Political Theory

Re: can I be a libertarian and a cultural liberal?

Eioul — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 02:01:00 GMT

Scott F:

On the religion issue i'm not sure anymore whether religion is immoral or not.

...

Religions have lots to offer in terms of wisdom and poetry of the language.You can take an interest in the ideas without necessarily believing in god.personally i quite like david lipscomb and thomas aquinas.If you dismiss religion you leave out alot of history and intelligent thought.

You forget all the worst governments were/are theistic in nature. Aquinas is fine considering the time he was around, but it's not like all his ideas are purely a Christian ideal. It all depends on *which* ideas we're talking about.

I do not find any importance in determining if a person is "moral", it's only a matter if a particular action is good or bad, i.e. moral or not moral. So a religious person could be a decent person but simply be misguided; and they're probably misguided because of all the things Juan has posted in this thread. Religion is really just poison for the mind; it should be avoided.

Re: can I be a libertarian and a cultural liberal?

AnonLLF — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 01:15:38 GMT

On the religion issue i'm not sure anymore whether religion is immoral or not. My views have changed alot over the years on it. When i was younger i was a christian then became atheist then indifferent atheist then discovered objectivism and became a militant atheist and now after discovering rothbard lew etc i'm just happy being atheist. These days i recognize that religious people can be good moral people despite the fact i disagree with their beliefs in god or morality.I also see that religion is in many cases the enemy of government.Remember government has killed more people in the 20th century than the major religious conflicts and killing periods have.probably government's killed more than religion ever has.

Religions have lots to offer in terms of wisdom and poetry of the language.You can take an interest in the ideas without necessarily believing in god.personally i quite like david lipscomb and thomas aquinas.If you dismiss religion you leave out alot of history and intelligent thought.

Re: can I be a libertarian and a cultural liberal?

AnonLLF — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 01:12:08 GMT

I don't fit neatly into either box.

I agree with cultural conservatives on things like natural law,importance of family /monogamy,need for objective morality, pro corporal punishment ,Believe in hierarchy & authority ,critical of multicultural aka cultural relativism, opposed to political correctness ,opposed to hedonism/skepticism/nihilism/relativism/ post-modernism , willing to accept men and women are quite different but not inferior or superior etc

but then i agree with cultural liberals in that i'm atheist though not militantly so ,I'm pro-choice in abortion, pro gay rights,Pro Individualist feminism i.e. wendy mcelroy,have a wider conception of morality and sexuality than conservatives,open to 'counterculture' in music & some art- though i'm not into art for arts sake or post modern art, consider myself something of a cosmopolitan and am opposed to sexism ,racism- which i consider to be a social construct- and homophobia - which i consider to be genetic(though i'm not denying conservatives can and are opposed to these things too too) .

Re: can I be a libertarian and a cultural liberal?

Caley McKibbin — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:31:08 GMT

I would like to meet just one person who does not fit like a glove into all criteria for either "cultural conservative" or "cultural liberal". How utterly weakminded to just roll over and manufacture one's identity by copy and paste.

Re: can I be a libertarian and a cultural liberal?

nirgrahamUK — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 01:02:35 GMT

Juan:
If plunder arms the strong against the weak,

Juan:
They put in chains, not men's bodies alone,

ok, enough then. we aren't even discussing it any more ;-)

Re: can I be a libertarian and a cultural liberal?

Juan — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:55:20 GMT

I don't understand the push to turn stupidity and cognitive error into illegitimate crime.

I didn't mention crime and I wasn't talking about the legality of the issue. I never said that preaching religion X is something to be dealt with in legal terms, so there's no such push. I'm only saying that people who talk about the supernatural as if they really knew something about it are not honest.

Bastiat:
If plunder arms the strong against the weak, it no less lets loose the intelligent upon the credulous. What industrious peoples are there on earth who have escaped exploitation at the hand of sacerdotal theocracies, Egyptian priests, Greek oracles, Roman augurs, Gallic druids, brahmins, muftis, ulemas, bonzes, monks, ministers, mountebanks, sorcerers, soothsayers, plunderers of all garbs and denominations? It is the genius of plunderers of this ilk to place their fulcrum in heaven and to glory in a sacrilegious complicity with God! They put in chains, not men's bodies alone, but their minds as well. They put the brand of servitude as much upon the conscience of a Seid as upon the brow of a Spartacus, thus achieving what would seem to be impossible: the enslavement of the mind.

Re: can I be a libertarian and a cultural liberal?

nirgrahamUK — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:19:29 GMT

I don't understand the push to turn stupidity and cognitive error into illegitimate crime. maybe we should just stop there. you understand it, i dont.

Re: can I be a libertarian and a cultural liberal?

Juan — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:05:35 GMT

Heh. Of course no revealed religion can ever be proven, since revealed religion is just-made up stuff. That's why preachers who can't prove their claims invoke faith...

