Liberals in the previous centuries have had a hostile, anti-religious bent that has backfired and done more harm than good.
To the point of betraying their own principles, liberals have
- used the Napoleon established state-funded-and-controlled schools in France to push for secular doctrines and anti-religious rhetoric, and slowly intensified this secularization of national syllabi
- started a furious opposition in Germany against the Catholic Church, by seeing it as an enemy of German nationalism in the Bismarck years; having had soldiers arrest, humiliate, and parade nuns and priests across the streets
- had private religious schools closed down in France in the 1900s after secular laws were introduced
- passed anticlerical legislations in pre-war Spain
- attacked Church's religious education in Spain, and even the Jesuits, and Church property and investments.
It's obvious that liberals are not a homogenous group that completely agree on all matters, and there are liberals who disagreed with these actions. Many on the Left disagree with each other just as much, with many of them seeing environmental legislations as anti-working-class.
But it just makes me wonder why many classical liberals thought that punishing the church was a useful or necessary endeavour. At what point does liberty become about being a militant atheist who starts a radical crusade against all religious order? And how does one man's revolt against a natural society, evolved from years of development, successfully replace it with something better? The anti-Catholicism of liberals removed the last possible force to keep the state's power from growing. It also opened the way for the worship of the new pagan deities of Progress, Equality, and Democracy in the Western World, which have eaten it alive.
For these reasons, I get irritated by libertarians who employ anti-Islamic rhetoric and who think Muslim society needs to be changed for Muslim good ("collectivist Muslims"). I once saw a blog by a user here, who had made a blog post where he posted a Prophet Muhammad picture and wrote, "You are NOT above criticism". Yeah, and you are not above being a qualified judge for deciding how one billion Muslims with a fourteen centuries old culture should live their lives.
Well, as an atheist I don't believe there is a religious order. Nor can there ever be one. Only people pretending.
So I can't be a relativist and pretend truth is just what people want to believe.
I don't think it is punishing the church, but realizing it is a falsehood and moving onto something else. The same way evolution isn't a punishment of creationism. Or subjective value theory isn't a punishment of labor theory of value. Or whatever else conflicts with one another.
Prateek Sanjay:But it just makes me wonder why many classical liberals thought that punishing the church was a useful or necessary endeavour.
All ideologues spend their time criticizing someone else. The people who move the world engage it, not stand on the sidelines making judgments.
As for Islam: I think you have to have a universal standard. It's irrelevant how old their culture is. Or if it is a religion at all. Do they threaten to initiate force in order to 'live the way they want'? The same standard for them should apply to one people regularly apply to the US government or their fellow citizens. Since ethics apply to people, not to Muslims or governments or this group or that. It just so happens that these are all people with different hats or costumes or whatever; but people all the same.
Aren't anarchists telling the government how they should live their lives? That is... not being a government.
But just curiously, what is the local opinion on religion, and just how far would people here go in stopping a religious practice at all?
Liberty certainly would not stand as a value free belief that embraces relativism, for relativism itself opens the way to crushing liberty, such as killings in the name of greater good. It's a moralist belief just like the teachings of any religion, and can only approach it on moral debate. That's my opinion.
Prateek: Using the state apparatus to try to accomplish any end is counter-productive to liberalism. The generic hostility of liberals towards religion is misguided, especially insofar as liberals have fancied themselves warriors against all superstitions, generally. There is no well-defined difference between a hunch and superstition and hunches are the basis of all scientific hypotheses. So, the human propensity for superstition is nothing more than evidence of our capacity to imagine or make guesses.
But the Church, especially in the West, has often been the handmaiden of the State. There is an unmistakable resemblance between the omnimax God of orthodox Christian theology and the Leviathan of Hobbes. Both are all-seeing, all-knowing and ever-present. Monotheism - when mixed with State force - becomes a territorial monopoly of deity worship. It is easy to see how the interests of the producers of devotional services (religion/church) dovetail as nicely with the monopolizing powers of the State as the interests of producers in any other industry (law, security, etc.)
