I've always liked the term "spontaneous order". But one word is better. Libertariaran is good. But a word that would describe both the freedom and complex order of a free society would be most preferred. Alot of people still think the free market results in chaos. Short favorable slogans for these types of complex processess would help fight the same types of people like Marx who coined "capitalism".
edward_1313, I apologize - in my haste (and lack of java this morn) I attributed to another what I meant to say I concurred with as actually your prior words ... I just reread the string and realized what you had written was most cogent. Thank you, Tom
Can you have freedom without anarchy? Yes.
True freedom can only be had without anarchy and without tyranny.
poor people and rich people are to be protected from and persecuted for immoral injustices alike.
The government has basically one function, to persecute with wrath and terror without mercy on evildoers, according to Apostle Paul.
so resist anarchy,
resist socialisim
and endorse righteousness like austrian economics which defends the Biblical paradigm of private property
tu ne cede malis
Nielsio:In my experience, free market thought is almost always coincided with atheist thought. But at lewrockwell.org as well as in the introduction thread here on the mises forum, I find quite a few people who are Christian and anarchist. Although I do recognize that they are a vastly different creed of Christians, they are still Christians.Let me quote Joseph Campbell on this:“God is a metaphor for a mystery that absolutely transcends all human categories of thought. Even the categories of being and non-being; those are categories of thought. So it depends on how much you want to think about it. Whether it's doing you any good. Whether it is putting you in touch with the mystery that is the ground of your own being; if it isn't, well, it's a lie. So half of the people in the world are religious people who think that their metaphors are facts; those are what we call theists. The other half are people who know that the metaphors are not facts, and so they're lies; those are the atheists.” The above quote intends to show that both theism (metaphors are facts) as well as the reactionary position of atheism (those facts are not facts and thus lies) are not quite getting it. It introduces the idea that metaphors are in fact metaphors and their function is to penetrate us to the mystery. Could it be that the Christian anarchists are actually metaphorical Christians, or do you believe that God, Jesus, Satan, heaven, hell, etc. are facts; and not to be confused with metaphors. Because if that is the case then I think we have a problem on our hands, because the purpose of knowledge is to understand, describe, explain and predict reality, which religious speak - as facts - do not do.
In my experience, free market thought is almost always coincided with atheist thought. But at lewrockwell.org as well as in the introduction thread here on the mises forum, I find quite a few people who are Christian and anarchist. Although I do recognize that they are a vastly different creed of Christians, they are still Christians.
Let me quote Joseph Campbell on this:
“God is a metaphor for a mystery that absolutely transcends all human categories of thought. Even the categories of being and non-being; those are categories of thought. So it depends on how much you want to think about it. Whether it's doing you any good. Whether it is putting you in touch with the mystery that is the ground of your own being; if it isn't, well, it's a lie. So half of the people in the world are religious people who think that their metaphors are facts; those are what we call theists. The other half are people who know that the metaphors are not facts, and so they're lies; those are the atheists.”
The above quote intends to show that both theism (metaphors are facts) as well as the reactionary position of atheism (those facts are not facts and thus lies) are not quite getting it. It introduces the idea that metaphors are in fact metaphors and their function is to penetrate us to the mystery. Could it be that the Christian anarchists are actually metaphorical Christians, or do you believe that God, Jesus, Satan, heaven, hell, etc. are facts; and not to be confused with metaphors. Because if that is the case then I think we have a problem on our hands, because the purpose of knowledge is to understand, describe, explain and predict reality, which religious speak - as facts - do not do.
I'm a Jehovah's Witness, just so you know, you might not care though. To answer one of your questions, I do not believe in hell, I believe hell, sheol, hades, and gehenna are metaphors for the non existences or death of someone, as a J.W. I don't believe that one has a "soul" that floats away into heaven after we die, or anything like that, but that when one dies we simply cease to exist, until...(fill in). There is an understanding that the bible expresses a passive resistant to "Caesar", and also that no worldly government can be just. So I think some christians can be anarchists, atleast anarcho-capitalists, and be devout christians.
In my experience, free market thought is almost always coincided with atheist thought.
Your experience is a tiny slice of history. Lysander Spooner and ThomasJefferson were both deists. John Locke was a Christian. Some free marketarians are also atheistic, and some (like Ayn Rand) belligerently so. But that tells you more about their psyches than about any fundamental philosophical incompatibility between Christianity and liberty.
--Len.
If you actually bother reading through my response, you might realise why throughout your entire post you contradict this statement. The problem is that you can’t convince a believer of anything, because their belief is based upon a deep seated need to believe (Carl Sagan).
Funny--I've always said the exact same thing about liberals like Sagan. The fact is that all humans are, at times, powerfully motivated by non-rational factors. Dawkins is a strong advocate of the welfare state. He mocks those who worship God--and then worships politicians. Whether or not one grants God's existence, it seems self-evident that one is much more contemptible who worships human beings that are easily shown to be criminals with far less integrity even than the average human. Anyone who believes in socialized medicine lives in a glass house, and should refrain from throwing stones at religious peope.
Len Budney:Funny--I've always said the exact same thing about liberals like Sagan. The fact is that all humans are, at times, powerfully motivated by non-rational factors. Dawkins is a strong advocate of the welfare state. He mocks those who worship God--and then worships politicians. Whether or not one grants God's existence, it seems self-evident that one is much more contemptible who worships human beings that are easily shown to be criminals with far less integrity even than the average human. Anyone who believes in socialized medicine lives in a glass house, and should refrain from throwing stones at religious peope.
Just because I quoted someone on a theological matter doesn't mean I agree with their political views. Carl Sagan happened to have observed an important phenomena within a lot of religious thinkers. The fact that he may or may not have been hypocritical in the process does not invalidate his claim. That's like saying: Ford was an anti-semite, Ford also popularised mass-production. Since anti-semitism is bad, so must be mass-production. This line of reasoning that you employ is highly fallacius.
As to Dawkins, I don't see why you assume that all atheists are like Dawkins. Personally I think he's somewhere between a hypocrite and a clown. He despises religion, and sees it as the root of all evil, whereas I think most atheists will agree that evil exists with or without religion. While religion may be a conduit of or an excuse for evil in some cases, it is hardly fair to say that without religion we would have no evil, greedy, incompetent and stupid humans. So Dawkins is pretty naive and downright counter-productive there.
In fact, his whole style is very dogmatic. He denounces the dogmas of religions, yet espouses his own dogma of fervent belief and, as you say "worshiping" of the scientific method, and of humans themselves.
In reality, I don't see why we need to go to either of the extremes. Religion is only bad in some cases, while in others it can be a productive illusion (though nonetheless an illusion, in my opinion). Nor are humans infallible, in fact the very opposite. To worship either a contrived god, or the wisdom of other humans seems highly naive to me, not to mention self-insulting (is that a word?). Then again I dislike the very concept of worship as a useless waste of time and intellect in the first place, no matter what is is applied to.
If a wise and fair God does exist, surely it will judge people not by how much they worshipped it, or what they did in its name to gain it's repayment (in the form of heaven), and to avoid punishment (hell), but by how they lived their lives without regard for any holy beings. The person who leads a good life without the presence of a holy carrot and stick in their mind seems far more "moral" than the person indulging in good actions to get on the good side of God. That's why when religious fanatics tell me that lack of belief in a God results in damnation, then I think to myself: that must be a pretty childish God, and if it has such morals, why would I worship it?
But whatever you do, don't take people like Dawkins and generalise their beliefs, applying them to other atheists. You insult the intelligent independently thinking atheists out there (there are many), and also expose your own understanding of atheists, or lack thereof.
Carl:The government has basically one function, to persecute with wrath and terror without mercy on evildoers, according to Apostle Paul.
The government relies on a monopoly of persecuting with wrath and terror without mercy evildoers, to be maintained such a monopoly require persecuting with wrath and terror without mercy innocent people who protect their family, neighbors or clients from evildoers, this act is therefore evil, which means according to Apostle Paul the government should persecute itself with wrath terror and without mercy, thus leading to anarchy.
Just because I quoted someone on a theological matter doesn't mean I agree with their political views.
I'm focusing neither on religion nor on politics, but on epistemology. The main attack on religious people is usually epistemological: that they embrace "blind faith" in preference to rationality, whereas atheists embrace rationality--as evidenced particularly by the very fact that they are atheists.
My response is, superficially, an appeal to the tu quoque fallacy: the individual accusing others of irrationality is himself guilty of irrationality. I explicitly demonstrated it in the case of any liberal, which obviously includes Sagan and Dawkins. But I claimed much more than that: I claimed that all humans adopt one or more premises which are not rationally supported. I could move on to cite Ayn Rand, who was particularly flagrant in this regard, if only to irritate any objectivists reading the thread.
