rothbard and Rand after I was a libertarian. I no longer consider myself a believer in Natural Rights, but am a still an anarchocapitalist.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Bert: Catholic Church?
I am as atheistic as they come
Dondoolee: Bert: Catholic Church? I am as atheistic as they come
I'm confused on "Natural rights justice theory and subjective theory of value had it's roots in the Catholic church".
I do consider Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal to be a favorite, though.
Kenneth: I'm just interested in knowing this since the two origins of libertarianism are just polar opposites. Natural rights justice theory and subjective theory of value had it's roots in the Catholic church. Ayn Rand also became a popular starting point in the 20th century.
Natural rights theory cannot come from a supernatural source.
People may claim so, but it's a non sequitur. Even if everything was made by a guy with a beard, we would still have to develop a moral theory.
And if your theory is that Jesus divinely received this moral theory, then you may as well give up on studying reality because anything would be possible; like Bob Murphy claims ( http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2010/02/a-snapshot-of-my-conversion.html ). He says anything could happen as long as you really want it to, which would enable Keynesian economics (creating endless booms, raising minimum wage AND lowering unemployment, etc) to be true.
Maybe there was no solid theory but at least the foundation was set. The Spanish Jesuit Juan de Mariana is considered the forebear of John Locke's defense of property(includes life and liberty).
Kenneth: Maybe there was no solid theory but at least the foundation was set. The Spanish Jesuit Juan de Mariana is considered the forebear of John Locke's defense of property(includes life and liberty).
Correlation is not causation. A moral theory must be developed like any other theory about reality. Supernatural beliefs cannot inform a theory about natural beliefs.
If Catholics developed homesteading principles it was despite being Catholic, not because they were Catholic. Now, it might be because they had more time and resources to spend on these ideas than others, but that doesn't make Catholicism the source of their ideas; it just makes Catholicism the source of their wealth.
Nielsio:If Catholics developed homesteading principles it was despite being Catholic, not because they were Catholic.
Well maybe it had something to do with them being Catholic. I mean Christianity was one of the first religions to focus on the individual. I agree with your first statement though about reality and not supernatural.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Kenneth:I'm just interested in knowing this since the two origins of libertarianism are just polar opposites. Natural rights justice theory and subjective theory of value had it's roots in the Catholic church. Ayn Rand also became a popular starting point in the 20th century.
I think you have to be a little more careful in what you consider an origin of a school of thought. The Scholastics might have done something worthwhile, at least with subjective theory of value, but that's no guarantee that they got it from the Bible. The Church itself is surely not a bastion of libertarianism, look at Juan's signature for an example. Ayn Rand seems to come, oh, a few centuries too late to be an origin.
If these are the origins, how do you explain Cicero being quite close to a classical liberal? Was he influenced by Rand, or the Church?
Maybe. All I'm saying is that Catholic Church definitely nurtured libertarian ideas.
I want to correct you in saying individuals developed libertarian ideas DESPITE being Catholic. Saying 'despite' means that Catholicism negates libertarianism. It's more accurate to say being Catholic and developing libertarian ideas have no relation at all.
You use because when there is a causal relationship. Despite when something happens in the face of opposing forces. The third is no relationship at all. And that is probably the accurate phrase to describe what we have here.
Kenneth: Maybe. All I'm saying is that Catholic Church definitely nurtured libertarian ideas. I want to correct you in saying individuals developed libertarian ideas DESPITE being Catholic. Saying 'despite' means that Catholicism negates libertarianism. It's more accurate to say being Catholic and developing libertarian ideas have no relation at all. You use because when there is a causal relationship. Despite when something happens in the face of opposing forces. The third is no relationship at all. And that is probably the accurate phrase to describe what we have here.
Catholicism is a belief in the supernatural. Belief in miracles is an absolute obstruction towards the understanding of reality. Yes, Bob Murphy may be a great Austrian economist, but it has to be despite his beliefs described in that post I linked.
[..] the selective forces that scrutinize scientific ideas are not arbitrary and capricious. They are exacting, well-honed rules, and they do not favor pointless self-serving behavior. They favor all the virtues laid out in textbooks of standard methodology: testability, evidential support, precision, quantifiability, consistency, intersubjectivity, repeatability, universality, progressiveness, independence of cultural milieu, and so on. Faith spreads despite a total lack of every single one of these virtues.
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html
Nielsio,
Where do you base you belief in time invariant natural laws?