Consider that the granite foundation of United States recruiting lies in the Church, the Bible Belt. The very religious are more likely to join the armed forces than the general population. They are also more likely to support torture, at least when it is being done by a Republican President. There is clearly a synergy between the Imams and many of the armed factions of the Middle East.
Clayton -
push for secular doctrines and anti-religious rhetoric
so? Other than it being the state doing it, so what if people don't want to be religious? Are you going to make them?
The next two are tragedies I would not support.
The anti-Catholicism of liberals removed the last possible force to keep the state's power from growing
Im sorry but that has to be the most ridiculous statement I have ever seen. Have you ever heard of medieval era feudalism and the Holy Roman Empire. You do realize the vatican of today is a state, and a dictatorship at that.
It also opened the way for the worship of the new pagan deities of Progress, Equality, and Democracy in the Western World, which have eaten it alive.
Eaten it alive? Do you consider the modern era superior to the feudal era or not?
I am sorry you are so against freedom and the progress it brings along with it. Would you rather we all toil the fields all day, bow to our lords, and watch the priests and nobles live lives of splendor off our labor?
And another thing, why are you so anti-pagan? You tell people not to belittle muslims and catholics (a righteous stance imo) yet you belittle pagans? So.. theism is the only religion now? Someone should tell those billions of daoists and hindus....
Haha, now that I got my militant anti-religionism out of the way :P I agree that we should not supress the church. It has done many good things for many people (more so recently than in previous centuries, but that is because they have lost a lot of political power, and have to keep the coffers rolling). I'll protect your right to practice your religion, if you protect my right not to.
And where are the members of this forum fighting against O'Reilly and his crusade to force businesses to say "merry christmas?" Why shouldn't a business be able to say "happy holidays" if it feels it would better suit there customers?
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
A hunch, in so far as it is scientific, is at the beginning of a scientific method. That is one of the first steps in the scientific method. Perhaps after an observation of a phenomena. Which could lead to hypothesis or not if it is invalid. The Scientific Method is particular about the order and steps in which you come to a conclusion, because the wrong order leads to absurdity. A hunch never comes as the last step. A conclusion can never comes as first step.
Superstition on the other hand is merely a conclusion: meaning it is not part of a methodology at all, much less a rational or scientific one. (except in the empiricism that is implied in believing circular logic that a book is 'valid evidence' of the truth of the book). It is a bypassing over any sort of methodology. And a claim to knowledge all the same. And in doing so, one person cannot really blame another person for having incorrect conclusions. Because neither superstitious person has any idea how they reached the conclusion. For what are they comparing it to if not steps in a process or a methodology that attains the conclusion? Again, it has nothing to do with it being religious and so wrong. Religion is only a major subset of this.
Clayton, it's interesting that you take the examples of religious charlatans in a country like America, because America itself was established in the beginnings of a post-Christian age. Lincoln was said to be a closet atheist, Franklin was never a serious Christian since he had a bastard child, Jefferson was a deist, and Washington never really cared for faith.
While around the same period, anti-Catholic sentiment was raging in Western Europe, America borrowed the more "secularized" European laws into its territory, and its upper class elite later adopted "progressive" beliefs such as eugenics and scientific racism, especially Woodrow Wilson. This is the man who believed the poor and socially unfit should be sterilized - such laws were even implemented in Virginia.
The true American religion has largely been of Progress and social engineering.
So are you surprised that there are religious charlatans in America? In a country where many other beastly and amoral ideas have taken charge?
One might call it Christianity, but European Christians often disagree. Whatever it is, it reflects the more the manipulative top-down engineerings of its eccentric elite, that are empowered through the state.
It seems that Bakunin was right about one thing: If God existed, it would be necessary to abolish him (well, not objectively necessary but if you wish for freedom, then it is necessary ).
I oppose the State on the same grounds that I oppose religion: It totally undermines the self. I'm not saying, in the Randian fashion, that promotion of individual liberty at the expense of the collective is always desirable, just that when you are disconnected from your true wants and needs, chaos is generated in the form of a third party dictating to you what you want and need. So in that sense, religion and the State are extremely compatible.