But the point of observing that all humans are motivated partly by rationality, and partly by other principles, is to attack directly the assertion, implicit in the atheists' argument, that any deviation from absolute rationalism is inherently a defect. Given that no human is purely rational, your premise compels you to: kid yourself that you are absolutely rational, as Ayn Rand did; or recognize yourself as defective. The former is, needless to say, irrational. It's as irrational as a short man asserting himself to be tall.
But the latter is, more subtly, a religious conviction! It requires one to adopt an unrealizable ideal as a standard, against which one must confess that "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of Pure Logic." Put slightly differently, it represents the irrational premise that humans must conform to a standard to which conformity is not possible. It's as irrational as defining dependence on oxygen to be a defect in humans. Existence exists. A is A. And humans are what they are.
If a wise and fair God does exist, surely it will judge people not by how much they worshipped it...
If a sentient being vaguely fitting the description of "God" exists, then by virtue of His sentience, He probably has a different definition of "wise and fair" than you do. Since "wise and fair" are therefore not well-defined terms, any conclusion you try to draw from His "wisdom and fairness" is guaranteed to be useless. All you have told us is that a God who doesn't conform to your expectation would be deemed by you to be either unwise or unfair. Observe that you have commited the irrationalism of attempting rigorous reasoning from subjective terms. Your argument is as irrational as this one of mine: if a tasty ice cream exists, it will be vanilla.
Then again I dislike the very concept of worship as a useless waste of time and intellect in the first place, no matter what is is applied to.
Note that genuine libertarians are religious in at least the sense that Buddhists are: a libertarian is genuine if and only if he accepts the non-aggression principle as absolute. No absolute principle can be proven on purely rational grounds, because the statement that non-aggression is "right" or "just" is subjective. The statement that people "must" not aggress is false: they can and do. Nor is non-aggression maximally efficient: the successful aggressor benefits enormously. It's arguably the most "fair," but that merely begs the question: you still haven't proven that anyone should give a damn about fairness.
In short, you are accepting, without rigorous proof, an absolute concept of "justice," and the doctrine that this justice takes precedence over all other considerations--"Justice though the heavens fall." Whether or not you also believe in God as the personification of justice, you are at least as religious as a Buddhist, since God is optional in Buddhism.
Which completes the argument I was expecting you to infer from my post. You are either an aggressor, or a religious man. If an aggressor, your ridicule is meaningless to me because you are evil. If religious, then your ridicule is hypocritical.
Critisizing me on epistemological grounds is all very nice Len, but your entire post falls apart when you realise that no where did I even mention the word rationality!
You have repeated the same mistake that I warned you against at the end of my post, you went ahead and took some sort of generalisation of atheists, and assumed that I fitted that description. Obviously when we go into epistemology, I can't prove that what I say is rational, nor do I believe that what I think is always rational. Everyone makes mistakes every now and then, and so do I, which essentially proves that I'm sometimes irrational. At this point, if you're really pedantic, you could argue that my assumption that I was wrong could have been fallacious, and hence irrational.
All I did was say that the gods described in the bible, and various other religious texts, do not adhere to my understanding of what "fair" and "moral" is. Is this understanding subjective? Sure. Does that mean that any debate is hence useless? Not at all, otherwise why would anyone ever bother arguing?
No where do I talk of any absolute concepts of "justice". Nor do I say that justice takes precedence over all other considerations. You've literally made up all of this through some dubious process of inference of what I actually wrote. I do however believe things such as that no group, no matter how large, should have the right to harm even one individual, no matter how large the net benefit derived. Essentially the individualist vs. collectivist argument. But if we take what you say to its natural conclusion, then all arguing in such terms is useless since its all irrational.
What I said was that if god is the way it is described in religious texts such as the bible, then that type of morality doesn't suit me, and I won't adhere to it because I don't think it's fair, as it marginalises many people, approves slavery, creates an image of women as inferior and always to blame, advocates genocide, etc.
Your problem here I think is that you take everything to the extreme. To you, things are either absolutely rational, and you yourself correctly claim that they cannot be, or that they are hence irrational. You implicity seem to conclude that irrationality is equal, but this is not so. Irrationality varies in degrees. One statement can be tenable with many arguments supporting it, while another may be untenable, with only a few arguments which, when closely analysed, fall apart. Instead of addressing the issue of how one statement may be more rational than another, you simply come to the conclusion that all statements are inherently irrational (as they are made by humans, who in turn are fallible) and hence destroy any sense in arguing.
Such an approach is purely counter-productive and achieves very little. If people adhered to what you say now in practice, we would have very little progress in any fields (especially in economics and politics), since almost all statements are subjective.
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/x2103555123
Try this masterpiece of rational belief:
TomG:Try this masterpiece of rational belief: http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinions/x2103555123
Congratulations: you found a religious man who is also an idiot. You win a gold star. If I were stupid, I would hunt up an idiotic atheist and call touché. But since I'm not stupid, I'll point out that you and I both know better than to commit the fallacy of hasty generalization. A religious idiot proves that all religious people are idiots? If so, then you must also believe that Jews are covetous: after all, it's certainly possible to find a covetous Jew--and finding one proves that they're all covetous.
Do you really insist on doing this the hard way? You said, "The problem is that you can’t convince a believer of anything, because their belief is based upon a deep seated need to believe (Carl Sagan)." The obvious reply is, "Suppose so. So what?" Apparently, you think that this statement of Sagan's is (1) accurate, (2) significant and (3) to the discredit of "believers."
The statement is inaccurate on two fronts: first, many believers can be convinced of many things. I'm a believer who is also a mathematician, and has been convinced of all sorts of things, including universal common descent. That's one counterexample, which suffices to disprove the claim. It's also untrue for implying that "believers" are unique in this respect. I proved that in excruciating detail: Sagan and Dawkins are two examples of "unbelievers" who in fact "cannot be convinced" that the welfare state isn't a wonderful thing. Apparently at least two unbelievers also have a "deep-seated need to believe." In both senses, the statement is disproven.
That it's significant is also disproven: having argued cogently that ALL humans believe SOME things for inscrutable reasons, we conclude that Sagan has told us nothing we didn't already know. The statement was as profound as, "Humans breathe air."
Finally, why is it a discredit to believers? Only one answer is possible: that being convinced by one's "deep-seated need to believe" is inferior to being convinced by something else. OK, then: WHAT else? What is it that's superior to believing based on a "deep-seated need to believe"? Only one answer is possible: being convinced by rational argument is superior. Sagan's quote says exactly that: "you can't convince a believer of anything." The "convincing" of which he speaks is by means of rational argument.
From which we conclude that Saga, and hence you, are praising rational discourse, and denigrating other means of becoming convinced of something. Now that I've proven, in painful detail, that your criticism is precisely that believers aren't rational, I invite you to reread my previous post explaining why that argument rests on faulty epistemology.
If people adhered to what you say now in practice, we would have very little progress in any fields (especially in economics and politics), since almost all statements are subjective.
I have no problem with subjective statements. Apparently, neither do you. In which case, you have no choice but to retract your Sagan quote and start treating believers with more respect: their view is subjectively influenced, but according to you subjective influences are an inescapable fact of life that should not be despised.
What I said was that if god is the way it is described in religious texts such as the bible, then that type of morality doesn't suit me...
That's NOT what you said, but it's probably what you meant. I can argue pretty cogently for the non-aggression principle from scripture, so "that type of morality" doesn't cause me the cognitive dissonance that it apparently causes you. I will point out that God reserves the right to go around smiting the wicked, but He specifically forbids believers doing the same. Thus inter-human relationships ARE governed by the nonaggression principle; it's only divine-human interactions which aren't. This doesn't contradict the non-aggression principle because God is ontologically distinct from humans: humans can't own each other, but God on His superior plane CAN own humans on our lower plane. With respect to divinity, we are property, just as our pets are property with respect to humanity.
It is perfectly analogous to the "animal rights" debate. We deny human rights to cows. If they could articulate such thoughts, they would complain that we're horribly unjust, and that "higher" creatures like humans are obligated to extend "human" rights to cows. We argue the same concerning deity--but, like our hypothetical precocious cows, we argue in vain. And, like our precocious cows, you probably find that objectionable. Oh well.
No where do I talk of any absolute concepts of "justice".
Are you saying you reject the non-aggression principle? If so, I must admit that I don't value your opinion at all. Aggressors, like wild animals, aren't worth consulting. They should be left alone and watched. And if they threaten harm to humans, they should be put down.
If, conversely, you DO accept the non-aggression principle, then you DO believe in an absolute concept of justice. That you haven't mentioned it is beside the point. You either believe in the non-aggression principle, and hence justice, or you're a potentially dangerous wild animal. Which is precisely what I said in my previous post.
