Skip to comments.Atheism and Libertarianism 1: Negative Philosophies (video)
Posted on 06/24/2013 3:49:08 PM PDT by EveningStar
Part 1 in a new series examining the common fallacies committed by both statists and theists. This video covers the fact that both atheism and libertarianism are both negative philosophies, and therefore the burden of proof is on statists and theists ...
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
In case you're wondering, although I'm libertarian on some issues, I'm not an atheist.
The video runs 13:37. I made my self watch the whole thing. Although I'm not in full agreement with Shane Killian, I found his presentation interesting.
Here is his website: http://shanekillian.org/
I’m a libertarian on most issues yet am not an atheist. Atheism is certainly a negative philosophy. The only thing negative about libertarianism is its dislike of overreaching government.
All code words for, libertarians and atheists largely agree on social issues and many liberal issues like open borders, gays in the military and so on.
He uses a whiny, childish “theist” voice to present his case. Strike one. His entire argument is, “I don’t owe you an explanation,” strike two, and “it doesn’t matter,” strike three. There is no “examining” of anything.
Yeah, I saw that too. :(
Libertarians believe that the government should keep its nose out of social issues that should be between the individual and God. Didn’t Jesus say ‘Ceasar’s things to Ceasar and God’s things to God’?
“If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberalsif we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.”
“Now, I cant say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we dont each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.”
- Ronaldus Maximus Reagan
Libertarianism is not a negative philosophy, it affirms the existence of individual rights to free action, which it has the burden of proving. Statist appeal to use of actual force the existence of which is not in dispute.
I have no patience for either.
A “negative” philosophy in the context of this video does not mean that the philosophy is bad - it means that there is not burden for its adherents to prove.
In other words, if you say god exists, the burden of proof is on you. If you say statism is necessary for the well being of people, the burden is on you to prove it.
In both instances, you would be arguing for the existence of something, making the alternate position the negative position.
I’m a libertarian and I don’t support open borders — because I am also a realist. As for gays, I couldn’t care less. I’m just tired of hearing about them.
I do think, however, that for an army to be effective certain things are poisonous to army culture. And with homosexuals inevitably follows various “sensitivity” training exercises which in turn serve to root out the natural macho, gung-ho attitudes that make armies effective.
Armies aren’t supposed to be sensitive.
...and don’t forget, if you say god doesn’t exist the burden of proof is you...now you’re even expected to prove a negative. I agree completely, hence my A-1 radical agnostic status.
Reagan was sure no libertarian, as he made clear in the 1975 interview that you just quoted.
Even as a candidate being interviewed by libertarians and wanting to win them over in that interview, he explained how he was pro-defense and a social conservative.
That was too vague to be useful, I could make out that you disagree with the libertarian position on fully open borders, but you didn’t reveal your disagreement with the libertarian position on the raging gay issues.
For instance “Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships.”
Are conservatives and Christians the statists?
What does that mean in regards to the issues of the day?
There are many touch points between limited govt and other issues
There is, libertarianism breeds more liberalism and bigger government and hurts conservative efforts for smaller government.
Disagree. Libertarianism ranges from small less intrusive government to no government. As a conservative, I prefer government that is severely limited and stays out of people’s private lives. I share both of those things with many libertarians.
You will have to argue with the Communists over which fantasy political systems are the best on paper, but as we can see from the last 50 years, the left wing portion of libertarianism, the social portion, breeds larger government.
For instance open borders and social liberalism.
Open borders is the most big government position there is, yet libertarians want it.
Here is the libertarian position on the border.
The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new Berlin Wall which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. governments policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.
“We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.”
Sounds to me that govt would get smaller. I agree that these pmts should be eliminated.
People aren’t the problem. Government supporting people is the problem.
We do need to control our borders. Two out of three is not bad.
Which do you think that we will get first, open borders, or the end to government as we know it?
More democrat voters equals more liberalism, equals larger government and more liberalism, leading to more of the left and the libertarian social agenda winning, which leads to more democrat voters and larger government.