So saying that, it seems that classical liberals were in turn vehemently anti-Catholic because of how it intermingled itself with the monarchies in Europe in the 1800s. So I can definitely see why they were extremely opposed to Catholicism. Anyway, it may not be practical to rebuke religion in the libertarian circles, but for people who think like I do (that the state and religion are synonymous), it is at least principled. I'm not going to judge your personality on your faith, but I will call your faith out as unfounded. I would much rather associate with a Christian anti-statist who happens to be a critical thinker than I would a "statheist", though.
its upper class elite later adopted "progressive" beliefs such as eugenics and scientific racism,
You are saying the church didn't support racism, and biblically justify slavery?
Wilson was born in Staunton, Virginia on December 28, 1856 as the third of four children of Reverend Dr. Joseph Ruggles Wilson (1822–1903) and Jessie Janet Woodrow Wilson's father was one of the founders of the Southern Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS) after it split from the northern Presbyterians in 1861 In 1885, he married Ellen Louise Axson, the daughter of a minister from Rome, Georgia
Wilson was born in Staunton, Virginia on December 28, 1856 as the third of four children of Reverend Dr. Joseph Ruggles Wilson (1822–1903) and Jessie Janet Woodrow
Wilson's father was one of the founders of the Southern Presbyterian Church in the United States (PCUS) after it split from the northern Presbyterians in 1861
In 1885, he married Ellen Louise Axson, the daughter of a minister from Rome, Georgia
I think it is safe to say Wilson had a christian background, at the very least
Yes, there was hostility to religion in old liberalism. Still, I would consider Bismarck's National Liberal Party as really being anything but what you may think by its tittle, as others have pointed out on many occasions. Just as one might say Republicans have a semi-decent political platform, but how often have they actually acted accordingly?
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
The only half-way good thing Repubs claim to stand for is economic freedom, and they stand for that for all the wrong reasons; namely to establish a corporate plutocracy.
Democrats are no better, but at least they believe in freedom of expression.
Repubs; drug war
Dems; the FED
they both suck
I agree that classic liberals underestimated how people would remain idiots after abandoning God. People still had a need for a magic "organizer" they could pull out of their ass anytime they didn't understand something - for most atheists this was socialism and democracy.
When atheists finally become anti-statists, objective morality becomes the Big Magic Thing they desperately want to be true. After a while they give up and start developing a logically consistent systemic-evolutionary world view.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun: Democrats are no better, but at least they believe in freedom of expression.
What freedom of expression do they believe in? I don't know of any such Democrats.
The only freedom of expression they seem to believe in is in how to mold, shape, and control individuals by political means.
anti drug war, anti censorship, pro mosque @ ground zero, the ACLU is largely a democratic orginiation
If you consider ending seperate but equal "molding society by political means"... eh perhaps you're right... but in that regard, so was defending capitalism as the economic system of early America
Clayton, it's interesting that you take the examples of religious charlatans in a country like America, because America itself was established in the beginnings of a post-Christian age. Lincoln was said to be a closet atheist, Franklin was never a serious Christian since he had a bastard child, Jefferson was a deist, and Washington never really cared for faith. While around the same period, anti-Catholic sentiment was raging in Western Europe, America borrowed the more "secularized" European laws into its territory, and its upper class elite later adopted "progressive" beliefs such as eugenics and scientific racism, especially Woodrow Wilson. This is the man who believed the poor and socially unfit should be sterilized - such laws were even implemented in Virginia. The true American religion has largely been of Progress and social engineering. So are you surprised that there are religious charlatans in America? In a country where many other beastly and amoral ideas have taken charge? One might call it Christianity, but European Christians often disagree. Whatever it is, it reflects the more the manipulative top-down engineerings of its eccentric elite, that are empowered through the state.
I'm not getting your drift, Prateek. Religion in the United States is no more charlatan than it is anywhere else in the world. Producers of religious services are no different than the producers of any other kind of service... they provide goods and services that people demand at a price they are willing to pay.