The statement is inaccurate on two fronts: first, many believers can be convinced of many things.
Obviously Sagan was referring to religious beliefs, or lack thereof, as opposed to something that is actually (relatively) provable, such as theories in mathematics. To compare the provability of a theory in maths with the provability of the existence of god is just absurd.
Simply because all humans believe in at least something without some sort of rational basis, doesn't mean that these things are equal in nature. A belief that my table is made out of wood (simply by looking at the patterns) has far more basis to it than a belief in god based on some book written thousands of years ago which manages to contradict itself. While some things are impossible to prove rationally, even within the universe the bible describes, there are many discrepancies. At the very least you must recognise that any text which contradicts itself cannot be inerrant. If it cannot even pass the test of internal consistency, matching it up to some sort of real life phenomena becomes useless.
Whoops, wrong there. You've somehow managed to completely omit the most important one, evidence. If you ask atheists, and obviously agnostics whether they would believe in god if they had some sort of credible evidence, they would mostly say yes. Of course, at this point in time, it would be knowledge as opposed to belief. You can't just say the only two types of knowledge is rational argument, and belief. Evidence and facts are the most important. Most atheists and agnostics do not believe in god not because they've reasoned so, but because they lack any evidence. It is only later that they begin to formulate what is subjectively by them deemed as a rational discussion of god's non-existence.
You fundamentally misunderstood what the quote meant (at least from my interpretation). I think Sagan was saying that even if you were to give a believer some sort of facts disproving the existence of whatever they believe in, they would still believe in it. Of course not everyone, most might not, but some always will. For examples, look at all those prophecies of religions that gave exact dates, during which nothing subsequently happened, and yet these groups experienced a surge of belief.
Well here you just continue to confuse evidence with rational argument, so see above.
I never said I despised religion, or believers. Where are you inferring this from? Just because I think some people are naive doesn't mean I despise them. That's a very strong word to use. Nor do I think it would be correct to classify all believers into one category. Some believers respect atheists, others loathe them, yet others make it their personal mission to save their souls from eternal damnation through conversion. I certainly can, and do respect the former, but for the latter I have only disrespect.
Here's the difference between me, and your average believer. I don't believe in god because I don't have any evidence, and my purely subjective arguments, which may or may not be rational, tell me that the concept of god as described by the bible could have only been created by man, not the other way round. Theists however (by and large), stress that they not only believe in god's existence, but they know he exists. If I were to encounter a cogent argument, or better yet some sort of evidence to point to god's existence, I may very well concede. Whereas some theists if shown evidence disproving god, would continue to believe, without the shadow of a doubt, equating doubt to damnation itself. That is what's irrational: holding one's subjective belief as the ultimate truth - something I wouldn't even pretend to do.
I will point out that God reserves the right to go around smiting the wicked, but He specifically forbids believers doing the same.
So you're telling me that no where in the bible you encountered god giving orders for people to smite on his behalf? Have you read the bible?! All the time we're told "Do this, because god said so". How else would the inquisitions and crusades have occurred? Only due to interpretations of the bible. If the bible said "Believe in what you want, we won't hurt you, but god will in the afterlife" Then that would be fine by me. What it actually says is "If you don't believe in our religion, we'll punish you in both this life, and the next."
I can argue pretty cogently for the non-aggression principle from scripture, so "that type of morality" doesn't cause me the cognitive dissonance that it apparently causes you.
It's precisely the fact that it is possible (as you claim) to argue a cogent argument supporting the non-aggression principle from scripture, while I can conversely argue for slavery, and genocide, is precisely what should be causing a cognitive dissonance in your mind. However, as we have seen throughout history, theists are able to conveniently take what they want from scripture as a basis for their arguments, ignoring the rest of the text which often contradicts it.
And, like our precocious cows, you probably find that objectionable. Oh well.
When do I know that someone has ran out of things to say? When they resort to ad hominem. I somehow doubt equating me to a cow will help you in this argument.
Are you saying you reject the non-aggression principle? If so, I must admit that I don't value your opinion at all. Aggressors, like wild animals, aren't worth consulting. They should be left alone and watched. And if they threaten harm to humans, they should be put down.If, conversely, you DO accept the non-aggression principle, then you DO believe in an absolute concept of justice. That you haven't mentioned it is beside the point. You either believe in the non-aggression principle, and hence justice, or you're a potentially dangerous wild animal. Which is precisely what I said in my previous post.
How better to finish a post than with a false dichotomy.
I say something. You then tell me this is subjective on an epistemological basis that all things are subjective. I agree that since no argument can be absolute due to inherent subjectivity, but that within my subjective reasoning, I fully support the anti-aggression axiom. You then spin this to make it look as though I have completely rejected the non-aggression principle, and create a false dichotomy whereby I'm either rejecting the principle on a subjective basis, or objectively agreeing to it as an ultimate truth. Whereas in reality I'm agreeing to it on a subjective basis. These tricks don't work on me. If you want to argue, do so properly, and stop trying to spin things all over the place. You're either trying to argue to gain something from it, or you're simply here to "win" the argument.
EXACTLY! You win another cookie. The problem is that Sagan is doing precisely that: comparing provability of religious belief with provability of mathematics. His entire point is that one should reject God because He isn't provable in the mathematical sense. Recall the example from his last sci-fi novel: if only God would, say, encode a BMP of a circle in the digits of PI, then Sagan would consider believing.
Sagan is a fool. Lots of things aren't mathematically provable. Which is precisely why we shouldn't mock people's beliefs so lightly. That's my point. You seem to be making the same point, without realizing that you're agreeing with me.
I think Sagan was saying that even if you were to give a believer some sort of facts disproving the existence of whatever they believe in, they would still believe in it.
Um, that's precisely what I'm saying he's saying. "Some sort of facts" is a synonym for rational argument and empirical evidence.
Are you claiming that someone has advanced evidence of God's nonexistence? If so, you're very confused: outside mathematics, there's no such thing as proof of nonexistence. You can argue that there's a lack of evidence for God, but not that there's evidence for a lack of God.
I never said I despised religion, or believers. Where are you inferring this from? ... Here's the difference between me, and your average believer.
Gee, I stand corrected. You don't look down on believers. That's obvious. (Yawn.) You're allowed to have any opinion you want, including a dim view of believers. What do you gain by your unconvincing denial?
It's precisely the fact that it is possible (as you claim) to argue a cogent argument supporting the non-aggression principle from scripture, while I can conversely argue for slavery, and genocide, is precisely what should be causing a cognitive dissonance...
I know scripture orders of magnitude better than you. The fact that a relatively ignorant person, such as yourself, can take stuff out of context, doesn't trouble me at all. I've heard all sorts of ignorant claims about every subject under the sun. The existence of ignorant people, or the fact that they go around making claims, is meaningless to me. You could indeed cause me cognitive dissonance if you could (1) convincingly contradict my understanding of scripture, and (2) also convince me to respect your opinion. Some people have indeed done both, and I've changed my views as a result. But so far, you've done neither. The bare fact that you're making assertions is uninteresting in the extreme.
Boy, you're really getting worked up. How can I tell? Because I mention cows, and you fly off the handle imagining that I'm calling you a cow, let alone making an ad hominem argument. I'm stating categorically that lower orders may not demand rights from higher orders. Grass can't demand rights from cows. Cows can't demand rights from humans. And humans can't demand rights from gods. My point is crystal clear, and there isn't an ad hominem around for miles. Your outrage only makes you look ignorant.
You've accused me of several fallacies, although I've spent decades in training never to commit such fallacies, and earned a PhD in testimony to my success. But that's just a long winded way of saying, "Yo mamma," so now I'll set you straight: "Q or not Q" is never a false dichotomy. It's a tautology. I like tautologies, because if I can fool you into attacking the tautology, I can tie you up in knots. The tautology in this case is: either you believe in absolute nonaggression, or you don't.
It is in fact true that if you don't believe in absolute nonaggression, then I DO regard you as a potentially dangerous animal. I own, and always carry, a firearm. If you threaten me, I will defend myself. If you put me in fear of grave harm, I will shoot you. Otherwise, I will warily avoid you--just as I would a bear. That's not an ad hominem--but I suppose it's an insult, if you insist on taking it as one. However you slice it, it's a statement of fact.
If conversely you do believe in absolute nonaggression, then you hold a core belief on subjective grounds, which makes you a religious man. You might believe in one fewer god than the Jews, but that's irrelevant. I illustrated this by drawing a parallel to Buddhism.
I fully support the anti-aggression axiom.
OK, then you're a religious man. Ponder that until you come to appreciate fully the common ground that you share with me in this regard.
...create a false dichotomy whereby I'm either rejecting the principle on a subjective basis, or objectively agreeing to it as an ultimate truth.
