Just yesterday I was on the Live Chat and these two people were arguing about Catholics and Libertarians. I really didn’t understand what they were arguing about. One person was saying that Catholics have a big connection to libertarianism while the other person was saying that there was no connection at all. They start debating on whether religion plays a part in Libertarian theory.
Well first off, I dont get how people mix religion and political theory together. And, in general, Libertarians are diverse. There are several libertarians that are old or young, rich or poor, and religious and not religious. There are even anarchists that support Libertarian theory.
Its these types of arguments that keep Libertarian theory to progress. These arguments are useless and will only tear Libertarians apart.
I really don’t care if people believe in Jesus, or Buddha, or Mohammad, or Moses, or don’t have any faith. As long as you are trying to help Libertarianism progress, I really don’t care.
So in conclusion, stop with these useless arguments.
Believing in / Worshiping a God and being a following & practicing member of a religious institution are two different things.
Religious leaders and institution of religion is all about control. Back when church and state were involved, the church / religious leaders would tell the people that it was God’s will for individuals to listen and follow the rule of government. Then the gov’t would subsidize the church. Church and State would share in governing power. Then Libertarians (I believe it was them) tried to separate church and state to break this structure of power.
Religion and religious leaders are all about power and control. If you’re catholic you can’t wear condoms. If your Jehovah’s Witness you can’t do much anything that involves self education or having an opinion based on your own reasoning.
The only alternative to organized religion, is disorganized religion that is nothing but superstition, the two necessitate each other.
Libertarianism had yet to be formulated when the debate about the nature of the church and state became heated in the 1700s.
It is about service, prayer, and sacrifice. Only a very arrogant, and naive critic could look at an organization like the Vatican, and believe that it is all about control. Really, if it were all about control, most religious leaders could not live the lives they are expected to live for there are easier ways to achieve power than through religion.
None of this is about control. All of this is trying to live a life in accordance with God’s will.
you are totally missing my point about religion and libertarianism. You comment is more of trying to educate me on religion but frankly I could care less about the practices of different types of religion
I would think that the moral values that lead a person to such concepts as the NAP are based in their religious beliefs. So I think they would be linked. Now, that doesn’t mean that everyone in Religion A will arrive at Libertarianism just because a follower of A feels that A supports it.
If I may threadjack a little on a related idea - if there is a Supreme Being who created everything, then all property rights initially belong to Him/Her… even the right to our own bodies. So, if two people are working for a third, and one of them sees the other misusing the owner’s property, is he in the wrong for protecting the owner’s property?
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
They start debating on whether religion plays a part in Libertarian theory.
[/quote]
Religion does not play a part in Libertarian theory. Yet, Religion, especially catholicism, plays an important part in the historical development of liberalism (using this term in the original sense).
Libertarianism and classical liberalism have deep religious roots and are intrinsically connected to natural law/rights. Free-market economics was first cultivated by Catholic Jesuits. Mariana, for example, claimed that assassinating a political leader who taxes without consent or debases the currency is not only justified but required.
Very good lecture series. Dr. Raico is excellent in giving a dialectical approach to the development of liberalism throughout the ages. I would also recommend Dr. Wood’s book on the Catholic church. I have not personally read them but I have read several other works by Dr. Woods and he is a wonderful historian.
Well yes during the Middle Ages. Before then it was a classical ideal. Aristotle, Stoics etc. The thing is with natural rights, you can have either deity based natural rights or reason based natural rights. I tend to side more with the reason based.
Well, I do not claim that natural rights are set by a deity, reason is the natural means to find rights for human beings. Whether one beliefs the world is made by a creator or an accident doesn’t matter much at the level of our being so. Reason is our way to survive and so yes, natural rights are reason based.
Regarding the classical ideal, it was, but only in the greek democracies.
I think religion is just bad reasoning, on the one hand, and systematic ideological repression structures in human history. Our modern media and university systems are more of this. It is allowed for people to believe any sort of insane nonsense they wish to, but that does not make them compatible with either reality or a libertarian society. Sure, everyone could be a libertarian national socialist, but it’s hard to see why one would be.
I’ve always seen a strong correlation between my religious ideas and my libertarian political beliefs, however, I see Libertarianism as political theory for people of any religion, due to its tolerance of belief through its love of free will and liberty.
Spiritual belief systems trancend the classical compartmentalized structures we call science, politics, economics, etc. So mixing spiritual beliefs with politics or economics is not only common, but appropriate to the individual in question.
It’s inappropriate to paint spiritual belief systems with one big, broad brush that suggests such beliefs are: bad, superstitious, oppressive, ignorant, etc. They are not equivalent, and are based upon the individual. While formal religious institutions have their own policies and practices, ultimately it’s the individual who chooses which policies and practices to follow. Just because you have some bad actors in the past doesn’t mean you can indict everyone with spiritual beliefs at that time, nor can you indict the people under the same religion today for sins of the past. Each person would have to be judged separately - if you even believe they need to be judged at all.
The part people with spiritual beliefs had to play in the history of classical liberalism and even libertarianism is a point of fact that requires no debate. It is the commonality of belief that draws many people to these schools of thought - granted, I wish more people did share these views. Religion, as an institution, and many people of spiritual belief had a large role to play in the creation of the State - that too is an undeniable fact. Depending on how state-like a religion is, you have the same State-Individual construct - so it’s no wonder why you see such dichotomy among religions and their congregations.
The argument over whether the Catholic Church had connections to libertarianism or not is a moot point. Catholics were contributors to both the State and Libertarianism. I do find, however, that the offical Church positions lean heavily toward the State whether individual Catholics care to follow them or not.
I’m inclined to think that the whole God thing might be a semantic argument. Our higher consciousness is just software, right? If a computer operating system, inasmuch as it is personified itself, perceives its BIOS as a God, is it incorrect? The BIOS itself is real, right? Is the computer which chooses to extend the fiction of its own higher consciousness to include its BIOS any more or less correct than the first computer?