This is entirely separate from the question of True Religion. Let us say for the sake of argument that there is one, true religion. Fine. Its customers will be the winners of the afterlife lottery. But we won't know that until we get to the afterlife, anyway, so it's beside the point. My point is that religion (in all parts of the world) has been coopted by the State to one degree of success or another and I think there is an identifiable pattern* in the order of the services which the State coopts as "civilization" progresses - first the warriors, then the priests, then the judges, and then the metropolitan services, and then everything else, culminating in the monopolization even of individual choice (absolute, universal enslavement... like, say, North Korea).
I think the fact that the ancient world was characterized by polytheism goes a long ways to explaining why empires and modern super-states have arisen at the time in human history when they did. Every ancient empire - Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, and so on, has been characterized by the imposition of a religious and cultural hegemony. The people in subjugated nations who "jumped ship" and joined the religion of their conquerors became the local governors for the imperial powers.
Poly-law is a natural companion of polytheism. That is, polytheism is characterized by a tolerant rivalry among otherwise peacefully coexisting religious leaders and their adherents. The secular myth of religious disagreement as the root of all violence is ultimately in the interests of the monotheists... wouldn't the elimination of all but one religion make religious disagreement (and therefore, violence due to such disagreements) impossible? The foaming-at-the-mouth anti-theists like Dawkins, Dennett and so on are little more than dupes of the Vatican. Short of rewiring human nature (or waiting enough generations for such rewiring to occur, genetically), the suggestion that religion ought to be completely eradicated is laughable on its face. People are religious, nothing can be done about that. The real issue is how ought people be permitted to produce and consume religious services to satisfy the innate, human demand for religiosity. The answer? Liberally, without restriction or coercion in any form. That's how.
*This is 100% pure speculation on my part based off my own limited reading of history
I'd say this is positive proof that religion isn't really an issue that needs to be "attacked". After all, it's just another avenue that's been subverted by the state. How is it any different than other forms of corporatism? Is the product really THAT toxic for people that it needs to be addressed independently of general anti-statism?
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun: anti drug war, anti censorship, pro mosque @ ground zero, the ACLU is largely a democratic orginiation
anti drug war - Really? Democrats think that what I smoke, what I grow in my garden, and what I sell to my fellow neighbor is not the business of government? Can you support such a claim?
anti censorship - show me a Democrat who wants to privatize airwaves and abolish the FCC. Censorship is a problem of government ownership and not private property? I'm not sure you understand or agree with this point. Besides, how can you be anti-censorship when your most precious jewl is the state monopoly on education? Never mind Democrats who want to subsidize newspapers, regulate the Internet, etc.....
pro mosque - On what grounds do they support this mosque and what is their motive?
Methodology isn't all it's cracked up to be.
"How do we know X is true or false?"
"Method Y"
"How do we know 'Method Y will tell us whether X is true or false' is true or false?"
ad infinitum
There is no method for ascertaining truth (about the mathematical or physical world). Please do not mistake this as logical nihilism - there are, in fact, better and worse ways to ascertain truth. There just doesn't happen to be One, Infallible Method that will guide us into all truth.
eally? Democrats think that what I smoke, what I grow in my garden, and what I sell to my fellow neighbor is not the business of government? Can you support such a claim?
I never said they were perfect lol. In fact I said they were crap too. But on the issue of what you smoke and grow in your garden, I would say Dems are far more likely to stay off your back. Trade is a different matter, as they will probably tax you, make you put warnings on the product (not sooo much against that, just would be better if it was voluntary), and generally regulate how you can trade it. Like I said, they are crap too. haha
show me a Democrat who wants to privatize airwaves and abolish the FCC
point taken. I know many who do (at least abolish the FCC), but the establishment does not. Point taken.
state monopoly on education
idk what you mean. this "monopoly" does not stop you from opening your own school. I would not call that censorship, personally.
On what grounds do they support this mosque and what is their motive
They're all secret muslims who want to institute Shariah Law in the states! AHHHHHHHH RUN AWAY! HIDE YOUR WHITE CHRISTIAN CHILDREN!!!!
No, seriously lol. What do you think there motive is, other than freedom of religion (on private property)?