It's impossible to agree objectively with it. If you agree with it at all, then you agree with it subjectively. I accept it whole-heartedly, and my adherence to it is subjective. My entire point is that there's no such thing as objectivity as regards the non-aggression principle: whether you accept it or reject it, you're doing so subjectively. The Ayn Randians, who claim to accept nonaggression objectively, are idiots. They're accepting it subjectively, and then convincing themselves that their subjective view is really an objective conclusion.
Whereas in reality I'm agreeing to it on a subjective basis.
You're making MY point, but apparently without realizing that you appear to agree with me completely. I'm not sure why you're confused. Perhaps because you hold a subjective view--the nonaggression principle--while simultaneously mocking the subjective views of religious people. Perhaps you don't realize that in doing so you're guilty of a performative contradiction. I'm pointing out that you and believers have something in common, but you refuse to accept that, or even to grasp it. Therefore, you "resolve" the contradiction by mistaking what I'm telling you.
If you want to argue, do so properly, and stop trying to spin things all over the place.
My argument has been 100% rigorous so far. In a nutshell, it's this: as a libertarian, you ARE a religious man--so stop mocking religious men.
You're either trying to argue to gain something from it, or you're simply here to "win" the argument.
I'm trying to gain something: I want to sell you (and everyone else) wholeheartedly on the nonaggression principle. Secondarily, I want everyone who embraces nonaggression to get along civilly, which means in particular the believers and unbelievers, the Objectivists and the Misesians. Your condescension to believers isn't conducive to civil discourse, so I address it. Tertiarily, I can't resist tweaking the Objectivist/Atheist wing of Libertaria, because they can't resist acting like pricks.
Boy, you're really getting worked up.
I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't get worked up over online discussions.
As soon as you reject even the possibility of empirical evidence you simply descend into solipsism. There's very little distance to cover between "All statements/thoughts are subjective" and "Everything around me is a figment of my imagination."
Indeed, to argue for some sort of evidence currently existing that disproves god would be ludicrous. Nor do I ever do that. I simply remark that if such evidence were to be found, a large portion of theists would continue to believe. I never argue that there is evidence for a lack of god, as that position is quite simply untenable. I'm an agnostic in the sense that I don't know, nor do I think anyone else knows. That does not mean that the chances of god's existence and non-existence are equal, and so in my subjective views I become more inclined towards atheism, nonetheless retaining my position as an agnostic. To vehemently believe that god does not exist is as irrational as to fanatically believe that it does. I think you'll agree with me there.
Unconvincing denial? Most of the people I know believe in god, and my opinion of them has in no way changed, because they're decent about it. But when someone incessantly spams my youtube account in full caps telling me that not converting to Jesus will cause eternal damnation, I get pretty annoyed. That's all I tried to explain to you: the difference between a fanatic and a moderate, and that you cannot expect me to respect them equally.
Ok explain to me passages such as Deuteronomy 13 which talk of stoning any self-proclaimed prophets, and their followers, even if these people are family to you. If that's not intolerance then i don't know what is. But the worst thing about it is that there is no definition of a difference between a real prophet and a charlatan. This definition is left to interpretation by humans (not your god), and I'm sure that passage has caused many deaths. The irony is if we were to treat any prophet dissenting from the doctrines of the old testament as fake, then Jesus himself would have to have been stoned, since his message differed immensely from what the old testament said. Think about that.
I'm stating categorically that lower orders may not demand rights from higher orders. Grass can't demand rights from cows. Cows can't demand rights from humans. And humans can't demand rights from gods. My point is crystal clear, and there isn't an ad hominem around for miles. Your outrage only makes you look ignorant.
Of course, your entire argument is based upon the very subjective assumption that god exists. Moreover, it also severely limits various libertarian concepts of rights. How can humans have property rights if the universe was created by god? Surely then god owns everything. The concept of claiming land rights for example, explained by mixing unclaimed land with labour, would mean that you own a small part of the universe which god doesn't. Effectively you would become your own god, and the higher order laws such as the ten commandments would no longer apply on your property. But of course you won't agree that such a line of reasoning makes any sense, nor that any deity would allow this. Your argument simply leads to an invalidation of rights on the part of individuals....The reason this doesn't make sense of course, is because the reasoning you employ is fallacious. While we know that grass exists, and that cows exist, and that humans exist, we do not know that deities exist. To finish the chain of objective statements with one so purely subjective seems strange of you to do, especially if you claim to have some sort of PhD (in philosophy I presume?)
Besides, by supporting your argument through a claim to some sort of education above mine, you invoke the fallacious appeal to authority (yourself). Strange, considering in your own words: "I've spent decades in training never to commit such fallacies."
"Q or not Q" is never a false dichotomy. It's a tautology. The tautology in this case is: either you believe in absolute nonaggression, or you don't.
Well, what you did certainly do is invoke the law of the excluded middle, which can lead to false dichotomies, which in this case i think it did.
No, once again you misinterpret what I said. The difference between my support of the anti-aggression axiom is that I admit it is subjective, as any other belief is. Many religious people however, assert that their belief is not subjective, but objective, and also undeniably true.
Yes I agree no such thing as complete objectivity can exist in these types of arguments...everything is subjective, but what I'm trying to make you understand is while I acknowledge this fact, many theists claim that they possess some sort of higher knowledge, and that this knowledge is the ultimate truth, etc. We all know the drill.
If you really insist on ignoring the difference though....
The Ayn Randians, who claim to accept nonaggression objectively, are idiots. They're accepting it subjectively, and then convincing themselves that their subjective view is really an objective conclusion.
Do you then not admit that religious people also hold subjective beliefs and that they resort to convincing themselves as to their objectivity? Also, please realise that I'm not an Ayn Randian, nor do I defend their position regarding objectivism, so I don't see how this is relevant here. All you've done is explain that fanatical atheists are as irrational as fanatical believers, but then I agree with you there anyway.
I absolutely accept that both I, and religious people hold subjective beliefs - everyone does. I'm not denying that at all. I'm trying to highlight to you that very many religious people, especially priests and prophets claim that their beliefs are objective, and hence while I admit that my beliefs may be irrational, some theists (those that I critisize) assert that their's are rational and objective. Please address the part in italics (which I think iv'e repeated thrice throughout this post), so I can finally understand what your thoughts on this are.
Then don't falsely cry, "Ad hominem!"
As soon as you reject even the possibility of empirical evidence you simply descend into solipsism.
That's ridiculous. LOTS of things can be proven empirically. Universal common descent is a good example. "Solipsism" is a red herring. One specific thing can't be empirically proven: the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can search high and low, and declare that you've never found him. You can investigate people who claim they have "proof" of the FSM, and debunk them. You can announce an utter lack of evidence for the FSM, and team up with James Randi to offer a billion-dollar reward to anyone who offers proof. But you can't prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.
There's a very good reason for that: the assertion that the FSM exists is not falsifiable, because it makes no testable predictions.
There's very little distance to cover between "All statements/thoughts are subjective" and "Everything around me is a figment of my imagination."
You really don't seem to be paying attention. I am a mathematician. I'd sooner shoot myself in the head than say, "All statements are subjective." I wrote a PhD thesis containing theorems that are objectively true in the most absolute sense imaginable. If the universe blinked out of existence tomorrow, and all sentience were extinguished, so that no mind remained to perceive my theorems, they would still be true. I don't know how you can read anything I've ever written and conclude that I think "all statements are subjective."
I simply remark that if such evidence were to be found...
In this case, nonexistence is inherently unprovable. "God exists" is not a falsifiable statement. If you even remotely imagine you've falsified it, I've got bad news for you: "God" will immediately be redefined such that your falsification doesn't apply.
Example: If we define God as, "The all-powerful being who ensures that six million Jews will never be gassed," then we have empirical evidence He doesn't exist. Some Holocaust survivors apparently believed in that "God," because they came out of the camps saying, "The Holocaust forever destroyed my belief in God." But that doesn't falsify the claim that God exists, because no believer today defines God that way. The claim can never be falsified, because "God" is way too vague a term.
To vehemently believe that god does not exist is as irrational as to fanatically believe that it does. I think you'll agree with me there.
Perhaps, but it's equally irrational to believe in non-aggression. Nevertheless, I believe in nonaggression, and so do you. Ergo, accusing people of "irrationality" is synonymous with observing that they are, in fact, people.
Unconvincing denial? Most of the people I know believe in god, and my opinion of them has in no way changed...
Apparently they aren't "the average believer" then. Your scorn for "the average believer" is abundantly plain.
But when someone incessantly spams my youtube account in full caps telling me that not converting to Jesus will cause eternal damnation, I get pretty annoyed. That's all I tried to explain to you...
