Juan: GS:Juan is an anti theist from one of the one world's most catholic countries, no wonder he has a chip on his shoulder. I told you your knowledge of this hell hole, sorry, of 'my country' is...incomplete. So, for the record, argentina is nominally catholic. I'll hang myself if more than 10% of the population ever go to church.
GS:Juan is an anti theist from one of the one world's most catholic countries, no wonder he has a chip on his shoulder.
Indeed, and what does that have to do with it anyway?
The difference between libertarianism and socialism is that libertarians will tolerate the existence of a socialist community, but socialists can't tolerate a libertarian community.
One can be atheist and not dislike religion.
In general I think religion has a neutral effect on the world; many bad things happen due to it, but it also seems like lots of good comes about due to religion as well. Arguably both the good and the bad can be ascribed to the people without taking their religious beliefs/preferences into account.
Thedesolateone: One can be atheist and not dislike religion. In general I think religion has a neutral effect on the world; many bad things happen due to it, but it also seems like lots of good comes about due to religion as well. Arguably both the good and the bad can be ascribed to the people without taking their religious beliefs/preferences into account.
I think religion by itself is good. Religion, however, tends to get coupled with politics. Politicians exploit religion for political purposes. Many wars were fought for political goals with religion as a justification.
Where I come from, the women don't glow, but the men definitely plunder.
revolutionist: Thedesolateone: One can be atheist and not dislike religion. In general I think religion has a neutral effect on the world; many bad things happen due to it, but it also seems like lots of good comes about due to religion as well. Arguably both the good and the bad can be ascribed to the people without taking their religious beliefs/preferences into account. I think religion by itself is good. Religion, however, tends to get coupled with politics. Politicians exploit religion for political purposes. Many wars were fought for political goals with religion as a justification.
Essentially that's what I'm trying to say; Palestine vs. Israel is mostly cultural/political rather than religious (IMO).
Sphairon:So, because you consider religions to be fraudulent, you draw which kind of logical line to property associations based on one of them ... ?
At least you seem to be bending over backwards to demonstrate how they are not compatible with libertarian principles.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Juan:It's not as if children will independently discover religion X and so join association X.
Well, I independently discovered Evangelical Baptism at the age of 15 or 16, then read into the material and became a born-again Christian. I exchanged numerous e-mails with faithful believers and pastors and expanded my knowledge about the Bible and the history of Jesus Christ. If there was a Baptist church in closer proximity, I probably would've attended service there as well.Just few years later, I advocate Richard Dawkins as one of my top three thinkers on mises.org. I remain friendly towards Baptism, I do, however, realize that religion is an emotional and faith-based part of one's personality and that reason should rely on other sources. So while I would contend that there's no logical evidence for God, I don't see an urgent need to give up my belief in a caring and loving God on an emotional level.Goes to show there are actually people who did not have to be intdoctrinated as a child to get in closer contact with a belief system.
Byzantine:Biology trumps ideology is simple fact.
And yet biology isn't a matter of what paths a life form will take, but rather what paths a life form can take.
Byzantine:Transsexuals can eviscerate their bodies and take synthetic hormones; it doesn't change the fact that they are male or female at the chromosonal level.
And yet again, there is evidence that there are differences in the brain structure of transgendered individuals as well as homosexual males.
Anyways, the point is easy to grasp, biology doesn't trump one's values. The only thing that can ever trump one's values is causality, and that has much to do with biology as nuclear strong force has to do with the breathing rate of rainforest tree frogs (hint: not a damn thing connects one to the other as you espouse...).
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
majevska:He does say he's annoyed at libertarians who listen to loud heavy metal or something along those lines. On the other hand I would speculate that culturally conservative rock like Christian rock and maybe even Ted Nugent would be acceptable to him.
liberty student: Unfortunately, the movement can only grow so much, because if you understand Hoppe's theory on class warfare, the majority are more inclined to choose to lift themselves up through democracy (and the reassignment of property titles politically) than free market entrepreneurship and competition. The idea that everyone is a closet libertarian is unfortunately very naive. Not saying you have that view, but some people do. It's a fallacy.