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun: idk what you mean. this "monopoly" does not stop you from opening your own school. I would not call that censorship, personally.
The State compels me at gun point to financially support its schools throughout my entire life!. This is not outright educational censorship but it is financial censorship where for a large part of the population, any alternative to State education is impractical.
Competition is also severely hampered in other ways. All "private" schools must be approved by the State. They are also subject to strict regulations and alleged "educational standards".
How about subjecting our newspapers to the same type of system. Have a government run newspaper agency that forces tax payers to finance it, and then allow for some competition, which the State must approve and regulate.
Are you prepared to call such a system: Freedom of the Press? This is a serious question.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun: No, seriously lol. What do you think there motive is, other than freedom of religion (on private property)?
freedom of religion, maybe... But certainly not private property. The former is useless without the latter, for now the State must approve of what constitutes a "religion". This means that we don't have freedom of Religion either and Democrats certainly dona't believe in that either.
Seriously, what is the criteria for what qualifies as "Religion"? I believe in the free market. I't's certainly not a religion, but I'll gladly accept the characterization if it grants me my freedom.
If the opponents of Markets say I am religious, why won't they grant me the same freedom?
All "private" schools must be approved by the State. They are also subject to strict regulations and alleged "educational standards"
Only for accredation issues. You can still open a school and operate it as you see fit, you just can't be an accredited school, meaning your degrees will be worth only the paper they are written on. Even if we were to get rid of state education I would still find this a valid system (a private accredation company); you can't teach biblical creationism as science and pass your students off as educated.
Are you prepared to call such a system: Freedom of the Press?
No. But certainly more free than what exists in China.
So we don't have freedom of anything then? I would argue we could be freer, but are certainly more free than previous systems and still existent ones such as China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia.
I think it is safe to say most Democrats believe in private property, just not fully in it in a Rothbardian sense. I'll take a democrat over a Soviet anyday.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:No. But certainly more free than what exists in China.
So Democrats don't advocate for total control of everything like in China? From this, do we take the leap in characterizing Democrats as anti-censorship and advocates of freedom in education?
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:I think it is safe to say most Democrats believe in private property, just not fully in it in a Rothbardian sense..
That's a rather odd and sort of absurd statement. I'm sure many here would agree.
They don't believe in private property in any sense. They cannot even conceive of it. What they call private property is nothing but a collection of privileges that a citizen is granted from his government.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun: I'll take a democrat over a Soviet anyday.
The Democrat or Republican take for granted their freedom for they obviously don't understand it any more then the communist. The difference is that the Democrat landed in one place and the Soviet in another. Neither understand what is going on around them.
So preferring the current state of affairs in the US over former Soviet Russia, or Saudi Arabia, or whatever is not the same as preferring the Democrat (or Republican) over a Communist. Their all intellectually bankrupt in my opinion. It is not the makings of Democrats and Republicans that we have it better.
"Methodology isn't all it's cracked up to be."
You said 'superstition' leads to scientific discoveries. That seems to suggest a process or methodology. I don't think it does, but this is what I was addressing. Hunch and superstition are not the same thing. And the usefulness of hunch is useful in so far as it is defined as what it is -- and not confused with superstition.
IT doesn't matter about the absolute undying truth of the thing. It's that you can say how you get from observation to conclusion. So someone can make sense of what you're saying. You have to work through the system you're describing. That way it can be of some use on an objective level. And the conclusions from that project can work towards larger scientific goals -- if necessary. If we say scientific discovery is useful, which I think you're saying it is.
Rather than saying 'i did nothing -- i just pulled this out of my ass'.
the idea of private property are much older than Rothbard. As I said, they don't believe in the Rothbardian sense of it, but they believe people have certain (albeit limited) rights to it. What would have made more sense was if you said
They don't believe in Rothbardian private property in any sense. They cannot even conceive of it. What they call private property is nothing but a collection of privileges that a citizen is granted from his government.
Which was actually the classical view of private property.
The difference is that the Democrat landed in one place and the Soviet in another
I dont agree with this, at all. But, if you are willing to say the Repub and Fascist just happened to land in different spots.... I still dont buy it. These are marked differences that just generally share the same outlook.