You've made the incredible discovery that jackasses exist. I congratulate you! Are you planning to publish this earth-shattering breakthrough? I'd enjoy writing a collaborative paper with you about that. We can cite some of your religious jackasses. Then we can go, say, to talk.origins, and look for jackasses who argue with creationists despite clearly understanding evolution no better themselves. I'm embarrased by creationists, but I'm equally embarrased by ignorant evolutionists. Do you realize how many boobs still believe in Lamarckian evolution, for example, and yet insult the creationists' intelligence?
Ok explain to me passages such as Deuteronomy 13 which talk of stoning any self-proclaimed prophets, and their followers, even if these people are family to you.
Um, easily. It might occur to you that believers have read this passage before, by the way--did you expect me to say, "Holy smokes! I never realized that the Bible said THAT!" The answer is that God, as a higher being, regards humans as property precisely the way humans regard animals as property. God can commit genocide if He wants, just like we can eradicate the flu virus or some species of animal. The entire book of Joshua chronicles a genocide, commited by God, through direct orders to human agents. Deuteronomy 13 constitutes direct orders from God to humans.
The same book of Deuteronomy also says, "Love you neighbor as yourself." Apart from special cases in which God directly orders the contrary, we are bound by the nonaggression principle. Nonaggression is a rule for inter-personal behavior. If God personally ordered me to kill, I would kill--and further, I expect Him to do so eventually, when Messiah comes. In the mean time, my standing orders are summed up in the Golden Rule.
I explain the passage realizing that you're going to drift off topic by attacking either scripture or me on a personal level. We can take it as given that you find the whole idea disturbing, repulsive, etc. We lower beings usually are repulsed at the very notion that something higher exists, or that it's above our wishes or laws. So spare me the ridicule. You'll note that my position is self-consistent, and identical to the libertarian position as long as God refrains from personally appearing on the scene with the voice of a trumpet.
The irony is if we were to treat any prophet dissenting from the doctrines of the old testament as fake, then Jesus himself would have to have been stoned, since his message differed immensely from what the old testament said. Think about that.
Ouch! Apparently it's possible to experience physical pain from rolling one's eyes too hard. Dang that hurt.
Of course, your entire argument is based upon the very subjective assumption that god exists.
Nonsense. I said that higher beings don't have to give us equal rights. That statement doesn't imply the existence of higher beings. Only that, if they do happen to exist, they don't owe us equal rights. If no gods exist, then my claim is vacuously true: every statement about the members of the empty set is automatically true. It would bore you to death if I expressed myself in rigorous language, but you may rest assured that your efforts to find mistakes in my logic are, so far, wasting your own time. I have considered these matters in excruciating detail, and while my view isn't mathematically provable, it is completely free of self-contradiction. I know my craft well enough not to make provably false assertions.
How can humans have property rights if the universe was created by god?
"Property rights" refers to the fact that you can't steal from me. The concept doesn't have anything to do with whatever God or gods may or may not exist. "Rights" describe man's relation to his fellow man, not his relation to transcendent, pan-dimensional or otherwise alien beings.
Surely then god owns everything.
I would certainly say so. But until He comes to collect, His ownership is a moot point. As long as He keeps to Himself, as He's certainly done for the last milennium or so, His ownership remains as irrelevant as the possibility of an invasion by space aliens.
Besides, by supporting your argument through a claim to some sort of education above mine...
That, too, is a rookie mistake I would never make. I support my argument by explaining it, in as much detail as I'm forced to and no more. If you like, I'll explain it to the lengths of a complete course in logic. So far, you notice, I've carefully explained myself. When I point out that I know what I'm about, it's only to spare you the wasted time of looking for stupid logical blunders. I can certainly be wrong--but my blunders will be much more subtle than the ones you've suggested so far: argumentum ad hominem; argumentum ad verecundiam; begging the question; solipsism; etc. Professional carpenters get hurt on the job, but very seldom by hitting their thumbs with hammers.
No, it can't lead to false dichotomies. The law of the excluded middle is precisely the assertion that certain dichotomies, by their very nature, can never be false. A false dichotomy arises when there's a third option whose existence I'm denying. In the case of "P or not P," there can never be a third option. If P is false, then ~P is, by definition, true. And vice versa. Once again, you're trying to catch me in a rookie mistake, which is a serious waste of your time.
There you have a valid point, but it's uninteresting: many atheists assert that their beliefs are not subjective, but objective, and also undeniably true. You're trying to distinguish religious people from everyone else. You fail, because everyone else is like the religious man in this regard. If you try to restrict yourself to the "bad" religious people, you actually make things worse for yourself: your statement becomes, by definition, true--but at the same time it becomes ridiculously trivial. You end up saying, "Bad religious people are bad." But that's stupid: bad non-religious people are ALSO bad.
I absolutely accept that both I, and religious people hold subjective beliefs - everyone does.
Good. You agree with me then. Just a suggestion: when you agree with me, please don't confuse matters by trying to prove me wrong. It puts you in the surreal position of arguing against yourself.
I'm trying to highlight to you that very many religious people, especially priests and prophets claim that their beliefs are objective
No argument here. But that's a trite observation: very many non-religious people also claim their subjective beliefs are objective. As I've mentioned several times, Ayn Rand was notorious for it. Most people suck at distinguishing fact from opinion: just about everyone mistakes some of his opinions for fact. Given this, it's churlish to single out religious people for criticism over something they have in common with, oh, YOU for instance.
I accept it whole-heartedly
If God personally ordered me to kill, I would kill
Wow.....you accept the non-aggression principle whole-heartedly, yet you would throw it out of the window if god told you so, obviously unquestioningly (doubt=damnation). Now you have yourself shown why christianity as explained by you is incompatible with the various tenets of libertarianism.
And what if it wasn't god telling you to kill someone? What if you simply went insane and started hearing voices in your head? Would you ask those voices for proof? Not at all, because you would think that asking god for proof is equivalent to a lack of faith which is punishable by eternal damnation. You are potentially very dangerous for these reasons. Yet you try to lecture me on rationality?
As to falsifying spaghetti monsters, gods etc. the burden of proof lies with the people claiming that something exists. For example, if you were to go to court, suing me for theft, you would have to prove that this was true. I don't have to prove why your claim is wrong.
That sounds like the argument for the state monopoly on security. It goes along those lines: "Well sure the state has the potential to commit mass genocide and oppress the people with its monopoly on force, but until it does, this potential is irrelevant." Nor is making the likelihood of divine intervention equal to alien invasion a particularly sound idea, since you honestly have no idea with regards to when or if divine intervention will occur, or if aliens will invade.
So, let's see. Other than your willingness to kill in the name of voices you may hear in your head, and your denial of intrinsic human rights, i'm sure you'll fit right in with the ideology of individualism and libertarianism....oh wait.
I accept it whole-heartedly If God personally ordered me to kill, I would killWow.....you accept the non-aggression principle whole-heartedly, yet you would throw it out of the window if god told you so, obviously unquestioningly (doubt=damnation).
Wow.....you accept the non-aggression principle whole-heartedly, yet you would throw it out of the window if god told you so, obviously unquestioningly (doubt=damnation).
Why was it that I like to tweak the atheists and Randroids? I think I mentioned it earlier... OH! That's right! Because they can't seem to stop acting like pricks. I predicted this reply, told you that we can accept it as read, and still you couldn't restrain yourself.
Humans aren't allowed to aggress against humans. Gods are allowed to do any damn thing they want to. That's sorta the point of being gods. It's a trivial corollary that if a god wants me to do something, It Shall Be So(tm), whether I wish to comply or not. In the case of my own God, I'm disposed to obey authenticated orders--if it weren't so, He wouldn't be my God, He'd be someone else's God.
So apparently you've just made another earth-shattering discovery: believers tend to be receptive to the will of their deity of choice! Seriously now. Acting surprised about that makes you look stupid. Waxing scornful about it simply proves my earlier assessment of your pricknacious condescension toward religious people.
And as for your "obviously," and the premise that "doubt equals damnation," you're wrong; my religion certainly doesn't teach any such thing. What was I saying about condescension and scorn toward religious people, again? I can't seem to remember...
So, in sum, I read you right from the start, despite your silly denials to the contrary. Which brings me back to the original point: you believe things for other than rational reasons. Therefore, you should be nice to (among other things) religious people, to avoid looking stupid, hypcritical and obnoxious.
"Well sure the state has the potential to commit mass genocide and oppress the people with its monopoly on force, but until it does, this potential is irrelevant."
Statist do in fact make precisely that argument concerning eminent domain. The flaw in the argument is that it commits a category error: asserting that gods (if any) must respect our rights is like asserting that gravity repels. When I say that they're not obligated, I mean it literally: any god who can be compelled to honor human rights is a rather pathetic god--indeed, is disqualified for godhood entirely. It's that whole "higher plane of existence" thing. If any gods, recognizable as gods, exist, then we are to them as bacteria is to us. You can hope there are no gods. You can deny them, and defy them, and if you're right (or they're indifferent) you can get away with it. But if they exist, then not only are they smarter than us: they're so much smarter that we don't even qualify as "sentient" from their perspective.
