Skip to comments.LIBERTARIANISM & LIBERTY - COMPATIBLE WITH CHRISTIANITY SOCIALISM - COMPATIBLE WITH NEITHER
Posted on 01/10/2014 1:14:42 PM PST by crazylibertarian
I have always been resentful of authority, with an attitude to 'the authorities' of 'who died and made you God?' I've always believed that freedom is only possible within the Judaeo-Christian tradition.
SOCIALISM - COMPATIBLE WITH NEITHER
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that believes government has as its legitimate function only the protection of its citizens and their property, both foreign and domestic. Attempts at anything else, lead to tyranny.
Libertarians subscribe to the principle of non-aggression. We refuse to initiate violence against anyone but we believe that if anyone initiates violence against us, we are entitled to respond for our own protection. We apply this to both domestic and foreign policy. We believe that since our own experiment in democracy has not been perfect, The United States of American do not have the right to tell others how to handle theirs.
Freedom has struggled with government since the beginning of history. When the first tribal council sat around some long ago fire and decided on leadership, the erosion of freedom began. It has been re-enacted in each successive society, since.
Our American experiment in freedom began nearly twenty-four decades ago. It is based in legal and spiritual egalitarianism. These principles were laid out in our Declaration of Independence. They were a thumb in the eye of the established order of the day. It was a revolutionary idea that government was subordinate to the people.
Libertarians believe in complete freedom within the broad boundaries of committing no harm to anyone else or his property. That philosophy is at its most extreme with the anarcho-capitalists, who believe in no government, only free associations. Despite the impressive logic of its greatest acolyte, Murray Rothbard, most libertarians, myself included, fall into the minarchist category who believe that the very smallest government possible is acceptable.
That broad road of freedom, comes with many dangers. It can lead to great excesses but the responsibility for the results rests with the individual. If you want to destroy yourself with alcohol, drugs, sex or gambling, you should be free to do it; just dont try to turn around and force anyone else to subsidize the subsequent disasters.
Which gets to the next point. I believe I have responsibility to help my fellow man but it comes from my relationship with my Creator or Jesus, if you will, not the government. As Milton Friedman once said, Everyone should be free to do good with his own money.
This is where religion comes in because throughout history, religion has been the moving force for most of our health, education and charitable work. In health care, the names tell the story, a tale of Saints, Miriams, Baptists, Episcopals, etc.
Churches and temples were the repositories of knowledge and scientific endeavors. The Catholic Church regarded science as the discovery of Gods plan for His Creation. Grigor Mendel, an Austrian monk, studied inheritance patterns of plants, the foundation of genetics. His work stands today.
Jesus, as a young man from the hinterland of Nazareth, astonished the elders at The Great Temple with His knowledge of scripture. Jesus exhortations to care for the poor were reflected in religious orders such as the Franciscan, Dominican etc.
The Declaration of Independence and Constitution were enshrined when the Industrial Revolution wasnt even a glimmer on the horizon. As it burst onto the scene, socialism also became a force. Karl Marx published the ultimate socialist guide, The Communist Manifesto, in 1848.
History had recorded socialist ideas from before the time of Christ and much more recently with experiments in America and Europe in various communities. In America, there were the Shakers and others. They all collapsed, leaving but remnants, after some early success.
The dawn of socialism saw the transfer of religious functions to government. Gradually, government has gotten into each of those fields and, wherever possible, moved religion out. Government cannot tolerate competition.
Government is socialisms god and it is the goal of socialism to replace the worship of God with the worship of government, in its various religions - fascism, national socialism, communism, progressivism, liberalism or simple socialism. We are the worse for it.
There is nothing that government does that cannot be accomplished more efficiently and cheaply by individual initiative in a free market. This includes health care, education, charity, roads, banking, construction, farming and anything else.
The morning after Hurricane Sandy struck New York City, a man from Far Rockaway observed that all the private and religious charities were out in full force but he asked, Wheres the government? And natural disasters are where government is supposed to be better that any other agency.
Although this nation was not founded as specifically Christian, there can be no doubt that Christian principles were in the minds of many, if not most, of the signers of The Articles of Confederation, The Declaration and The Constitution and also the forgotten ratifiers.
As a Catholic, I believe that a libertarian society offers Catholics the opportunity to conduct their lives most in accordance with the principles of Jesus. In a free society, the individual has the maximum of choices and it is only when there are choices that the person can experience the joy and satisfaction of making the decent one. If you have no choice, what joy and satisfaction can you have?
Christianity is a way of life, also within broad boundaries. Jesus laid out a blueprint for people in their treatment of their fellow man. That blueprint informs Christian moral code.
Every law, regulation or statute that is passed, is a restriction on freedom. In a land of freedom, the first concern should be whether an action increases or decreases it but that is rarely even mentioned. If the law restricts freedom, the question should be whether it law is necessary. Usually, it isnt.
Socialism believes that the people must be the servants of and subservient to government. That turns our entire philosophy on its head.