Unfortunately, the movement can only grow so much, because if you understand Hoppe's theory on class warfare, the majority are more inclined to choose to lift themselves up through democracy (and the reassignment of property titles politically) than free market entrepreneurship and competition.
The idea that everyone is a closet libertarian is unfortunately very naive. Not saying you have that view, but some people do. It's a fallacy.
Sphairon: Well, I independently discovered Evangelical Baptism at the age of 15 or 16, then read into the material and became a born-again Christian. I exchanged numerous e-mails with faithful believers and pastors and expanded my knowledge about the Bible and the history of Jesus Christ. If there was a Baptist church in closer proximity, I probably would've attended service there as well.
Well, I independently discovered Evangelical Baptism at the age of 15 or 16, then read into the material and became a born-again Christian. I exchanged numerous e-mails with faithful believers and pastors and expanded my knowledge about the Bible and the history of Jesus Christ. If there was a Baptist church in closer proximity, I probably would've attended service there as well.
Juan:I don't think that conservative religious communities are fully compatible with libertarian principles. The most obvious reason is that such communities can only be self-sustaining if they manipulate children to mold them into future believers. It's not as if children will independently discover religion X and so join association X.
That's a pretty far-reaching assumption that is based upon your own presumptions. Individuals can just as much embrace religion x even though they were raised either athiests or secular as vice versa. As long as conservative religious communities allow for individuals to leave as they please then they would be compatible with libertarian principles, yet whether they are desirable is another question.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
liberty student: Sphairon:By the way, I heard LibertyStudent has a crush on Queen Elizabeth. My friends know me as the Duke of URL.
Sphairon:By the way, I heard LibertyStudent has a crush on Queen Elizabeth.
My friends know me as the Duke of URL.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
Jon Irenicus: Yes, though considering there will be libertarian societies (plural), that could hardly be true of all or even most of them. Perhaps ones adhering to his particular predilections will be so constituted. BTW, he said advocates of those lifestyles, which. makes the statement all the more unclear.
Yes, though considering there will be libertarian societies (plural), that could hardly be true of all or even most of them. Perhaps ones adhering to his particular predilections will be so constituted. BTW, he said advocates of those lifestyles, which. makes the statement all the more unclear.
My disagreement with Hoppe is not that I think certain sectors of libertarian society will not be culturally conservative, but that he seems to think cultural conservatism is a prerequisite for libertarianism. Ie, a person is not really a libertarian if they aren't culturally conservative and a society will never become libertarian unless it adheres to cultural conservatism.
He does this by trying to connect vague statements about "alternative lifestyles" with certain logical economic arguments that are sound don't actually apply to his vague generalizations about such non-culturally conservative beliefs and actions.
I do think it's important to recognize that there will be a lot of diversity in libertarian societies. There probably will be areas that refuse to allow people entry, ostracize, expel &c based on race, sexuality, national origin, favourite sports teams, redheadedness, etc etc etc. But of course for every place that refuses, ostracizes and does whatever else to these people there will be plenty of places that don't.
Libertarian societies will be diverse in a meaningful way. Unlike the coercive "diversity" of modern America, which is really just using centralization to smash minority opinions, lifestyles &c, (whether they be conservative, liberal, "alternative" or <gasp> culturally marxist).
Brainpolice: his concept of natural elites risks becoming an aristocratic justification for a state
his concept of natural elites risks becoming an aristocratic justification for a state
Am I the only one that found this criticism a bit ironic coming from someone with a Mencken avatar?
NERDS. When i created this thread i did not insert the hyphen between Hans and Hermann, some admin just had to correct me. Or JT has OCD
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Byzantine: Can you source that?
I can't. Walter Block, in a piece criticizing right and left libertarians for their deviations from "plumb-line libertarianism" cited that part of Hoppe. I'm not even sure exactly where I found the Block piece to begin with.
gocrew:
To be honest, given his assertion that, in a free society, homosexuals and other such 'deviants' would have to be removed, I cannot see how he is a libertarian in good standing.
GilesStratton: It's called private property.
