It is convenient to ignore the inconsistencies in our arguments. Thanks for making my point. Your position is not libertarian.
Sorry sonny. What is not libertarian is theocracy.
If people consent to it and the NAP isn’t violated, what would be wrong with it?
of course theocracy isnt libertarian, since it is a state (non libertarian) run on religious lines.
you are using theocratic as a slur against religious groups be they statist or anti-state. therefore If you mean it to be taken literally then you mean to be wrong.
That is the question Juan will not answer.
If it is immoral, of course. Which would include things that are collectivist in nature i.e. religion.
If it is voluntary, how can it be immoral?
So you don’t believe people have a right to consensually form collectives?
Libertarianism is about liberty, which starts with a free mind. Religious fraud is the opposite of free minds and free thinking.
Of course, you can try to redefine libertarianism as narrow minded propertarianism and ignore the fact that property only makes sense because it is needed to support life and liberty.
Anyway, this is the sort of thing that the ‘libertarian’ theocrats advocate :
http://www.bkmarcus.com/blog/2005/07/does-gary-north-want-to-stone.html
http://reason.com/archives/1998/11/01/invitation-to-a-stoning
People in this site also like to pretend that the catholic church which has been a supranational state for more than 1500 years is some sort ‘libertarian’ institution…
I already answered all your questions on the matter sonny.
Groups ? My beef is with individual liars…
You know, the guys who claim to be the voice of g-d…
No, you haven’t. You’re still dodging providing an answer.
After 18 months of your attacks subtle and obvious on the people who run LvMI, I think today is as good a day as any to bring this to a conclusion.
Yes I have. Go read some previous thread. In case you or other ‘mod’ didn’t delete it.
Still dodging an answer. And I don’t blame you. I would also be embarassed to be called out on being opposed to spiritual freedom after getting away with such unlibertarian opinions for so long.
LS, if making things up makes you feel better, go for it. I don’t blame you.
But in reality, denouncing religious fraud has nothing to do with opposing ‘spiritual freedom’.
Rather, if you are for spiritual freedom you’d never support revealed religion…
And there are a couple of contradictions in your overall position (no wonder)
-
you as a ‘thin’ libertarian/propertarian are not the person to invoke ‘spiritual freedom’ - libertarianism is simply about property…(says you…)
-
your North’s quote is pretty funny. What the hell do you, as a moral subjectivist, mean by ‘evil’ ? Is ‘evil’ what some food tastes like ?
-
you usually whine about left-libertarians and their collectivism, but are rather tolerant with the sort of collectivism that ‘social conservatives’ prefer. A double standard ? Of course not !
Why not? I’d like to find out what the contradiction is here.
Any collective is anti-individual.
Oh anyone certainly has the right to consensually form collectives, because they have not initiated force. But just because you don’t initiate force does not mean you are a moral person. It simply means no one has the right to do anything to you forcibly.
You didn’t answer my question. How can something voluntary be immoral?
If you believe this, then you have refuted your own claim about immorality. Which is it?
Sure you blame me. You’ve never taken responsiblity for anything you do since I have known you. But really, what have I made up? I am simply asking you questions, and you are equivocating or dodging. Your inability to answer a question is in no way linked to my dishonesty, but rather your own.
You know that was never the question.
Actually, if I was for spiritual freedom, I would support anything that is consistent with libertarianism, including revealed religion if practiced voluntarily. And I do that, even when I disagree with someone’s spiritual beliefs, I am tolerant of their right to their own voluntary associations.
Here are the questions you are still trying to avoid by attacking offtopic subjects,
What is your answer Juan? Or will you have to resort to more ad hom and strawmen?
Are you saying that the Christians who run LvMI don’t have free minds or free thinking?
Ah yes, your famous links. When did you email me those? A year ago? Those two links get a lot of mileage with you. Are we supposed to believe that Gary North speaks for all libertarians or Austrians? What happened to methodological individualism?
Who? Name names please.
I’m not sure I follow how that refutes anything. Initiating force happens to be immoral, since it violates a persons rights. But the only reason I would say that initiating force should be illegal is because it is a violatiion of rights, not because it is immoral. In a practical sense we agree, but where we differ is our moral reasoning.