Libertarianism is liberalism with a twist, the twist is, give us our liberal libertarian social issues today, let us break the communities and destroy lives, families and the culture and finish off Christian social conservatism, and for some reason that will make all those liberal people start voting for less social programs for themselves and less government and lower taxes, in other words conservatism
Rather than say I agree with libertarians on it, it’s fairer to say that I don’t care enough to disagree. My primary issues are the surveillance state, Second Amendment violations, and inevitable financial collapse / police state response, all of which are the greatest threats to personal liberty. I don’t think it’s a requirement that you must have a firm opinion or care about every particular issue.
Gays are on my “Don’t care” list. I could not care less what gays do (unless an squad of gays armed with pink M4s come for my guns — then I care).
We have the luxury of living in a society that can dwell on silly questions like whether two men can or should be able to get married. My concern is that every society that has become so comfortable as to obsess over frivolous things soon after collapsed under the weight of its own distractions and excesses.
I prefer to prioritize.
I guess an example could be Home Depot. HD didn’t go around saying that no health insurance anywhere should cover things that they objected to on a religious basis or that their employees couldn’t engage in those objectionable activities, only that they shouldn’t be forced by the gov’t to pay for things they object to. The flower shop being sued for discrimination didn’t say that no gay couple getting married should have flowers, only that they did not believe in gay marriage and therefore did not want to do their flower arrangements.
In both cases these businesses are making profit and paying taxes (Ceasar’s things), and the gov’t shouldn’t be able to pass laws that force law abiding productive citizens to go against their religious.
The liberals were telling everyone that conservatives didn’t want to cure disease because they objected to the use of fetal stem cell research. But the objection was gov’t funding of the research, forcing taxpayers to fund something that some object to on a religious basis. They weren’t trying to stop private research.A lot of libs were surprised when I told them this.
In my previous post I said Home Depot but it was Hobby Lobby.
yuppers, and they call that straw men. it tells us much more about the constricted world view of the presenter than it does about why one would believe in God, or a particular God.
I must be an old fart Libertarian, and here’s why:
I believe in a small government, bridled and hamstrung by The U.S. Constitution, and hold The Patriot Act, The Military Commissions Act, and the NDAA as UNConstitutional.
I believe in a completely free market, without government hindrance, and without government endowments or grants. It’s YOUR money, and it is up to YOU to sink or swim!
I believe in the Constitutional confines of national defense. I know that the mohammedan problem is one that has been brewing for a lot of years, (they tried to kill me in 1972 in Asia), so, yes, we are dealing with a ‘hydra-style’ leadership. Iraq and Afghanistan are done deals, so I won’t consider debates with those. However, since when does a President decide he is going to do anything about anywhere outside the U.S., without the approval of Congress, as the Constitution states, should be done? We live in a nuclear age, still. We should not let our guard down, in that regard.
I do not believe in isolationism, as the former Presidential candidate Dr. Paul espouses. I do not believe that previous actions of this country need to be apologized for, period.
I grew up under what some folks call ‘the red scare’, I call it the clarion call for Patriotism, and had films in classes in elementary school, of what would happen to those who resisted a Communist takeover, in all those countries that were under Soviet control. I have spent my time in the military, (as my father did), and some of that in SouthEast Asia, defending this country and stopping the expanse of Communism. I have talked with Ukrainian Soviet refugees. I have heard their stories, and their hearts. What say I now? “Better off dead than Red, partner!”
I am NOT an “atheist”. However, as an American, my expressions and statements of faith, are mine and mine alone, and you are not privy to them.
I believe in the rights, as called out in The Bill of Rights, for every American CITIZEN, without exception or exclusion, period. (We all wore diapers at one time or another, so there is no royalty, or divine right of ascension, in my eyes.)
I do not believe in huggy-poo/kissy-face with illegal invaders from anywhere on the face of this Earth, or “E.T”, either! Should the future emigrant go through the legal process of becoming an American citizen, fine and dandy! If NOT, they are foreign nationals operating on American soil, and subject to espionage proceedings, period. Their offsprings are not wards of the American government, either.