If you're interested in engaging me in conversation, you'll have to make more sense than that.
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken
Thedesolateone:One can be atheist and not dislike religion.
That is me. I'm cool with everyone doing whatever they want as long as (1) they are not violating my property rights, and (2) aren't out violating the property rights of my neighbors. While I have no authority over my neighbors, I don't like disharmony in my area.
gocrew: I can't. Walter Block, in a piece criticizing right and left libertarians for their deviations from "plumb-line libertarianism" cited that part of Hoppe. I'm not even sure exactly where I found the Block piece to begin with.
Sphairon: Juan: It's not as if children will independently discover religion X and so join association X. Well, I independently discovered Evangelical Baptism at the age of 15 or 16,... Just few years later, I advocate Richard Dawkins as one of my top three thinkers on mises.org.... Goes to show there are actually people who did not have to be indoctrinated as a child to get in closer contact with a belief system.
Juan: It's not as if children will independently discover religion X and so join association X.
Just few years later, I advocate Richard Dawkins as one of my top three thinkers on mises.org...
laminustacitus: That's a pretty far-reaching assumption that is based upon your own presumptions. Individuals can just as much embrace religion x even though they were raised either athiests or secular as vice versa. As long as conservative religious communities allow for individuals to leave as they please then they would be compatible with libertarian principles, yet whether they are desirable is another question.
As long as conservative religious communities allow for individuals to leave as they please then they would be compatible with libertarian principles
Juan, the reality is, and has been going on for 100s of posts, is that you confuse your preferences with libertarianism, and then criticize others for doing the same.
You have a hard on for revealed religion. We get that. Personally, I'm not too fond of it either. But your right to dictate who can practice it, how they can come to it, and if they can teach it to their children is not at all within any non-partisan definition of libertarianism.
Just as you revile Giles for perhaps taking issue with gays or different races or atheists, you are guilty of the exact same thing, but try to hide your narrow preferences behind a guise of pluralism. To a degree, BP does this as well.
No, libertarianism is not freedom but with all of the exceptions you would like to impose. It is Calvinists, teaching their children their faith, whether you like it or not, if not for the sake of religious and personal freedom, then because you have no higher claim to the legitimacy of another man's non-aggressive actions.
We could have saved, literally tens of thousands of words on this forum, if you would practice the same tolerance, you claim to use as a basis for your moral positions.
This isn't a personal attack, so I hope you don't take it as such. It's just long past due that someone pointed out that this isn't right and wrong, but a battle of personal preferences, both sides using libertarianism as justification, when libertarianism, simply cannot apply to either side specifically in the debate.
The bottom line, is whether or not you can prove that revealed religion is involuntary or coerced. If you can't, it's long overdue for you to let this go.
Juan:I think my previous response to Sphairon addresses your post as well.
Of course it does, you change your definitions to suit your purposes. You are dogmatic in your assumptions and lift up the belief systems you favor as the ones individuals can discover freely while you condemn those you detest as those that need indoctrination.
Juan:As long as conservative religious communities allow for individuals to leave as they please then they would be compatible with libertarian principles Which sounds very very close to the quintessential statist argument : love it or leave it.
Of course, there's no reason why an Amish individual who abandons the faith needs to still be embraced by the faith-based community, or a monk who abandons the faith needs to be accepted as apart of a monastic community. However, I really doubt that such an individual would be completly ostracized, Georges Santyana lived out the last decade of his life at a Covenant despite his own athiesm, and he would definately still have the right to his property, though this would become a fuzzy issue with communal situations like monastaries. In addition, you draw a false dichotomy between such communities and the state for faith-based communities doesn't imply that they claim the right of arbitration as the state does, if they do that's a different matter than the one being discussed now.
If one doesn't agree with the dogma of faith-based communities, then don't join them, its that simple. But nor does that give one the right to condemn them, rather one must accept that you have different preferances and beliefs.
laminustacitus:Georges Santyana lived out the last decade of his life at a Covenant despite his own athiesm
From personal experience, I can tell you that theists are a lot more tolerant of atheists, than atheists are of theists. Go figure.
liberty student: From personal experience, I can tell you that theists are a lot more tolerant of atheists, than atheists are of theists. Go figure.
