We’ve already debated him for months and months over the course of many threads. That’s why the request makes no practical sense, it’s asking for what has already occured perpetually. The arguments have already been presented ad nauseum.
And will continue to, unless it is put to an end in a formal, exposed manner.
I would like to see the historical fact that backs up the claim of every church being in bed with the state.
I would probably also note a distinction between a church existing with The State society (as there pre-dominantly has not been a stateless society), and a church existing within The State society that implicitly enforces Statism.
What about Celtic Ireland? Were there not churches? Wasn’t Celtic Ireland one of the historical examples of a stateless society?
If so, I’m afraid that kind of negates the blanket statement of “all churches are bed with the state”, or the implied equivocation of the church being the same as the state, etc.
Sorry, sloppy posting, on my part.
Actually, there is; what the Buddhists call The Enlightenment could very well qualify Buddhism as a revealed religion.
However, Taoism & Confucianism seem to have less to do with this, although I suppose one could argue Confucianism could be considered a state religion, due it’s heavy promotion by various asian government’s.
Then again, acceptign such a premise would validate The State’s monopoly over a school of thought, which probably wouldn’t be the case in every single individual who may follow Confuscianism (i.e. a libertarian anaylisys of confuscianism would not necessarily validate an unspoken State claim over Confuscianism, nor would a libertarian, or at least an anti- or non-statist, following elements of Consfuscianism).
My hypothetical libertarian-based religion would not have anything revealtory about it; it would more or less boil down to a re-wording & re-terming of libertarianism into common language that would largley avoid red-flag poltiical terms, & would resemble more of a philosphy, if anything else.
Nothing really new or exciting, but yea.
What if an entire church, or a majority of a church, consistied of anti-statists? Would they be so keen to co-operate with The State? Statements such as all churches ally themselves with the state ignores the individuals that consist & make-up the church.
This is why I brought up my libertarian-based church, & this is probably why Rothbard had some favorable comments on the Mormon church in For A New Liberty (“Welfare & The Welfare State”):
While Rothbard did not hold up the Mormon Church as implictly anti-state (they certaintly were against many things of the state, perhaps far more than other churches) he showed that the individuals consisting of the church, that had different views, principles, etc. obviously influenced the way in which the church operates (which I think would be common sense to know, concerning any organization or grouping of individuals).
Essentially, I am arguing against the statement of church being implicitly pro-state, or in bed with the state, based on the observation that individuals within a church can internalize libertarian, & even anti-state values.
That no other church, or few other churches, do not advocate or internalize libertarian and/or anti-state values, does not by any means prove that the church as an institution will always be a Statist entity, or a Statist co-conspirator.
I suppose if one were libertarian, & Irreligious (of which, despite my disagreement with you, I am as well), it would be harder to either see or accept this.
What is “the enlightenment” ? And anyway I was talking about your proposed ‘religion’, not buddhism.
So it won’t be revealed religion. So I’m not sure what point you’re making.
I’m afraid you’re confusing 1) religion 2) revealed religion 3) organized religion.
Again, the vast majority of churches have been either part of the state, or the state itself, as in the - oc - ra - cy.
Does anyone else smell the irony? After strongly refusing to formally debate Giles on the grounds that all the same arguments have been repeated over and over again …
… the same old arguments are being repeated over and over again, albeit in an informal fashion.
No offense intended, but why don’t you guys just give it a try?
Do you have a point ? Or are you just babbling ?
My point is that instead of having these all-too-frequent skirmishes with Giles, you could better direct your energies at having one debate that settles the issue.
After all, you don’t seem to mind debating him per se.
I honestly wonder what’s so hard to understand about my take on a ‘formal debate’.
I see Giles’ position as already-refuted-dogma. I don’t care if the rest of conservatives believe that my not submitting to a ‘formal debate’ means I’m wrong. I’ll only point out that going from “Juan refuses a formal debate” to “Juan is wrong” is…a fallacy.
Juan, that is ridicously petty. I used the term in contrast to Giles is position rather than for a detailed description of your own. If this really bothers you provide me with a brief resume of your position and some terms to know your position by and I will endevour to use those terms in relation to you.
I’m sorry but the basis of this thread is nothing short of childish intimidation via non-sequitor.
“Officially submit to my demands or you admit you’re wrong. I win!”.
My demands? Just to articulate in a formal way what you’ve been arguing about ad infinitum? You make it sound as if I’ve put a gun to your head. I honestly can’t think of a reason why you wouldn’t debate unless you’re not convinced of your own position.
Well, if there’s a ‘cultural conservative’ category I submit there should also be a ‘cultural libertarian’ category. I belong to the latter one.
Fine but libertarianism is merely to do with property rights and the only thing it says is “Thous shalt not aggress anyone else’s rights”. Thus I and Giles is a cultural libertarian. The only way to avoid this position is to bolt extras onto libertarianism and then it moves outside the scope of merely political philosopjhy but a more general category of moral philosophy thus changes the fundemental nature of the beast.
Well…that’s your opinion, not fact. Libertarianism is a philosophical school and a political movement. As such it included rejection of tradition, religious dogma, hierarchies, etc., etc.
I think that Giles is a self-described cultural conservative.
Bottom line is, you want to misrepresent me as ‘cultural leftist’. You implicitly assume that there’s such a thing as cultural leftism and cultural rightism.
I have bad news for you. There’s also cultural libertarianism.
I am sure now I am not libertarian.
It seems like intimidation to me as well.
Intimidation by inquiry? That’s a new one to me.
Granted, a fair amount of sabre-rattling goes on, but I thought one of the purposes for a formal debate was to help reduce that. I would be more in favor of a formal debate if one of the conditions was that from the outset, the debate would not be for the purposes of finding a “winner”, but to explore all sides involved more constructively, more politely, etc.
Continually ignoring the baiting of the debate, I can understand, but the debate itself? Ignoring the possibiltiy of the formal debate just seems like copping out, regardless of what side is doing so, imo.
Although, I might be the only one who doesn’t want to see a winner, admittedly :\
A lost opportunity for both sides, really.
Surely “cultural libertarianism” is whatever follows from consistant application of the NAP. Therefore if my argument is correct cultural conservatism and cultural libertarianism are the same thing, hence my signature. In fact, this whole debates concerns the very definition of cultural libertarianism above all else.
I was looking for pictures of new crowns for the occasion.
All jokes aside I think you have a point.
No, that is not libertarianism, that is Juan’s definition of his own opinions. Libertarianism speaks only in respect to property, and pretty much only says as was pointed out by Physiocrat: “Thous shalt not aggress anyone else’s rights.”
In fact, Juan’s definition is a narrow minded view that would encompass only a few in the libertarian movement; I know for one thing that I would not be ibertarian according to that definition.