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.
Or perhaps A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism is concerned with economics, whereas D:TGTF is more concered with sociology.
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’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’
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.
Get a book on BASIC history. Failing that just read my sig.
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.
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.
I have read the book and you’re just being pedantic, because even in the list you mentioned sociology isn’t to be found.
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.
I never claimed you claimed a right.
Then prove this point without the personal attacks.
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.
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:
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.
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.
Clearly, you are a heathen and must be burnt. [:P]
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.
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.
Are you going to play word games ? Here, you said :
I never said there’s such a right. So you did ? Your misrepresentation, or sarcasm, or rhetorical trick, or whatever you want to call it, is pointless. So let me try again : I’m not dictating who can practice revealed religion. I’m saying that adults lie and coerce their children and that’s how revealed religions survive.
You keep on being an hypocrite. Why should you now characterize Giles’ comment as ’ inappropriate’ ? He doesn’t like gays. So what ? The problem is not that, but the stupid political ‘theories’ which try to justify his dislike on conservative grounds, and then claim that conservatism is a (fundamental) part of libertarianism.
Why should he apologize ?? He can say whatever he pleases about his ‘personal preferences’ What fails here is his political theories.
You see ? All you do is keep on lying. WHERE did I oppose religious freedom ?
On the other hand people here want to create religious ghettos where dissenters are faced with a nice statist ‘choice’ : love it or leave it. And the ghetto builders get a free-pass because of their alleged support for ‘property rights’…You know how’s that called ? Hypocrisy.
Either you didn’t understand what I said or else you didn’t understand what I said. Look, the only utterly dogmatic belief system here is theism because there is NO proof for it. It’s pure DOGMA. Theists admit as much, but instead of talking about dogma they call it faith
So, try to understand : more or less rational positions such as deism, agnosticism and atheism can be found by rational inquiry. 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. I would love to know what you think is ‘dogmatic’ about my position except that I don’t believe in the lies of thousand different revealed religions, which are themselves, by definition, dogmatic.
Without a mirror I can’t tell that my eyes are blue. Doesn’t mean that they’re not.
What has that got to do with anything ? As I explained, revealed religion is pure dogma. The color of your eyes is a fact of reality.
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