That`s because atheists think they grabbed god by the testicles. Which is ironic when you think about it.
Juan:It seems to me that Hoppe went from standard libertarianism to advocacy of conservatism for some reason
Or perhaps A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism is concerned with economics, whereas D:TGTF is more concered with sociology.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
LS:But your right to dictate who can practice it, how they can come to it, and if they can teach it to their children is not at all within any non-partisan definition of libertarianism.
Just as you revile Giles for perhaps taking issue with gays or different races or atheists
The bottom line, is whether or not you can prove that revealed religion is involuntary or coerced.
GilesStratton:Or perhaps A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism is concerned with economics, whereas D:TGTF is more concered with sociology.
laminustacitus:You are dogmatic in your assumptions and lift up the belief systems you favor as the ones individuals can discover freely while you condemn those you detest as those that need indoctrination.
Juan: GilesStratton:Or perhaps A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism is concerned with economics, whereas D:TGTF is more concered with sociology. If you had read Socialism&Capitalism, which you probably hadn't, you'd know that the book is about economics, POLITICAL THEORY and even some HISTORY.
I have read the book and you're just being pedantic, because even in the list you mentioned sociology isn't to be found.
Juan: laminustacitus:You are dogmatic in your assumptions and lift up the belief systems you favor as the ones individuals can discover freely while you condemn those you detest as those that need indoctrination. False. I named all possible religious positions : theism deism agnosticism and atheism. And pointed out that theism is basically FRAUD. And, you know, fraud and libertarianism don't get along. That's all.
Is the tooth fairy fraud, santa clause?
Juan, I expected some sort of passive-aggressive retort, but this is truly sad. You make three points, only one of which is remotely relevant to my post, and it is an Ad Hom.
Juan:You see liberty student, all you can do is LIE. I've never said I've a 'right' to dictate anything nor I want to.
I never claimed you claimed a right.
Juan:I'm saying that religious fanatics who lie to their children are not operating on libertarian principles, rather they are no different than commies or fascists using propaganda against their 'subjects'
Then prove this point without the personal attacks.
Juan:You are such a hypocrite. Giles perhaps takes issue ? Are you such a coward as to not admit what people openly admit themselves ? Giles IS a reactionary conservative and he makes no bones about it. You on the other hand feel the need to add the ' perhaps' qualifier. Pathetic.
Honestly, I don't know what Giles prefers or does not prefer. I DON'T CARE. Not that it is relevant anyways. You're attacking me, and not my argument. But that said, the one time Giles did make an inappropriate comment on here about gays, I was the first to jump all over him for it, and he apologized.
Juan:Get a book on BASIC history. Failing that just read my sig.
You're just making a collectivist judgment. Sure religion has been used to perpetuate evil. So has atheism. So has racism. Feminism. And isms. And ologies. That's not the point. You oppose religious freedom based on what libertarian principle? That's the question. Shit or get off the pot. What libertarian principle is incompatible with the Amish? Hinduism? Catholicism?
Until you make that argument, one you probably should have made a year ago, then you're just using your assertion as a license to attack people over and over again.
Which is fine. It is what it is. You've been called on it, and no amount of Ad Hom attacks on me or anyone else will cover it up going forward.
I quote you:
Juan:On the other hand, individual, unguided philosophical inquiry can lead you to deism, or agnosticism, or atheism.
Either you accidently didn't include theism, if you edit it to include that I will delete all comments against this statement, or you're dogmatic.
Well, I don't know why, but several times in my life, I've been in a tight spot, and theists have always been a lot more helpful, a lot more charitable, and a lot less pushy than atheists. And I am an atheist, so I try to use those experiences to inform myself on how to treat others. One time, I was fed and housed by theists, they treated me as well as anyone else, if not better, they never tried to convert or push anything on me. I don't think I would have received the same sort of treatment if the tables were turned, and solid atheists took me in and I was a theist. I'm pretty sure someone at some point would have challenged me on my beliefs, need to pray, concerns over what foods I eat etc.
