I’m not sure who you think I’m declaring guilty. This has nothing to do with guilt anyway. Social conservatives claim that revealed religion is a positive force which opposes the state and promotes some sort of libertarian-leaning natural law. However, facts show otherwise.
I, on the other hand, hear that private property and slavery are antithetical. Unless you’re an statist who believe that human beings can be owned. Or are a monarchist who believe in the divine right of kings to own their subjects. Or something.
I’m pointing out that social conservatism IS conservatism and as such opposed to libertarianism. It would be very very interesting if you could show how criticizing churches and their lies and crimes makes me an statist.
Why should parents be obeyed ? Anyway, I’m free to point out that lying to children and promoting blind obedience are actions which help statism. Again, the fact is, revealed religion and libertarianism are at odds. And you seem to be a totalitarian of sorts who doesn’t want this fact to be brought to light.
Whom, exactly, are you addressing when you say “you guys” ? I speak for myself. But maybe you’re showing your true colors here ? You’re engaging in your crusade against left-libertarianism ?
I think that Christianity will continue under anarchism. But like right now, it will just continue to diminish in passion for the actual words nor really care how it differs from other religions. It will probably be a religion that thinks Jesus wore some nice sandals or something. And maybe that one shouldn’t aught to lie or kill people. And a few meetings at the church house for funerals. The alternative view is that it will be like a Tolstoy version of Christianity that is very extreme… but just resigns from existence maybe into some communal or monastic existence – due to some fear they are destroying the planet or because of panic about some imagined persecution. And then they will disappear like the Quakers.
hey look, it’s juan, the genius who can’t figure out how to use the internet! thanks for proving that you are incapable of learning, and continuing to scrunch up your quotes!
I’ve already made this case, several times. A libertarian can be socially conservative. Or do you argue that they cannot? And if not, how would their living in a socially conservative manned, compromise libertarianism? Be precise and specific. I have to waste a lot of time putting line breaks in your posts, I don’t have time to waste on evasion or strawmen.
Why shouldn’t they? If it’s not your child to raise, what business is it of yours? Statist much?
Yes, you are free to continue to whine and cry about everything. The problem is, you want to redefine libertarianism to reflect your values, and you leave no room for the values of others. In other words, you are a petit statist. Freedom and liberty, only on Juan’s subjective terms, not on objective principles.
You and BP.
Yeah, but the whining and hypocrisy all sounds the same.
I don’t give a damn about left libertarians. I think they are full of crap. They make a lot of subjective arguments, and their style is based on erecting strawmen, providing victims and arguments where none should exist. You do this constantly. Someone says “A”, and you go, “will if A is like B, then you’re a statist, or you’re a conservative, or you’re wrong, or you’re a monarchist” or any other number of childish insults and attacks.
Interesting. Personally, I don’t care. I’m an atheist. Yup, there are non-Caucasian atheist social conservatives who are neither racist nor statist.
My point is, if people want to live in communes, or be in monasteries, or heaven forbid, chose to have a king, that is their business. As long as they don’t coerce me, and respect my property rights, I could care less what they do. I had a pro-state family member make Juan’s argument against people believing in or doing what they want, without causing harm. As though it was something anachronistic to live a certain way or hold certain beliefs, and anachronism itself is somehow pro-state (like saying conservatives want more statism because they look backwards, when in fact many conservatives want more classic liberalism, and that is why they look backwards).
I told that family member that today, you can go on the internet and watch video of people sticking glass coca cola bottles in various non-oral orifices. But who am I to judge what they do with their body and their time? And this is so-called progress.
Left Libertarians, instead of trying to form their own separate collective, should take a page out of their own rhetoric, and show some tolerance to so-cons and others whose personal sensibilities they may not agree with, but whose desire for liberty and peace is a common goal.
Because, that’s the way nature works perhaps? If not that then because they’re financially dependant on them and for the most part of their early lives children rely on the care of their parents to stop them running into the middle of the road.
You can’t respond to it, because your argument once again is bankrupt. You insist that people acting voluntarily in a community in a manner that is of their own free will, is somehow an issue. It’s only an issue because you are insecure, and cannot tolerate different people having different lifestyle choices than you in a free society. Hypocrisy!
I would say that children are not the property of their parents. Parents have an ethical responsibility to their children, although the relationship is not the same as that which occurs between two individual adults. Sometimes so-cons seem to act as though their children are their property.
Liberty Student, you know I’ve replied to your ‘arguments’ quite a few times and finally gave up because I consider you either confused or an hypocrite. I suggest you educate yourself about the history of revealed religion and conservatism in the West. If you don’t, don’t pretend that you know what you’re talking about.
History has no bearing on my personal, social conservatism. You constantly construct these strawmen, now anyone who might have chose conservatism as a personal lifestyle choice, has to bear the burden of philosophers and religious fanatics from hundreds of years ago? And how is this not collectivism?
Again, please grow up. Make an argument that doesn’t rely on conflating people today, with people from 8 generations ago. Make a principled argument that withstands the test of time.
Where is the lie? You’re as big of an fanatical atheist as anyone you accuse of being a fanatical theist. That’s obvious for everyone to see.
Prescribing the moral rule that one aught to obey their parents – as a means of combating “cultural marxism” – sorta fails when … uh… the parent is a Marxist.
I don’t know what you mean by your “personal social conservatism” and frankly I don’t care. Though I can’t help but noticing that when Giles came with the idea of ‘ostracizing’ gays you were not that happy. So perhaps you’re not a social conservative after all, but are just claiming to be one to avoid being a “left-libertarian”…whatever that means.
My argument doesn’t rely on conflating anything. Learn history and you’ll see what revealed religion has done. Don’t want to learn history ? Well in that case remain willfully ignorant – your problem.
Besides, I think I also mentioned what christians do now. And surprise, surprise, it’s not that different from what they did 500 hundred years ago – which makes sense for conservatives, who, by definition, oppose change.
For the record, I’m an agnostic. I know that people who advocate this or that revealed religion are lying. If you want to call me a fanatic because I fanatically deny the existence of elfs, the FSM or the validity of ‘sacred’ books, fine. Of course calling me a fanatic does not address my points at all.
Let’s see. I asked you why parents should be obeyed and you replied
I don’t think that’s a valid answer, so there’s nothing to address. I don’t think that declining to reply to unfounded assertions means I’m intellectually dishonest. You also said :
The accusation of cultural marxism is a strawman. You seem to be setting up a false dichotomy between accepting your cultural conservatism and being a cultural marxist. One can very well challenge the traditional authoritarian model of the family, religious authority, racism, and so on, and not be a cultural marxist. One need not accept these things as laws of nature.