Well why would they do that? At the very least what you propose is collectivism.
I use the Aristotelian definition of what politics is and it is defined as the science of what beings should do and what they should abstain from. Libertarianism practices individual liberty,individual thought, individual sovereignity while racism preaches collective hatred or contempt for a group of individuals who are presumed identical in intelligence, morals and actions. Therefore my stating that individuals who are not individualists and look at groups through collectivist lenses are not actually libertarians is a logical premise.
Well you are looking at a group of individuals as a singular conscious class. I am against individuals who preach statism but I do not think that they act with one will or even have similar mindsets or reasons for being who they are.
My stance is fine, I look at someone as an individual whose actions only represent themselves. [H]
of course they only represent themselves, but also they may share common traits with various other people. is recognising shared/common traits collectivism?
Statism is a ambiguous definition. I don’t think that having a common trait is collectivist but I think that looking at all the individuals who do have common traits and making them identical in some respect is.
The answer is, I think, in your signature : “No State Project. Free your mind”
I don’t think that organized lies are the way to achieve a free mind.
I don’t think that people who want to replace the modern state with some sort of ‘voluntary’ theocracy, say, like the Amish, or (way) worse variants, are libertarians.
‘Voluntarists’ who heavily use indoctrination (and maybe other ‘techniques’), maybe. Libertarians ? Nope.
I don’t think that being religious is the same as ‘following’ a given church.
If humans only had one trait and that trait was statism then they would be identical. However, humans have multiple traits to them so just because A and B both preach statism does not mean A and B are the same. They might not even agree on what statism is, how far to go, the postives of it [according to them] etc.
I didn’t see that, and when I read it now, it is so laden with qualifications and obfuscation, I can’t tell if your answer is yes or no.
But is it acceptably libertarian to be religious, yes or no? If there is a form of religion you feel is acceptably libertarian, can you provide an example of it?
What I am saying is, when you define what isn’t, you’re not making clear what is. Give us a positive example (if one exists).
True, but at least it gives you some information. Anyway…
If I’m not mistaken, there is this thing called ‘deism’ which has some sort of connection to classical liberalism ?
I don’t know much about other religions, but it seems to me that religions are fine as long as they don’t pretend to dictate how people ‘should’ behave.
People can individually believe whatever they please about the supernatural. I know nothing about it, and so do they. And it’s an issue which is not directly related to politics - or at least it should not be.
However when some ‘religious’ people pretend that they know how their fellows are supposed to behave because they hear voices in their heads, it seems to me that political problems are likely to arise.
I’ve never read any religious book, such as the Bible, though I’ve heard down the grapevine of many cases wherein it is seemingly commanded that an act be committed against a particular target.
I think there is a grain of sense to Brainpolice’s idea of “thick” libertarianism. It is necessary to have other positions. However, the thickening parts should not be filed under that title. One could argue that the theory of gravity is “thin” without the other physical theory. One would not then suggest that all of physics should therefore be titled “the theory of gravity”. The more meaning you stuff into a word the less useful it is as a word.