Their all intellectually bankrupt in my opinion
I would say communists/fascists are bankrupt. Dems/Reps are intellectually struggling. I wouldnt just forsake the things that make us "better" just becuase they could be even better than they are now.
I dont think theres any inherent contradiction between religion and libertarian thought. Some religions have actually historically held strong pro-market beliefs. Islam in particular has a long history of supporting economic freedom, Muhammad was a merchant, and by most accounts continued to work as one even while preaching Allah's word. It also used to be required by Muslim law that all Muslim men must make as much money(produce as much wealth) as they possibly could, in order to be able to give more to the poor, Muslim thinkers(particularly in Spain) were also some of the strongest opponits of 16th-17th century merchantalism.
While Christianity doesnt have as explicitly a strong pro-market stance....I do like to throw this parable at people who like to claim Jesus was a liberal:
1"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. 2He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.
3"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4He told them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.' 5So they went.
"He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. 6About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, 'Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?'
7" 'Because no one has hired us,' they answered. "He said to them, 'You also go and work in my vineyard.'
8"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'
9"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.'
13"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? 14Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?'
-Matthew 20: 1-16
Notice the landowners response is threefold: first the workers had agreed to work for a denarius(a silver coin that was a standard days pay for an unskilled worker in ancient Rome). Secondly, its his money, he can spend it as he wants, thirdly, paying everybody the same was actually pretty generous. He could have given the people who came in the morning a deenarius, and everybody else less...but he didnt, everybody got a full days pay. Also the landowner isnt the 'bad guy' in this story(unlike most stories today), its the workers who are complaining about how 'unfair' their pay was. Its really hard to get much more Austrian in tone than that.
Thats not to say that religions are perfect in their support of libertarian ideals. Particularly troublesome is when religions become tools of the state(or vice-versa). Although I imagine that in a truly free society, organized churches will be somewhat more influencial in people's everyday life....although they would obviously use strictly non-coersive means to get(and keep) members.
You said 'superstition' leads to scientific discoveries.p
No, I said that you cannot formally distinguish between a hunch and a superstition. Surmising that djinns exist is not so different than surmising that the charm quark exists. Neither can be seen, both should have some effect in the world (djinns have more complex and subtle effects). Superstition is just an expression of human imagination, probably with an evolutionary basis Evolutionary psychologists believe that anthropomorphizing natural events caused people to be more circumspect and thereby more likely to survive surprise attacks. That is, if you ascribe every sound in the forest to an action of the gods or leprechauns, you're likely to be paying more attention when it turns out that a wolf or your enemy is actually responsible for those sounds. This pressure selected for superstition over agnosticism. This argument swiped (and re-worded) from Kanazawa and Miller's book Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters.
That seems to suggest a process or methodology. I don't think it does, but this is what I was addressing. Hunch and superstition are not the same thing. And the usefulness of hunch is useful in so far as it is defined as what it is -- and not confused with superstition.
Of course hunch and superstition are not the same thing... my only claim is that you can't make a formal definition of the difference. Both are instances of arbitrary belief, like axioms. You just believe it because you do. There cannot be any other reason, else it would be a theorem, not a hunch.
Thinkalot, where is that from?
Again, I'm seeing the same pattern of Corporatist corruption(Where even if a business "knows" accepting government handouts is wrong, their competition will do so anyway, leaving them no real choice in the matter.) in Religion.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun: the idea of private property are much older than Rothbard. As I said, they don't believe in the Rothbardian sense of it, but they believe people have certain (albeit limited) rights to it. What would have made more sense was if you said They don't believe in Rothbardian private property in any sense. They cannot even conceive of it. What they call private property is nothing but a collection of privileges that a citizen is granted from his government.
Your style of argumentation is clever. You have illustrated perfectly why the miniarchist position is inconsistent and unattainable. It is possible by somebody like you with just a little effort to devise a clever dichotomy of Rothbard vs everything else.
