The Libertarian War on Church Was Wrong

Miscellaneous History
21

eally? Democrats think that what I smoke, what I grow in my garden, and what I sell to my fellow neighbor is not the business of government? Can you support such a claim?

I never said they were perfect lol. In fact I said they were crap too. But on the issue of what you smoke and grow in your garden, I would say Dems are far more likely to stay off your back. Trade is a different matter, as they will probably tax you, make you put warnings on the product (not sooo much against that, just would be better if it was voluntary), and generally regulate how you can trade it. Like I said, they are crap too. haha

show me a Democrat who wants to privatize airwaves and abolish the FCC

point taken. I know many who do (at least abolish the FCC), but the establishment does not. Point taken.

state monopoly on education

idk what you mean. this “monopoly” does not stop you from opening your own school. I would not call that censorship, personally.

On what grounds do they support this mosque and what is their motive

They’re all secret muslims who want to institute Shariah Law in the states! AHHHHHHHH RUN AWAY! HIDE YOUR WHITE CHRISTIAN CHILDREN!!!

No, seriously lol. What do you think there motive is, other than freedom of religion (on private property)?

22

The State compels me at gun point to financially support its schools throughout my entire life!. This is not outright educational censorship but it is financial censorship where for a large part of the population, any alternative to State education is impractical.

Competition is also severely hampered in other ways. All “private” schools must be approved by the State. They are also subject to strict regulations and alleged “educational standards”.

How about subjecting our newspapers to the same type of system. Have a government run newspaper agency that forces tax payers to finance it, and then allow for some competition, which the State must approve and regulate.

Are you prepared to call such a system: Freedom of the Press? This is a serious question.

freedom of religion, maybe… But certainly not private property. The former is useless without the latter, for now the State must approve of what constitutes a “religion”. This means that we don’t have freedom of Religion either and Democrats certainly dona’t believe in that either.

Seriously, what is the criteria for what qualifies as “Religion”? I believe in the free market. I’t’s certainly not a religion, but I’ll gladly accept the characterization if it grants me my freedom.

If the opponents of Markets say I am religious, why won’t they grant me the same freedom?

23

All “private” schools must be approved by the State. They are also subject to strict regulations and alleged “educational standards”

Only for accredation issues. You can still open a school and operate it as you see fit, you just can’t be an accredited school, meaning your degrees will be worth only the paper they are written on. Even if we were to get rid of state education I would still find this a valid system (a private accredation company); you can’t teach biblical creationism as science and pass your students off as educated.

Are you prepared to call such a system: Freedom of the Press?

No. But certainly more free than what exists in China.

freedom of religion, maybe… But certainly not private property. The former is useless without the latter, for now the State must approve of what constitutes a “religion”. This means that we don’t have freedom of Religion either and Democrats certainly dona’t believe in that either.

So we don’t have freedom of anything then? I would argue we could be freer, but are certainly more free than previous systems and still existent ones such as China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia.

I think it is safe to say most Democrats believe in private property, just not fully in it in a Rothbardian sense. I’ll take a democrat over a Soviet anyday.

24

So Democrats don’t advocate for total control of everything like in China? From this, do we take the leap in characterizing Democrats as anti-censorship and advocates of freedom in education?

That’s a rather odd and sort of absurd statement. I’m sure many here would agree.

They don’t believe in private property in any sense. They cannot even conceive of it. What they call private property is nothing but a collection of privileges that a citizen is granted from his government.

The Democrat or Republican take for granted their freedom for they obviously don’t understand it any more then the communist. The difference is that the Democrat landed in one place and the Soviet in another. Neither understand what is going on around them.

So preferring the current state of affairs in the US over former Soviet Russia, or Saudi Arabia, or whatever is not the same as preferring the Democrat (or Republican) over a Communist. Their all intellectually bankrupt in my opinion. It is not the makings of Democrats and Republicans that we have it better.

25

“Methodology isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.”

You said ‘superstition’ leads to scientific discoveries. That seems to suggest a process or methodology. I don’t think it does, but this is what I was addressing. Hunch and superstition are not the same thing. And the usefulness of hunch is useful in so far as it is defined as what it is – and not confused with superstition.