There's also deism which is a more philosophical approach to supernatural problems, although deistic claims can't ultimately be proven either. But at least deists try to base their conclusions on reason, not on faith and hearsay.

Re: can I be a libertarian and a cultural liberal?

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:31:00 GMT

but there are unrevealed religions that can be proved? or is 'revealed' irrelevant to your argument?

Re: can I be a libertarian and a cultural liberal?

Juan — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:10:06 GMT

"The Dreaming" is another example of revealed religion and as such it is collectivistic - I would never claim otherwise. By revealed religion I don't just mean "Christianity - Judaism - Islam" but any organized religion whose tenets can't be proved...

Re: can I be a libertarian and a cultural liberal?

nirgrahamUK — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:17:25 GMT

Juan:
I think that an institution like revealed religion is a great example of collectivistic thinking at work.

oh, you single out revealed religion since you find that Aboriginals belief in 'The Dreaming' to be compatible with individualism?

Re: can I be a libertarian and a cultural liberal?

Juan — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:08:28 GMT

Nir - Mises:
The main characteristic of collectivism is that it does not take notice of the individuals will and moral self-determination.

Wasn't Mises an utilitarian ? What does he mean by 'moral self-determination' ? Oh, never mind...

So, forgetting about Mises lack of consistency, and taking that sentence at face value, I think that an institution like revealed religion is a great example of collectivistic thinking at work.

Re: can I be a libertarian and a cultural liberal?

Juan — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 20:00:58 GMT

LS:
No, I am clarifying your attacks on members of LvMI in conflict with the forum rules.

Ah, What a petty game...

You want me to cross some line that exists in your mind so that you can comfortably ban me 'forever' ?

Poor LS and his collectivistic loyalty to his intellectual masters...You should get a job at the ministry of truth.

Re: can I be a libertarian and a cultural liberal?

Eioul — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:55:24 GMT

liberty student:

But right and wrong are subjective, you are trying to claim they are objective, and rooted outside of our individual preferences.

There is an objective right or wrong, depending on the particular context.

If that was true, that's not collectivist.

I think I see what you mean. It is possible to abandon your own values to some deity's values and still not put the "collective" first. I'm not sure of any religions that aren't collectivist though, except maybe like Satanism or similar religion. In either case, religion is always irrational and anti-individual (see the Mises quote from earlier)... That's why it is bad.

So morality is positive?

I'm not sure I know what you mean. What is good for an individual is thinking and self-interest. Anything that is against that is bad.

Can you exist without your consciousness?

Yeah, I can. I just wouldn't realize that I exist.

I'm an atheist btw, I just hate bad argumentation against theism. I also don't think it is necessary in a libertarian society.

That is true, it isn't exactly necessary. I could care less what someone else is doing if my rights are not being violated.

To summarize, YOU can FEEL that theism is immoral, but you can't prove it. You certainly would be acting immorally to oppose it with force.

Don't you mean that you FEEL it would be acting immorally to oppose it with force? Who are you to say it is immoral to oppose it with force?

I think you're an objectivist right?

I would not call myself one (since I don't agree on the reasoning about government among a few other things), but obviously my ethics are heavily influenced.

I don't plan to respond further; not because I'm evading you, but because it's important to recognize when I'm not getting anything of further importance in this discussion.

Re: can I be a libertarian and a cultural liberal?

liberty student — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:25:16 GMT

Eioul:
I did answer, I tried to explain that you shouldn't be asking that question since it was phrased in such a way that traps me into saying right or wrong is subjective

But right and wrong are subjective, you are trying to claim they are objective, and rooted outside of our individual preferences.

Eioul:
A theist is necessarily collectivist because it is subjugating oneself to the will of their god or even their church and abandoning their own values for some greater power's values.

If that was true, that's not collectivist.

Eioul:
Morality is what one ought to do (in general, as in applied to any and all moral philosophy). Or more specifically for my point of view on ethics, what is *good* for one to do.

So morality is positive?

Eioul:
As in reality isn't just a result of my consciousness but exists independent whether or not I were alive.

Can you exist without your consciousness?

Eioul:
Now I can explain a lot more in depth why I think any and all theism is collectivist, but that is far more than I intended to talk about when I first posted in this topic.

I don't think you need to. But you still haven't made a case for how theism is immoral by any objective standard. You're not even able to make the case it is collectivistic.

I'm an atheist btw, I just hate bad argumentation against theism. I also don't think it is necessary in a libertarian society. Whether someone believes in nothing, or Buddha, or Mohammad or practices zen, is completely irrelevant to the issues of a free society. Those are preferences, no different from sexual preferences, food preferences, entertainment preferences etc.

To summarize, YOU can FEEL that theism is immoral, but you can't prove it. You certainly would be acting immorally to oppose it with force.

I think you're an objectivist right? We're going to have big gaps between Rand's arbitrary objectivism [sic] and libertarian anarchism. Ancap can be consistent, objectivism cannot.