Actually, the perhaps was accurate, I don't take a huge issue with atheists, or even people of other races. I'll admit, if I'm in a dark alleyway and there's somebody else there, when I turn around I'm hoping to god that they're white. Moreover, I generally hold blacks in a somewhat negative light and try to avoid associating with them. You're more than likely to hear a great deal of racist comments from me and given the choice I would like to live in an all white community.
Clearly, you are a heathen and must be burnt.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Marko: gocrew: I can't. Walter Block, in a piece criticizing right and left libertarians for their deviations from "plumb-line libertarianism" cited that part of Hoppe. I'm not even sure exactly where I found the Block piece to begin with. This should be this thing: http://mises.org/journals/scholar/block15.pdfFirst hit on Google for "plumb-line libertarianism".
Juan:I have read the book and you're just being pedantic, because even in the list you mentioned sociology isn't to be found. YOU are being pedantic. Sociology is not the point. We are always dealing with political theory and economics. Again, if this conservative stuff was fundamental to capitalism it would surely have been discussed in a book about capitalism by the pope of conservatism, Herr Hoppe. Too bad that was not the case. Anyway, for anybody who's not a fanatic member of the Hoppe cult, the piece of information I provided might prove useful.
It's not fundamental to capitalism, Professor Hoppe has never argued that. Rather, conservatism will, if Professor Hoppe is correct, follow naturally from abolishing the state. That is sociology.
Really, there is no place for discussing cultural values in ATSC it is clearly inteded to discuss the political economy of socialism and capitalism, necessary to do that is a discussion on epistemology (hence that section) and ethics. The last two chapters discuss two specific economic problems in regards to free market capialism, that are often raised by its critics, hence Hoppe's refutations. Yes, indeed there is historical facts in the book, but as Hoppe points out they serve as little more than illustrations Hoppe's theories.
As for the Hoppe cult remark, I don't see how there is a cult. I think Hoppe is a very good economist, his comparison of democracy and monarchy makes a very good case against democracy and acheives what Hoppe desires: deligitimizing (I know I misspelt that) democracy. Moreover Hoppe has provided us with insights into possible libertarian strategy and more.
LS: Juan: You see liberty student, all you can do is LIE. I've never said I've a 'right' to dictate anything nor I want to. I never claimed you claimed a right.
Juan: You see liberty student, all you can do is LIE. I've never said I've a 'right' to dictate anything nor I want to.
But your right to dictate who can practice it, how they can come to it, and if they can teach it to their children is not at all within any non-partisan definition of libertarianism.
But that said, the one time Giles did make an inappropriate comment on here about gays,
I was the first to jump all over him for it, and he apologized.
You oppose religious freedom based on what libertarian principle?
laminustacitus:Either you accidently didn't include theism, if you edit it to include that I will delete all comments against this statement, or you're dogmatic.
Juan: On the other hand, if you never saw a bible there's no way for you to discover/recreate all the nonsense written there : you can't discover it, because it's all made up.
Without a mirror I can't tell that my eyes are blue. Doesn't mean that they're not.
GilesStratton: Juan: On the other hand, if you never saw a bible there's no way for you to discover/recreate all the nonsense written there : you can't discover it, because it's all made up. Without a mirror I can't tell that my eyes are blue. Doesn't mean that they're not.
Marko: Marko: gocrew: I can't. Walter Block, in a piece criticizing right and left libertarians for their deviations from "plumb-line libertarianism" cited that part of Hoppe. I'm not even sure exactly where I found the Block piece to begin with. This should be this thing: http://mises.org/journals/scholar/block15.pdfFirst hit on Google for "plumb-line libertarianism". Good read. Not the least because Block mixes in humour. Interesting thing that left-right appendix. Interesting because it would look very different were it done for some other country/cuture.
My critiques of Block and plumb-line libertarianism:
"Plumbline Libertarianism" Pro and Con
More On The Problems Of A Thin Libertarianism
Walter Block: Wrong On Religion