You’re clearly not evangelical in any sense. They want to share the love of God all around.
You described the conservative position, which is restrict government and don’t force the homosexual agenda on people.
The libertarian position is fine on that private sector part, but they support homosexual marriage, adoption, military service, and immigration as spouses.
Nice description of a conservative, but when do you face the challenge of the things that conservatives and libertarians are on the complete opposite sides from?
LOL, amazingly shallow and ignorant.
Well the proposition for two men to marry one another IS silly (wickedly and evilly so)
I worked with a gay guy that asked me if I thought gays should be able to marry. I told him that marriage is a religious institution and, while if gays had some sort of registration so they could have the same tax laws, etc. apply to them, that’s a gov’t issue, but the gov’t has no right to force acceptance of gay marriage on everyone because most religions do not believe in it.
He accepted that answer.
Getting jollies doesn’t mean being gay in the original sense. A lot of homos are pretty crabby and gloomy.
Looking for victimization where there is none, just like a lot of other “classes” of people.
A valid argument but one that the media never even entertained, the idea of a legal relationship with it’s own definition and name.
Now we will have to create a new word for “marriage”, when we are talking about real marriage, so that the normal people can still talk daily about weddings and marriages without having to wade through clarifications and the same questions over and over.
Thanks for letting me know how much you believe you know my positions better than I do.
I’ll make really sure to dwell on the gays from now on. 100% gay focus. Forget the economy. Forget the NSA. Forget the police state. Gotta think about the gays. They’ll have my full attention, I promise, just like they have yours.
And I’ll be sure to ask your opinion of my opinion in the future just to be sure.
Ca already had a registered domestic partner law on the books so they had equality as far as any gov’t issue in CA already, but they had to take over the word marriage.
You were very clear, I asked you your opinion on this libertarian position. **Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the governments treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.**
You posted these statements as your answer.
“”Rather than say I agree with libertarians on it, its fairer to say that I dont care enough to disagree.””
“”Gays are on my Dont care list. I could not care less what gays do “”
“”We have the luxury of living in a society that can dwell on silly questions like whether two men can or should be able to get married. My concern is that every society that has become so comfortable as to obsess over frivolous things soon after collapsed under the weight of its own distractions and excesses.””
I see you on every libertarian thread accusing libertarians of supporting gays. You have accused me of such an abomination.
are you a one-trick pony... or just obsessing with your own personal demons?
Some of them are, some of them aren’t. There is a wide variety of people going around calling themselves conservative and even larger groups of people going around calling themselves Christians.
LOL, one of those, don’t say anything, but attack the conservative personally, posts.
When you figure out a grown up response to post 3, which consisted of a single sentence, “”All code words for, libertarians and atheists largely agree on social issues and many liberal issues like open borders, gays in the military and so on.”” then post it.
Perhaps you will claim that the libertarians support conservative laws protecting marriage and keeping homosexuals out of the military since that is the conservative position.
When you can bring yourself to say something plainly, then post it, because at this point, you aren’t saying anything.
Look down your nose all you wish, but you can't use such a broad brush in any conversations about the subject. Liberty (ie: libertarian) means freedom from governmental control or license within the political spectrum.
You display all of the traits of someone obsessed with homosexual behavior. When do you come out of your closet?
Do you really need to paint everyone with the rainbow you seem to love?
In plain English, you support the libertarian position.
**Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the governments treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.**
In plain words, NO and never said I did! You continue to make claims not based upon facts, just your own personal demons.
What part of NO do you NOT understand? I do not recognize any government's ability to control behavior! It is not a role of government in a libertarian scenario. Nor, is it the role within any "conservative" scenario, no matter how much you wish to be the arbiter.
Again, you try to paint others with your own personal brush.
How is that different from this position? "Sexual orientation, should have no impact on the governments treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws."?
Good luck when you stand in front of the throne of God...
Matthew 7: 7 Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brothers eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, Let me take the speck out of your eye, when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brothers eye.
6 Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces. ...
Rather than claim God is at your side on gay marriage, how about answering post 48?