IT doesn’t matter about the absolute undying truth of the thing. It’s that you can say how you get from observation to conclusion. So someone can make sense of what you’re saying. You have to work through the system you’re describing. That way it can be of some use on an objective level. And the conclusions from that project can work towards larger scientific goals – if necessary. If we say scientific discovery is useful, which I think you’re saying it is.

Rather than saying ‘i did nothing – i just pulled this out of my ass’.

26

They don’t believe in private property in any sense. They cannot even conceive of it. What they call private property is nothing but a collection of privileges that a citizen is granted from his government.

the idea of private property are much older than Rothbard. As I said, they don’t believe in the Rothbardian sense of it, but they believe people have certain (albeit limited) rights to it. What would have made more sense was if you said

They don’t believe in Rothbardian private property in any sense. They cannot even conceive of it. What they call private property is nothing but a collection of privileges that a citizen is granted from his government.

Which was actually the classical view of private property.

The difference is that the Democrat landed in one place and the Soviet in another

I dont agree with this, at all. But, if you are willing to say the Repub and Fascist just happened to land in different spots… I still dont buy it. These are marked differences that just generally share the same outlook.

Their all intellectually bankrupt in my opinion

I would say communists/fascists are bankrupt. Dems/Reps are intellectually struggling. I wouldnt just forsake the things that make us “better” just becuase they could be even better than they are now.

27

I dont think theres any inherent contradiction between religion and libertarian thought. Some religions have actually historically held strong pro-market beliefs. Islam in particular has a long history of supporting economic freedom, Muhammad was a merchant, and by most accounts continued to work as one even while preaching Allah’s word. It also used to be required by Muslim law that all Muslim men must make as much money(produce as much wealth) as they possibly could, in order to be able to give more to the poor, Muslim thinkers(particularly in Spain) were also some of the strongest opponits of 16th-17th century merchantalism.

While Christianity doesnt have as explicitly a strong pro-market stance…I do like to throw this parable at people who like to claim Jesus was a liberal:

1"For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. 2He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.

3**"About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing. 4He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ 5So they went.

*"He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. 6*About the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’

7**" ‘Because no one has hired us,’ they answered.
"He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’

8**"When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’

9**"The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. 10So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. 11When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 12‘These men who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

13"But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? 14Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. 15__Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

-Matthew 20: 1-16

Notice the landowners response is threefold: first the workers had agreed to work for a denarius(a silver coin that was a standard days pay for an unskilled worker in ancient Rome). Secondly, its his money, he can spend it as he wants, thirdly, paying everybody the same was actually pretty generous. He could have given the people who came in the morning a deenarius, and everybody else less…but he didnt, everybody got a full days pay. Also the landowner isnt the ‘bad guy’ in this story(unlike most stories today), its the workers who are complaining about how ‘unfair’ their pay was. Its really hard to get much more Austrian in tone than that.

Thats not to say that religions are perfect in their support of libertarian ideals. Particularly troublesome is when religions become tools of the state(or vice-versa). Although I imagine that in a truly free society, organized churches will be somewhat more influencial in people’s everyday life…although they would obviously use strictly non-coersive means to get(and keep) members.

28

No, I said that you cannot formally distinguish between a hunch and a superstition. Surmising that djinns exist is not so different than surmising that the charm quark exists. Neither can be seen, both should have some effect in the world (djinns have more complex and subtle effects). Superstition is just an expression of human imagination, probably with an evolutionary basis Evolutionary psychologists believe that anthropomorphizing natural events caused people to be more circumspect and thereby more likely to survive surprise attacks. That is, if you ascribe every sound in the forest to an action of the gods or leprechauns, you’re likely to be paying more attention when it turns out that a wolf or your enemy is actually responsible for those sounds. This pressure selected for superstition over agnosticism. This argument swiped (and re-worded) from Kanazawa and Miller’s book Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters.

Of course hunch and superstition are not the same thing… my only claim is that you can’t make a formal definition of the difference. Both are instances of arbitrary belief, like axioms. You just believe it because you do. There cannot be any other reason, else it would be a theorem, not a hunch.

Clayton -

29

Thinkalot, where is that from?

30

Again, I’m seeing the same pattern of Corporatist corruption(Where even if a business “knows” accepting government handouts is wrong, their competition will do so anyway, leaving them no real choice in the matter.) in Religion.