As I say, acting surprised about that just makes you seem ignorant. Now outrage, I can understand. When we slaughter a pig for bacon, it too is outraged. It doesn't have what we would consider "sentience," but it recognizably resents being made into lunchmeat. It's to be expected that when we in turn encounter higher orders of being, we too resent it greatly.
Now, did you take precisely the digression I predicted just to make me look prescient? Did you make precisely the ad hominem I told you you would, so I'd look like a genius? Or do you suffer the delusion that you're the first clever Dan to make a funny about schizophrenia and religion? In any case, do you plan on returning to the topic at hand?
I think I've said what needed to be said: that your religious principles contradict libertarian principles. The fact that you not only fail to deny this, but that you claim to have led me to such a conclusion seems a bit silly to me. After all, that is what the OP was asking in the first place....
As to the matter of doubt, I'm not sure what your religion is, but if it's a strain of Christianity, (if it isn't then this might not apply) then, as many other religions, absense of faith is deemed as damnable, this is pretty much the official dogma of these many organised religions. Or else why the whole concept of accepting Jesus (or anyone else) as your personal saviour, converting people and missionary work, and the so called "Faith crisis" some people exhibit. Of course, this is all to do with "saving their souls".
Oh and you also conveniently ignored what I said about burden of proof....
In the end you're going to keep your opinion that everything is irrational, and that the various exhibited irrationalities are somehow equal. You will continue attempting to juxtapose your libertarian principles with your religious ones. You'll also probably keep your pompous know-it-all attitude (strange for someone bent on subjectivism). And I'll keep disagreeing with you for what to me seem like obvious reasons.
But what does it matter? As you say yourself, your entire understanding of god is subjective, and for some reason god is in your mind a fairly cruel entity. You yourself say if god did not utilise its potential powers to take away human rights and do whatever it wants, it should not be granted god-hood. Why you omit the possibility of a benevolent god that may respect human rights I'm not sure, but then again you seem pretty close minded about these things in general.
Edit: Btw, I'm not surprised about any of these things. When I said "wow" it was sarcastic. I fully realise just how fanatic believers (not just theists, ideologists of various sorts too) can be, and I've encountered fanatics before. I haven't, however, encountered any fanatical believers that tried to concomitantly hold libertarian intrinsic human rights and freedoms, and yet their violability by some deity of a higher plane. Moreover, I've never seen anyone justify their irrational beliefs by saying that all other beliefs are also irrational, and that these beliefs are equal in their irrationality. But yes you're right, outrage is more correct than surprise, although it's outrage not at the actions of some deity, but at your actions. Personally if some deity told me to go and kill someone, I'd think twice about it. Is it worth betraying my principles as a libertarian in order to satisfy some deity, or not? You seem to have no qualms about killing fellow humans, without asking why, as long as this was ordered by your god, who was basically using you as their executioner. Nice career you've planned out for yourself...
If you're so quick to betray one set of beliefs for another, and already predict this, then you're not really holding that set of beliefs very highly.
I think I've said what needed to be said: that your religious principles contradict libertarian principles.
Except that they don't. Your assertion to the contrary is mistaken, and pompous. It indicates a lack of understanding both of my position AND libertarian principles. Specifically, if you think libertarian law is binding on the gods of Valhalla, you're very confused.
As to the matter of doubt, I'm not sure what your religion is, but if it's a strain of Christianity, (if it isn't then this might not apply) then, as many other religions, absense of faith is deemed as damnable...
Unsurprisingly, you don't know what you're talking about: atheists like to assume that they understand religion better than its adherents. It's a tactical error, because it exposes ignorance in a particularly flagrant way. For example:
...Of course, this is all to do with "saving their souls".
I am a Bible-believing follower of the Lord Jesus Christ who believes that "immortal souls" are superstitious hogwash--and can prove it from scripture. Consequently, my religion hasn't the slightest thing to do with "saving souls." There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than you have dreamt in your philosophy.
Since I'm not trying to prove anything, the burden of proof has nothing to do with anything. You're still confused. The role of the burden of proof in all this is that you are entitled to disbelieve until someone else convinces you, which I've never questioned. I merely corrected one mistake on your part: failure to reject the null hypothesis is not the same as proving the null hypothesis true.
In the end you're going to keep your opinion that everything is irrational...
I've consistently said the opposite, so why do you claim I've ever said this? NOT EVERYTHING IS IRRATIONAL. I've said that several times. It's extremely irritating to discuss with someone who pays so little attention that he thinks I'm saying the opposite of what I'm saying.
But what does it matter? As you say yourself, your entire understanding of god is subjective, and for some reason god is in your mind a fairly cruel entity.
Where the hell do you get that from? He invented the nonaggression principle and published it about 3,000 years ago. You're just being a jerk.
Why you omit the possibility of a benevolent god that may respect human rights I'm not sure...
You're still confused: I said that gods, if they deserve to be called gods, can do "whatever the hell they want." That obviously includes the possibility of benevolence. It's ironic that you're being so irrational--i.e., contradicting yourself and getting most of what I say exactly backwards--in the context that you wish to denigrate me as less rational than yourself (and, you've insinuated, possibly a dangerous schizophrenic). One of us has never contradicted himself in this thread; the other has done so scores of times.
...but then again you seem pretty close minded about these things in general.
That might be the most idiotic thing you've said so far. I've changed from Catholic to my current church; from a young-earth creationist to full acceptance of common descent; from a right-wing chickenhawk to an anarcho-capitalist; from a racist hater of hairy Arabs to an opponent of the slaughter in Iraq; and other things besides. I don't even know what the hell you're talking about.
The only closed mind is you: you harbor bigotry against religious people--so much so that you can't even open your mind enough to understand what I am and am not claiming. So much so that you deny your bigotry in the same breath that you mock and cast aspersions. So much so that you impute various beliefs to me incorrectly even after I set you straight, repeatedly. Indeed, so much so that you couldn't resist an ad hominem attack after I looked you in the eye and told you, in advance, not to do it.
I fully realise just how fanatic believers (not just theists, ideologists of various sorts too) can be, and I've encountered fanatics before.
You've already confirmed your bigotry; no need to grind it in. But it does bring us full circle to my original point: you are fanatical. At least, I hope you are. If you aren't fanatical about the non-aggression principle, then you aren't libertarian--you're at best a turncoat, and at worst subhuman.
Moreover, I've never seen anyone justify their irrational beliefs by saying that all other beliefs are also irrational...
I never said all beliefs are irrational. Please learn to read.
You seem to have no qualms about killing fellow humans...
The statement is idiotic, but you don't especially believe it; you're repeating the same ad-hominem, for the third time (if my count is correct). For what purpose? To rub our noses in the fact that you almost instantly broke down and went for the low road?
You're contradicting yourself again. One post ago I was closed minded for holding my opinions too strongly; now I'm fickle for ever having changed my mind. That is a false dichotomy: there's a third choice in between "too quick" to change opinions and "too slow." Let's call it "just right." That's where you find the level-headed, reasonable human beings who neither change opinions with every conversation, nor cling to an opinion after having been proven wrong.
I tentatively regard you as closed minded because you are still battling on after having been proven embarrasingly wrong.
I was referring to the belief in immortal souls of most Christians. You're telling me most Christians believe "immortal souls" are superstitious hogwash? In fact, you're not just a minority, you're a minuscule minority. Extrapolating your beliefs to encompass the differing beliefs of other Christians is just stupid.
Oh and by the way, since you claim you can prove this, I would enjoy seeing a good proof, full of citations not taken out of context, so that I can submit it to a Christian friend of mine whose favourite hobby is reading the bible. Then I can see how they'll respond, considering that I'm apparently completely ignorant. I'm sure it would lead to an interesting discourse. If you do manage to provide the goods, I'll be pleasantly surprised.
Turncoat or subhuman....and I'm the bigot here? You automatically denigrate any opinion differing from yours as subhuman. After that you dare to call me a bigot for critisising some fanatics who believe that their subjective view is objective? You are being very hypocritical there.
Moreover, never do I say that my beliefs are more rational than yours. You're making this stuff up. I simply said that differing beliefs are not equally irrational. Other than the comparison between god's existence and the wooden table, I made no subjective judgements. Here you made a fatal mistake. By making up something I never said, and assuming that I hold my beliefs to be more rational than that of others, you have shown your pre-conceptions regarding me, atheists, agnostics, Ayn Randians, etc.
