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 liberals–if 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 can’t 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 don’t 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.
IMMIGRATION:
“”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. government’s 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.””
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.