31

Your style of argumentation is clever. You have illustrated perfectly why the miniarchist position is inconsistent and unattainable. It is possible by somebody like you with just a little effort to devise a clever dichotomy of Rothbard vs everything else.

I have no problem arguing against this position, however, you are correct in one thing, all those stopping short of the complete abolishment of government would not be able to escape your lumping together of all non Rothbard (granting you the fallacy of oversimplifying and equating Rothbard with all forms of radical libertarianism) with everybody else; Republicans, Democrats, etc… You are falling back and resorting to this inconsistency held by most libertarians to make your arguments.

Now, I disagree with you, but I would be curious to see one of the miniarchists (who believes at minimum that taxes are theft) here take up this debate.

32

First, you’re asking a collection of individualists what the local (collective) opinion is. Second, everyone talks tough on the internet.

You can be a relativist for liberty too. Which is why the notion of an objective ethic, with the justification that the ends (avoiding possible negative moral decisions) justifies the means is as silly as any argument for statism.

I have been cursed as a relativist many times, and I proudly wear it. I choose to be pro-liberty. I choose to respect property. I will always endorse the market. That’s my choice. I choose that as my ethic.

33

I have no problem arguing against this position, however, you are correct in one thing, all those stopping short of the complete abolishment of government would not be able to escape your lumping together of all non Rothbard (granting you the fallacy of oversimplifying and equating Rothbard with all forms of radical libertarianism) with everybody else; Republicans, Democrats, etc… You are falling back and resorting to this inconsistency held by most libertarians to make your arguments.

Haha. I am no minarchist. Tho a vastly different libertarian than one such as yourself. But I hardly think you have any objective proof to say Rothbard is the final arbiter on property rights.

34

@ Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

I assume you are saying democrats in general are; anti drug war, anti censorship, pro mosque @ ground zero, the ACLU is largely a democratic orginiation

man we must know/see different democrats - pro war on pharm drugs, pro censorship of things they disagree with ( religion, capitalism, conservative talk shows) pro mosque only because they are so anti- christian, aclu, as far as i’m concerned is almost as biased as krugman.

oh and like mirror image repubs, they are anti-repub war and pro- democratic war -

my cat has more principals than either party

35

Thinkalot, where is that from?

My quote from the Gospels…Its Matthew 20: 1-16. I’v fixed my earlier post.

36

pro war on pharm drugs

umm what?

pro censorship of things they disagree with ( religion, capitalism, conservative talk shows) pro mosque only because they are so anti- christian,

I have seen no dems trying to shut down churches. They may not want religion on public property, but there not trying to censor private churches. You can’t censor an economic theory, you can just disagree with it being put in practice. Really, you have proof they’re trying to officially censor Limbaugh? (before you say “when do reps try to censor,” burning flags is my answer)

Just turn off O’Reilly for a day or two, that will rot your brain worse than huffing… and just as much as Huffington ha!

oh and like mirror image repubs, they are anti-repub war and pro- democratic war

Ya, hence why they are both crap. Theyre both the party of corporatism, The only difference is social issues and whether to tax business less or subsidize them more

37

“No. But certainly more free than what exists in China.”

Ha, that’s funny, because that’s the exact system that is in place in China. Relatively few state owned newspapers and magazines, and hundreds if not thousands of newspapers and magazines which the State approves and regulates. =0

38

@Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun

your accusation that I listen to o’reilly or limbaigh is almost enough to forget about NAP and go nukler on your ass. :slight_smile:

it sounds like we agree; both parties are hypocrites who care only about vote buying. it would appear only that you appreciate the lies of the dems better and I have a soft spot for the lies and propaganda of the repubs.

39

haha. I would agree with that. At least we recognize our foolishness. I just dont want to get caught up in the “its hopeless so I dont vote.” They dont do what you want, but I feel they would do less of what we dont want, if more people voted.

And my apologies for assuming you liked Limbaugh lol

40

I never said or thought you were. Haha.

Perhaps you can enlighten me about how and where I have resorted to the philosophy of Rothbard in this thread?

There is a really bad habit here by some people to attach Rothbard to anything they don’t agree with. It is disrespectful and it usually, in almost every case, reveals a certain level of ignorance.