I have no problem arguing against this position, however, you are correct in one thing, all those stopping short of the complete abolishment of government would not be able to escape your lumping together of all non Rothbard (granting you the fallacy of oversimplifying and equating Rothbard with all forms of radical libertarianism) with everybody else; Republicans, Democrats, etc.... You are falling back and resorting to this inconsistency held by most libertarians to make your arguments.
Now, I disagree with you, but I would be curious to see one of the miniarchists (who believes at minimum that taxes are theft) here take up this debate.
Prateek Sanjay:But just curiously, what is the local opinion on religion, and just how far would people here go in stopping a religious practice at all?
First, you're asking a collection of individualists what the local (collective) opinion is. Second, everyone talks tough on the internet.
Prateek Sanjay:Liberty certainly would not stand as a value free belief that embraces relativism, for relativism itself opens the way to crushing liberty, such as killings in the name of greater good. It's a moralist belief just like the teachings of any religion, and can only approach it on moral debate. That's my opinion.
You can be a relativist for liberty too. Which is why the notion of an objective ethic, with the justification that the ends (avoiding possible negative moral decisions) justifies the means is as silly as any argument for statism.
I have been cursed as a relativist many times, and I proudly wear it. I choose to be pro-liberty. I choose to respect property. I will always endorse the market. That's my choice. I choose that as my ethic.
Haha. I am no minarchist. Tho a vastly different libertarian than one such as yourself. But I hardly think you have any objective proof to say Rothbard is the final arbiter on property rights.
@ Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun
I assume you are saying democrats in general are; anti drug war, anti censorship, pro mosque @ ground zero, the ACLU is largely a democratic orginiation
man we must know/see different democrats - pro war on pharm drugs, pro censorship of things they disagree with ( religion, capitalism, conservative talk shows) pro mosque only because they are so anti- christian, aclu, as far as i'm concerned is almost as biased as krugman.
oh and like mirror image repubs, they are anti-repub war and pro- democratic war -
my cat has more principals than either party
Be responsible, ease suffering; spay or neuter your pets.
We must get them to understand that government solutions are the problem!
My quote from the Gospels....Its Matthew 20: 1-16. I'v fixed my earlier post.
pro war on pharm drugs
umm what?
pro censorship of things they disagree with ( religion, capitalism, conservative talk shows) pro mosque only because they are so anti- christian,
I have seen no dems trying to shut down churches. They may not want religion on public property, but there not trying to censor private churches. You can't censor an economic theory, you can just disagree with it being put in practice. Really, you have proof they're trying to officially censor Limbaugh? (before you say "when do reps try to censor," burning flags is my answer)
Just turn off O'Reilly for a day or two, that will rot your brain worse than huffing... and just as much as Huffington ha!
oh and like mirror image repubs, they are anti-repub war and pro- democratic war
Ya, hence why they are both crap. Theyre both the party of corporatism, The only difference is social issues and whether to tax business less or subsidize them more
"No. But certainly more free than what exists in China."
Ha, that's funny, because that's the exact system that is in place in China. Relatively few state owned newspapers and magazines, and hundreds if not thousands of newspapers and magazines which the State approves and regulates. =0
@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun
your accusation that I listen to o'reilly or limbaigh is almost enough to forget about NAP and go nukler on your ass. :-)
it sounds like we agree; both parties are hypocrites who care only about vote buying. it would appear only that you appreciate the lies of the dems better and I have a soft spot for the lies and propaganda of the repubs.
haha. I would agree with that. At least we recognize our foolishness. I just dont want to get caught up in the "its hopeless so I dont vote." They dont do what you want, but I feel they would do less of what we dont want, if more people voted.
And my apologies for assuming you liked Limbaugh lol
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:Haha. I am no minarchist.
I never said or thought you were. Haha.
Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun:But I hardly think you have any objective proof to say Rothbard is the final arbiter on property rights.
Perhaps you can enlighten me about how and where I have resorted to the philosophy of Rothbard in this thread?
There is a really bad habit here by some people to attach Rothbard to anything they don't agree with. It is disrespectful and it usually, in almost every case, reveals a certain level of ignorance.