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
For me, it's the bible and human action. But the stuff outside of the gospels is a little wonky to me. I prefer the gospels best. I'd have to say that my studies of the parables as a kid helped to sew the seeds of some ideas that are compatible with libertarianism, such as having a mutual respect for the common person and the importance of individual responsibility.
Physiocrat: Nielsio, Where do you base you belief in time invariant natural laws?
Where do you base your belief in time variant causality?
Cal: Nope, neither.
Same here.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
I haven't read the Bible nor Atlas Shrugged, but I did enjoy the Satanic Bible and The Fountainhead if that counts as anything.
The Bible - Which one? Plus, the bible isn't one book. Then there's the whole issue regarding mistranslation, errors in transcribing, and outright revision. Is a particular book a historical account, is it purely alegorical, or is it a mix of messages depending on your position and understanding at a given point in time? That's not even getting into the way the Church or the State has used the bible to justify just about any atrocity you can think of.
Can't really call the Bible as a favorite book. Portions of it hold some wisdom, but I would not call it a favorite based on that.
Atlas Shrugged is fine if you like watching Ayn Rand beat her chest for over 1000 pages and are 100% in agreement with her (anything less is simply unacceptable). There has been talk for a long time about a movie, which might be interesting if only for condensing the novel - although I have very little faith in Hollywood capturing the message of the novel.
There is no argument that both books have sold very well and have a great deal of influence. I don't think this is sufficient to make them favorites, at least not for me.
Bert: I haven't read the Bible nor Atlas Shrugged, but I did enjoy the Satanic Bible and The Fountainhead if that counts as anything.
Try the Brick Testament
http://www.thebricktestament.com/
As a Catholic I certainly consider the Bible a favorite book. I haven't read Atlas Shrugged and probably never will, I would prefer to read more Rothbard. Time is scarce and I've never even read anything from Mises.
Nielsio: Bert: I haven't read the Bible nor Atlas Shrugged, but I did enjoy the Satanic Bible and The Fountainhead if that counts as anything. Try the Brick Testament http://www.thebricktestament.com/
I actually laughed aloud.
Nielsio: A moral theory must be developed like any other theory about reality. Supernatural beliefs cannot inform a theory about natural beliefs.
A moral theory must be developed like any other theory about reality. Supernatural beliefs cannot inform a theory about natural beliefs.
Ever heard of Johannes Kepler? Kepler's Law of Planetary Motion were most definitely informed by his religious beliefs. Also, Newton's quest to "know the mind of God" was what inspired him to create his physics in the first place. The large majority of his writings were on theology, not physics. Learn some history of science before you spout off nonsense like that.
Nielsio:Catholicism is a belief in the supernatural. Belief in miracles is an absolute obstruction towards the understanding of reality. Yes, Bob Murphy may be a great Austrian economist, but it has to be despite his beliefs described in that post I linked.
Your ignorance of something does not make others knowledge a belief in the supernatural. There is no supernatural, only things you have knowledge of and understand and things you don't.
Given the limitless expanse of the universe do you really think you have it all figured out already? Or just maybe, there might be forces and powers at work in the universe that right now are way beyond your ability to fully understand. If others have a better understanding, knowledge or more experience with those forces does that by definition mean it is a belief in the supernatural simply because you don't?
Historically, there is a very clear relationship between libertarian thought and major religious doctrines of individual choice and responsibility.
Solid_Choke:but I am comfortable describing myself as a Machiavellian Libertarian.
What does that mean exactly? I haven't read Machiavelli but I am interested to know what it means to be a "Machiavellian Libertarian" just out of curiosity.
Skooma Addict: Solid_Choke:but I am comfortable describing myself as a Machiavellian Libertarian. What does that mean exactly? I haven't read Machiavelli but I am interested to know what it means to be a "Machiavellian Libertarian" just out of curiosity.
I consider myself a part of the Machiavellian research tradition, which seeks to explain how politics actually functions instead of how it "should" function. I think public choice economics is broadly in the Machiavellian research tradition. Machiavelli himself was a republican and sought the unification of Italy, but his positive program exposing the dominant strategies used by "successful" politicians seems to be dead on. Viewing politics from within the Machiavellian paradigm causes one to look at the power struggles going on and find it hard to see exactly what we are supposed to be in awe about. There isn't really anything glorious about envious, power hungry, politicians jockeying for position.