"So much so that you impute various beliefs to me incorrectly even after I set you straight, repeatedly." You also critisized me by generalising others belief. If you say that I did this, then by that same token you must admit you yourself also generalised.
My entire point was comparing the acknowledgment of beliefs I hold as potentially irrational, to the beliefs that some religious people hold as objectivelty rational. Not the nature of the beliefs themselves.
I do however concede the part about me saying that you interpreted everything as irrational, that was pretty stupid of me so sorry about that. The rest stands true.
Concluding, a lot of what you say makes cogent internal sense, and your arguments have clearly been worked out, while I'm improvising (look at my age, hence experience), but every now and then comments like "He [god] invented the nonaggression principle and published it about 3,000 years ago. You're just being a jerk." make me wonder if you're even being serious about what you're saying. No offense but when read out loud, that just sounds comical. Whether you're making a joke or not I'm not sure, and that very fact is worrying.
I was referring to the belief in immortal souls of most Christians. You're telling me most Christians believe "immortal souls" are superstitious hogwash?
You're not talking to "most Christians." You're talking to me.
...comments like "He [god] invented the nonaggression principle and published it about 3,000 years ago. You're just being a jerk." make me wonder if you're even being serious about what you're saying. No offense but when read out loud, that just sounds comical.
It's OK; your reaction sounds pretty stupid to me. The Golden Rule is found in Deuteronomy, which dates back about 3,000 years plus-or-minus. Since Deuteronomy is scripture, I attribute it (wonder of wonders!) to God. So quite literally I worship the God who invented the nonaggression principle, and set it down as a commandment 3,000-ish years ago. Clearly I don't think He's mean and nasty, and your suggestion that I do think that is "just being a jerk." If the God of Abraham weren't the author of things like the Golden Rule, I'd probably think differently of Him.
Stop treating me as a bigot. This is the most cliched ad hominem...
Sure, I'll be happy to teach you what an ad hominem is! Here goes. It's an ad hominem argument if I say, "You're wrong because you're a bigot." On the other hand, it's NOT an ad hominem argument if I say, "You're wrong AND you're a bigot." It's an insult, I guess--but it's not an ad hominem argument. If you feel insulted, though, I'm not sorry: you're the one who specifically painted me as both murderous and dangerously schizophrenic. That was an insult--and worse, it's one I anticipated and warned you not to indulge in! Your bigotry forced you to make that obnoxious remark even after I as good as said, "You want to say X. But don't do it, or you'll prove you're just a bigot." How blatant does it have to get? You owe me an apology. I don't owe you one; I'm simply calling it like it is.
I respect your opinion while you don't try to force it upon me through coercion.
Absolutely, I'll be happy to teach you what coercion is! All you need to do is ask. Here goes. Coercion is physical force, or the threat of physical force. I have never threatened you with aggression, and it's impossible to commit aggression remotely via the Internet. Therefore, coercion is not involved in any way. Stating my opinion is not coercion. Defending it vigorously is not coercion. Telling you that your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries, is not coercion.
By the way, I never asked you to respect my opinion. I certainly never made the slightest attempt to convert you to my belief--and indeed, told you practically nothing of what I DO believe. I asked you to speak courteously. If I'm "forcing" something on you, it's that you need to be more courteous, and drop your derision of believers.
You also critisized me by generalising others belief.
No, I didn't. At no time did I EVER impute ANY belief to you, except (tentatively) non-aggression.
Turncoat or subhuman....and I'm the bigot here?
I don't remember claiming to be without bigotry. I regard aggressors as sub-human. Luckily, the nonaggression principle embraces all Homo sapiens, whether or not they're human. I won't aggress even against aggressors. But Hitler wasn't human. Bush isn't human. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Johnson and Truman were sub-human. The cop that tases innocent old ladies is sub-human. Since there's a continuum, some aggressors are nearly human. For example, a hippie gal I know who believes in socialized medicine. She's an aggressor, and hence defective--but she's so close to human that I hardly ever even notice her moral handicap.
Yes, I know that sounds fanatical. But that's because few people believe in absolute principles. Non-aggression with me is absolute: it still applies when you get away with aggression; when only aggression will save your life; or indeed, when failure to aggress means the doom of all mankind.
I don't know if it's that way for you. Since you deny being a bigot, even while in the same breath calling me a schizo, I can't quite believe you when you claim to be a non-aggressor. I suspect that you're only "mostly" non-aggressive. In real life I wouldn't argue with you very long, because I'm not entirely certain whether you would commit assault when provoked. But I would hope that your non-aggression is absolute.
A few thoughts:
Christianity and free market thought both have a very strong individualist strain.
I don't feel the need to justify my faith on empirical grounds. Sorry if you worship empiricism and find that unacceptable. Jesus said we are blessed for believing without seeing. So I suppose if you demand empirical evidence for everything then you probably wouldn't accept Jesus as anything more than a man who lived a long time ago. I see evidence of God and the teachings of Christianity all the time, but it's not scientific evidence, and that doesn't bother me. Why would I expect science to explain everything? That seems like a massive leap of faith.
There are plenty of things we can't see that we all know exist: ethics, emotions, etc.
There are other things that we think about but have no way of knowing: How did the world begin? What happens when you die?
I don't think the original point has been made convincingly - tell me again why Christianity and the free market aren't compatible?
Len Budney:The cop that tases innocent old ladies is sub-human. Since there's a continuum, some aggressors are nearly human. For example, a hippie gal I know who believes in socialized medicine. She's an aggressor, and hence defective--but she's so close to human that I hardly ever even notice her moral handicap.
human. For example, a hippie gal I know who believes in socialized medicine. She's an aggressor, and hence defective--but she's so close to human that I hardly ever even notice her moral handicap.
I understand the cop being sub-human because his action is clearly aggression. However, I do not understand how the hippie can be an aggressor simply because of her belief.
Her belief in socialized medicine is not an action. Why is she an aggressor? Is it because she indirectly admits to being a potential threat of aggression?
The cop is different from the hippie. I do not understand the continuum.
It's not perfectly well-defined, because on one hand it's multi-dimensional, and on the other "aggression" is not subject to rigorous measurement. But one extreme is the perfect libertarian: no aggression of any kind is ever exercised, nor condoned in theory or in practice. In moving away from that ideal, a person might aggress rarely but severely; often but in a minor way; or never, while aiding and abetting aggressors.
The hippie gal is at best an aider and abetter: by advocating socialized medicine, she at least encourages others to aggress. Free speach dictates that I can't stop her, so advocating her views doesn't make her a criminal--but it does make her "morally" an aggressor, and that does negatively impact my opinion of her. Depending on context, I might express my contempt in any number of ways, including "morally handicapped" or "nearly human."
The water is further muddied by the fact that a fine line sometimes distinguishes advocacy from threatening. Reporting me to the authorities as a possible tax evader would be outright aggression. Calling me "tax evader" might be a bit of rhetorical advocacy--or it might be the implied threat to turn me in. Calling me "tax evader" loudly enough, or publicly enough, might constitute aggression (if she knows the authorities are listening, for example), or negligence, or just spirited debate. At the very least, I would regard her as a potential threat, and it isn't always clear exactly when she crosses the line to actual aggression.
Thanks, Len, for the explanation. I like it.
``Free speach dictates that I can't stop her, so advocating her views doesn't make her a criminal--but it does make her "morally" an aggressor``
Free Speech is not synonymous with carte blanche speech.
In a free society people would free. Free to live without slander and all other slough communication.
Free speech would prohibit all criminal speech, for example NAMBLA.ORG would be prohibited and punished because it advocates and teaches men how to molest young boys.
carl
True. But the only "forbidden speech" is the threat of force. The only law in a free society is the nonaggression principle: it is illegal to touch the person or property of another without their consent; and it is illegal to threaten the same. Everything else is legal, even if it isn't moral.
I too think that's a nice idea, but it doesn't work: for example, advocating my religion (which, for example, disapproves of homosexual behavior) has already been characterized as "hate speech" by my classmates at Brown (back in the '80s, it was--before the dawn of time). Many, possibly even you, would say, "In a free society, people would be free. Free from homophobic scum thumping Bibles and advocating outdated mores." Which brings us crashing into a contradiction: in order to secure that "freedom," I must be forcibly prevented from practicing my religion, or even mentioning it to people who object.
The fundamental argument for anarchy is precisely that nobody can be trusted to arbitrate others' behavior. Defending aggressors against victims is something we can define rigorously--at least, as rigorously as anything in this imperfect universe. Defining "slough communication" is impossible, precisely because everyone has his own definition. Advocating my religion is "slough communication" to unbelievers, and advocating a homosexual lifestyle is, in my opinion. Who decides?
