Yes, setting up their own little theocracies, i.e., states.
The point is, some people believe in absurd things for which they have zero proof - I think it’s very legitimate to ask why that is so. I think it’s also legitimate to be cautious of people who believe in wholly unproven things.
Another point is, churches and revealed religions have always been political tools and been engaged in all sorts of atrocities.
Putting words in my mouth, eh? You ought to know it is not a state if everyone is there willingly on privately owned land.
Fine. Just don’t pretend to be promoting libertarianism when you do.
This is a flawed argument in that in a free society it is easily possible that people could come to the conclusion that multicellular organisms that would otherwise develop into babies are in fact lives that could be agressesd against. In my understanding, this would mean that abortion doctors could theoretically be tried for murder in a free society, no?
So what? They may endorse a God who will but that doesn’t mean they’ll endorse a State that will. Many people who believe in God do not confuse what is good for a diety to do with what is good for the State to do. Just like many people opposed to drug use support legalization, may people who are firmly opposed to other victimless crimes, like prostitution can simultaneously believe in their legalization and God’s punishment for the participants in the afterlife. There is no cognitive dissonance here.
Come now, don’t be so naive. States wage wars for statist reasons. if they justify their slaughter with religion it says nothing about religion sine qua non. The fact that in statist society religion tends to be involved with the State’s crimes is similar to how prostitution, pimping and drug dealing are currently connected to nonstatist crimes. As you know, this does not imply any connection between the sale of drugs and violence in a free society. IMHO, religion would have no such incentives to violence with out the State.
No. I’m describing things as they are, not as you pretend they are.
Yeah. And people born in such nice small communities in the middle of nowhere can always leave if they don’t agree with the mob’s delusion…
I didn’t pretend such a thing. I wonder, however, how is it possible to discuss political issues pertaining to the real world with people to whom the real world is whatever their churches/religious masters tell them it is.
At any rate here’s the part where I ‘promote libertarianism’ - maybe you missed it…
I don’t know. I do not know the history of all States.
I never said religion could not be reconciled with libertarianism.
True.
When did I say it was my business?
I agree.
As I said, most non-religious people seem to be just as statist as non-religious. But, in the libertarian movement, I do believe there are more non-religious people than religious people. Does anyone know if there are any statistics?
Called this one…
‘As they are’ with your theoretical religious group. Religious groups don’t require your approval to live as they see fit.
The Amish as an example, are given the oppurtunity to stay or live among ‘the English’. But at this point you’re simply attacking a strawman religious group.
We can discuss political issues all day long - you’re the one who promotes belligerent atheism and trying to pass it off as libertarianism. Of course what you really are doing is promoting your life style choice (atheism) and pretending that it is a prerequisite to being a libertarian.
Yes. And ? Trying to assign collective punishment for sins done hundreds of years ago strikes me as ridiculous.
Which is relevant, how?
You’d rather worship yourself, no?
The most totalitarian states ever were…militantly atheist?
So, religious ‘libertarians’ believe that exercising freedom of contract leads to eternal punishment. No, there’s no cognitive dissonance there…and pigs fly.
But if you dont beleive that, why do you care what they think? And I also love the implication that religous libertarians are not real libertarians.
It’s well known that places like russia were nationalistic monarchies (go figure…) and had strong churches. No wonder that individual rights were non-existent there - the perfect ground for communism. Communism is just a remake of the old feudal order - it has nothing to do with atheism.
Can you spell “non sequitur” ? I don’t believe in X and I wonder why you believe in X - there’s no contradiction on my part.
People who believe that individuals who use their freedom as they see fit, while harming no one, will burn in hell, are not libertarians - sorry. Not only that : I wouldn’t even call them ‘nice people’ but moral terrorists. Using fear to get others to conform to one’s revealed dogmas has nothing to do with libertarianism.
I worship no one – way better than worshipping the holy aliance of chuch and state, the inquisition, witch hunts and the god who manages that sorts of things.
Well in Juan`s world nobody is a real libertarian, except for Juan of course.
It’d be nice if you addressed my arguments…if you won’t address them, go to hell please (hell being a libertarian place anyway…)
Once again: why does it matter what religious people think, since you think we’re all delusional anyway. For someone who rides such a high horse you seem to care an awful alot about what ‘delusional’ people think.
Your life choices have nothing to do with libertarianism.
To banned,
I never said that “freedom is good” is a thesis of the science of economics, but rather that is a principle that can be derived from the concusions of the science of economics. Knowing that a relatively high level of freedom in economy helps to establish the smooth workings of the markets resulting in a higher level of production than a less free economy and that the higher level of production will result in a higher standard of living, a longer lifespan, and a lower rate of infant mortality (three things that I believe anyone would label as “good”), I can thus label freedom as something that is “good” and ergo desirable in society. Of course, I might have assumed too much for one could argue that a lower standard of living, a shorter lifespan, and a higher rate of infant mortality is “good” and that freedom thus is a moral evil,but I think that for most of the world’s ethics the three are “good”.