Nielsio:And if your theory is that Jesus divinely received this moral theory, then you may as well give up on studying reality because anything would be possible;
I was wondering how long this thread would take to get belligerent. It's almost always started by an atheist.
Anyway, whoever pointed out that the Bible is a complex book, or more accurately, that it is a combination of books of different genres to which there is no agreed upon canon is correct. Having a "Bible discussion" is kind of a fruitless task unless the context is set. That being said, just answering the general question "do you consider the Bible a favorite book" with maybe an explanation is a completely doable task; the problem arises when people want to debate you on your opinion of it.
Atlas Shrugged is probably in my top three. Sometimes number 1 depending on my mood.
Actually, I like Fountainhead better than Atlas Shrugged. Roark is probably my favorite character of all time. Or at least one of my favorites.
Nielsio:Where do you base your belief in time variant causality?
You are neither hot nor cold. In other words, you are lukewarm.
"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."
The Old Testament is probably as libertarian as they come.
Gipper:The Old Testament is probably as libertarian as they come.
Define "they come." Compared to other Testaments, maybe. Compared to For a New Liberty, I think not. On the larger issue of whether or not the book is libertarian overall, I think some Amalekites and Midianites might want to dispute it.
Solid_Choke: Nielsio: A moral theory must be developed like any other theory about reality. Supernatural beliefs cannot inform a theory about natural beliefs. Ever heard of Johannes Kepler? Kepler's Law of Planetary Motion were most definitely informed by his religious beliefs.
Ever heard of Johannes Kepler? Kepler's Law of Planetary Motion were most definitely informed by his religious beliefs.
How?
Also, Newton's quest to "know the mind of God" was what inspired him to create his physics in the first place.
That would be a motivation, not an insight.
The large majority of his writings were on theology, not physics. Learn some history of science before you spout off nonsense like that.
Correlation is not causation.
Nielsio: Nielsio, Where do you base you belief in time invariant natural laws?
Ok let me rephrase. How do you justify your belief in time invariant natural laws?
Maxliberty: Nielsio:Catholicism is a belief in the supernatural. Belief in miracles is an absolute obstruction towards the understanding of reality. Yes, Bob Murphy may be a great Austrian economist, but it has to be despite his beliefs described in that post I linked. Your ignorance of something does not make others knowledge a belief in the supernatural. There is no supernatural, only things you have knowledge of and understand and things you don't. Given the limitless expanse of the universe do you really think you have it all figured out already? Or just maybe, there might be forces and powers at work in the universe that right now are way beyond your ability to fully understand. If others have a better understanding, knowledge or more experience with those forces does that by definition mean it is a belief in the supernatural simply because you don't?
This means you're claiming Catholicism is not a religious belief but a scientific belief. Can you tell me where I can read about the scientific theories it holds? What theory does have about the origin of the earth? About the flood? About dead Jesus and returning from the dead? About flying Jesus? What is the theory of praying?
I thought there was a clear relationship between having to believe or be put to death; which doesn't seem very libertarian to me nor very scientific.
Nielsio:This means you're claiming Catholicism is not a religious belief but a scientific belief. Can you tell me where I can read about the scientific theories it holds? What theory does have about the origin of the earth? About the flood? About dead Jesus and returning from the dead? About flying Jesus? What is the theory of praying?
If you see an unknown light in the night sky is it a scientific or religious? People have real experiences with very powerful forces that are not easily explained by current scientific knowledge that doesn't mean those things did not happen.
What atheists don't understand is that most people believe in God because of their own experiences with these forces not because the Bible says so.
The inability to reproduce something in a lab does not mean it doesn't exist.
Science has no answer for where matter comes from or millions of other questions so please don't act like science has solved everything.
Nielsio:I thought there was a clear relationship between having to believe or be put to death; which doesn't seem very libertarian to me nor very scientific.
I guess you are just making stuff up now. All major religious text are big proponents of individual liberty and choice, the most important being to serve God or not.
Fri. 10/04/09 21:31 EDT.post #59
Maxliberty:The inability to reproduce something in a lab does not mean it doesn't exist.
Maxliberty:I guess you are just making stuff up now.
Maxliberty:All major religious text are big proponents of individual liberty and choice, the most important being to serve God or not.
Edit: corrected spelling error.
Believing in the supernatural is an oversimplification. It's more about living an ideal life, one that is different from the life advocated in Atlas where you just live for your own sake and expect to be happy. I think we know how that ends up. Ayn Rand died hating the world and miserable.