Here I'm even doubly sympathetic with your view. If I say, "Kill Carl," and a bystander says, "Duh, okay!" and kills you, haven't we both committed a crime? I think so. Even Rothbard does, but yet Rothbard takes pains to argue that "incitement" isn't a crime. I.e., if I say, "It's time for a revolution!" and hundreds of people shout, "Yeah!" and march on D.C. with muskets, Rothbard says I can't be blamed for the ensuing riot. Only the idiots who rioted can. I can't say I agree fully with him.
But I do agree with Rothbard that no crime is committed when a hippie chick says, "Gee, wouldn't the world be wonderful if everyone had all the medical care they needed for free? Like, yeah, man!"
That doesn't mean "society" is powerless to deal with legal-but-immoral behavior, though. I'm against prostitution, even though I accept the logic that says it must be legal in a free society: first they came for the prostitutes... and finally, they came for "homophobic Bible thumpers" like me. So how does a free society deal with prostitutes? Or, how does a society of prostutites deal with Bible thumpers like me? By shunning. I'll move to a neighborhood of Bible thumpers who, if a brothel tries to set up shop, will refuse to do business with its owners, employees and patrons. Getting kicked out of the grocery store a few times will persuade the brothel owners to set up somewhere else. Las Vegas, maybe. Meanwhile, if I go to Las Vegas and start denouncing prostitution, the local establishments would probably kick me out, and I'd see the wisdom of moving elsewhere. We uphold "community standards" using purely voluntary social sanctions.
Len Budney:True. But the only "forbidden speech" is the threat of force. The only law in a free society is the nonaggression principle: it is illegal to touch the person or property of another without their consent; and it is illegal to threaten the same. Everything else is legal, even if it isn't moral.
That's how I understand free speech as well. Making threats, asks for a proper reaction.
But isn't the actual issue of this thread the fact that the bible ordains governmental authorities and that this makes a christian anarchist a contradiction in principle?
elbita - very thoughtful points indeed, and I can agree with most of them (speaking for myself, of course). But there are various kinds of Christianity - some of which emphasize the more communal aspects of belief (even to an extreme, cultish, group-think level). Yes mainstream Christian thought has always maintained the paramount importance of personhood, which does fall hand in glove with free-market proponents' upholding of consumer sovereignty and Austrian Econ's subjective valuation. And so I see them as most compatible really.
The Bible also says, "We ought to obey God rather than men," and, "Suffer yourself to be defrauded." That creates a lot of wiggle room. For one thing, it imposes on us the requirement of conscience to decide when "obeying the authorities" comes in conflict with "obeying God." For another, it clearly indicates that "submitting to authorities" doesn't imply endorsement, any more than "turning the other cheek" implies endorsement of assault.
Within that wiggle room there's space for anarchists like myself. Most of us on this board stop at red lights and pay our taxes, if only because we'd rather be outside prison than inside. Arguably, a Christian can't join in an armed revolution, but he can certainly advocate anarchy, and if it's achievable by peaceful means, can support it. So the Christian and non-Christian anarchists--on this forum, at least--behave identically, albeit for slightly different reasons. The verse that comes to mind is, "If you're a slave, think nothing of it--but if you have an opportunity to become free, take advantage of it."
-------Within that wiggle room there's space for anarchists like myself.-------
Yes Len a christian can advocate anarchy. A christian can also advocate rape and murder. None of which is good or moral.
In order to support freedom and private property first learn that God has given the government authority to punish criminals.
Crimes are immorals acts.
Theft is a crime and an immoral act. And the government has sole authority to dispense justice.
So protect freedom and private property
stand for righteousness and resist evil
quit advocating anarchy
I am both a Christian and a market anarchist. I am thus because I believe that non-aggression is the fullest application of Christlike-ness in the secular world. There is no teaching in the New Testament that prescribes the use of force for anything other than defense, and even that is considered neutral rather than virtuous. I refer specifically to John 8, where the Pharisees brought a prostitute before Jesus to be judged, and he sent THEM away in shame.
The message is clear: under the new covenant, it is no longer permissable to treat sin with force. For a Christian to call for the force of law to be brought against people who do things that are sinful - no matter how despicable - is simply wrong. That's the way of the Pharisees, not the way of Christ.
There are two specific verses in the New Testament that are used by Christian statists to justify servitude to the state: Mark 12:17 (Rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's), and the first part of Romans 13, where Paul says:
"1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."
There are a few things that must be said here: in the first place, Paul is NOT endorsing the state in general. It is vividly clear that he is only endorsing just law. Under an unjust ruler, people certainly DO have reason to fear the government. Was Paul saying that the likes of Stalin and Hitler were established by God? That's absurd. They were demonic men who had nothing to do with God-ordained justice.
Additionally, an exegesis of the Greek Paul used reaveals two important facts regarding the words "authority" (Greek ἐξουσία, transliterated "exousia"), and the word "wrong" (κακός, "kakos") as in verse 3.
"Exousia" says nothing about the legitimacy of their power. It simply means that they bear the sword. Paul is not saying that the government is in any way better than or even deserving of respect - he is simply saying (as becomes evident in verses 6-7) that it's a good idea to obey them. Because it's simply not worth it, because of fear of punishment and for the sake of one's conscience, to stand against a government - but ONLY SO LONG AS THAT GOVERNMENT IS GOVERNING JUSTLY. Paul says "submit to just rule", not "prostrate yourself before the state".
"Kakos", denoting the evildoers that the authorities are empowered to punish, are not "sinners" in general. The type of behavior denoted by "kakos" is distinctly EVIL - destructive, aggressive, violent crime. Clear as day - the role of the law is to punish aggressors. Plain and simple, in the Greek - rather clouded by the ambiguity of the English langauge.
And now we come to the famous utterance of Christ: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's."
The question begs to be asked: "what, then, is Caesar's?"
Jesus never says. Let's look at this in context, though. Jesus has been confronted by the Pharisees, who want to entrap Him into saying something that will either (1) discredit him as a teacher and prophet, or (2) brand Him an insurrectionist before the Roman authorities. If he says "God owns this, not Casear" He will be arrested and probably executed as an insurrectionist. If He says "Caesar owns this, not God" he goes against much of the Old Testament law and will lose his following.
So He says neither. He mocks the Pharisees by NOT ANSWERING THE QUESTION. And yet, this is taken as an endorsement of taxation. It's silly. For one thing, it's not an endorsement at all.
One final note about taxes: Jesus said to turn the other cheek if you are struck, but that by no means indicates that the person who struck you is in the right. So even if it is a good idea to pay taxes, that doesn't mean the taxes are just. It is simply a good idea for a Christian not to be on the government's bad side.
Which brings me to my final point: context. When Paul and Jesus spoke about the government, they lived in a world where the faithful were persecuted for their faith. At that time, when the Church was in its infancy, it would not have done to discredit themselves by resisting the government and giving them a legal reason to imprison them. "Obey the law" was an admonishment to stay the hell out of trouble, and nothing more.
But now - when the Church is firmly established on the earth, it falls well within the practical ability of Christians to resist injustice when they encounter it. And thus, their moral responsibility as well. Especially against the modern state, the "artificial man" that tries to be God.
I don't have time to go into the theology of it now, but I am convinced of this as surely as I am of the gospel itself: the state is a false god, and the only business a Christian has at its altar is in tearing it down.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
-------Within that wiggle room there's space for anarchists like myself.-------Yes Len a christian can advocate anarchy. A christian can also advocate rape and murder. None of which is good or moral.
You're being ridiculous. I made a brief, but comprehensive, case that a Christian may legitimately regard anarchy as consistent with Christian principles. The same cannot be said of "rape and murder."
Funnier and funnier. Your overall post is pretty incoherent, but that last bit takes the cake. You have no authority with which to tell me to "quit" anything.
Carl:Crimes are immorals acts.
In my county, I would be guilty of a crime if I had in my possession a snake longer than 6 feet in length. Could you explain to me why the crime of owning a snake greater than 6 feet long is an immoral act?
Carl: quit advocating anarchy
My impression is that when you encounter the word anarchy you think chaos. Instead of thinking chaos the next time you encounter this word consider substituting the word 'autonomy' or 'individual sovereignty'. Anarchy is a homonym and has different meanings based on the context. Consider the word 'bow' it has about five different meanings based on the context.
Carl: Freedom is not anarchy. Freedom is freedom, Anarchy is anarchy. So stand against anarchy. Stand against socialists. And stand for righteousness like austrian economics
Freedom is not anarchy. Freedom is freedom, Anarchy is anarchy.
So stand against anarchy. Stand against socialists. And stand for righteousness like austrian economics
The state is tyranny.
Absence of the state allows freedom.
Absence of the state is Anarchy.
Freedom=Anarchy.
Tyranny=state.
Having long since moved past ancestor worship- of the 'founding fathers' - and the religion of statism including minarchism,I find this embarrassing.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.