You know the tree by its fruits and the fruits of progressivism/socialism have been economies that eventually self-destruct and barbarity unmatched in history as many socialist societies waged war on their own people. One hundred fifty million people were slaughtered by their own governments during the twentieth century. The vast majority were victimized by socialist governments of various types.
Under socialism, crimes against the state are often treated more harshly than crimes against other citizens. Under Josip Stalin, farmers were executed for taking a potato from the harvest because it belonged to the people. Failure to meet production goals in factories and farms was considered evidence of insufficient communist commitment and a capital offense. This resulted in a lot of fraudulent reports. The German concentration camps are notorious.
When government is small, as it should be, it affords ample opportunity for the people to rely on God or Christs guidance. As government grows, that opportunity shrinks accordingly. This is as the religion of man wants.
Under socialism, government will infringe on all sectors of society, including religion. It replaces God in our lives in all of its sects - fascism, national socialism, communism, progressivism, liberalism or simple socialism.
Through a centuries long process, our government has become an American variant of socialist under both Democrats and Republicans. Socialism cannot permanently live with Christianity; it must destroy or reduce Christianity in any common endeavor. It has almost completely succeeded in education and charity. Health care is in governments crosshairs.
Karl Marx, the ultimate progressive, despised religion as witnessed by his statement, Religion is the opiate of the masses. The most antireligious and anti-Christian regimes in history have been the most socialistic, the Soviet Union, Red China, North Korea. National Socialist Germany was very antireligion and many in the hierarchy practiced Satanism. All of the systems persecuted Christianity because they recognized the incompatibility.
Libertarianism allows for Christianity and even welcomes it. Neither can exist with socialism, no matter its form.
You’re 100% right, IMHO. Prepare yourself for a lot of crap from Freepers who can’t understand what they read or who won’t read it before commenting.
“libertarianism” is the enemy of civilization
Look out - folks will expect you to defend whatever the Libertarian Party has ever said.
Instead of this: LIBERTARIANISM
You should have used: CLASSICAL LIBERALISM
Or: MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS CONSERVATISM
Look out - folks will expect you to defend whatever the Libertarian Party has ever said.
And the “Ron Paul once said X, Y, Z defend him or your argument is invalid and we if you do defend him you are totally wrong too”..
People keep thinking Libertarianism is a rigid political party and not a philosophy.
"People keep thinking Libertarianism is a rigid political party and not a philosophy."
Hedonism is the underlying philosophy and libertarianism is nothing more than an attempt to avoid admitting you're a selfish, morally spineless, hedonist
So. Jesus was a libertarian.
I read the whole thing.
And crazylibertarian should win a prize for picking a very astute and accurate FReep name.
crazylibertarian. Is there really any other kind?
....The dawn of socialism saw the transfer of religious functions to government. Gradually, government has gotten into each of those fields and, wherever possible, moved religion out. Government cannot tolerate competition. Government is socialisms god and it is the goal of socialism to replace the worship of God with the worship of government, in its various religions - fascism, national socialism, communism, progressivism, liberalism or simple socialism. We are the worse for it. There is nothing that government does that cannot be accomplished more efficiently and cheaply by individual initiative in a free market. This includes health care, education, charity, roads, banking, construction, farming and anything else....
....As a Catholic, I believe that a libertarian society offers Catholics the opportunity to conduct their lives most in accordance with the principles of Jesus. In a free society, the individual has the maximum of choices and it is only when there are choices that the person can experience the joy and satisfaction of making the decent one. If you have no choice, what joy and satisfaction can you have?
You realize that you're in the minority with those views, don't you?
If any corner of the globe should bear the imprint of Catholic values, its Latin America. Catholicism has enjoyed a spiritual monopoly in the region for more than 500 years, and today almost half the 1.1 billion Catholics alive are Latin Americans. Moreover, Latin Americans take religion seriously; surveys show that belief in God, spirits and demons, the afterlife, and final judgment is near-universal.
The sobering reality, however, is that these facts could actually support an emperor has no clothes accusation against the church. Latin America has been Catholic for five centuries, yet too often its societies are corrupt, violent, and underdeveloped. If Catholicism has had half a millennium to shape culture and this is the best it can do, one might be tempted to ask, is it really something to celebrate?
-- from the thread Why hasn't Catholicism had a more positive effect?
A new European Central Bank study has also found that Catholics are more likely to favour sharing wealth and to support government intervention in the economy than are Protestants.....
[Max Weber] ....noted that societies which had more Protestants had a more highly developed capitalist economy and that, in societies with different religions, the most successful business leaders were Protestant. Weber also argued that Catholicism impeded the development of capitalism in the West, as did Confucianism and Buddhism in the East...."...relative to Roman Catholicism, Reformed Protestantism has curbed preferences for redistribution and for government intervention in the economy.
-- from the thread Catholics 'more likely to back state economic intervention' [European Central Bank study]
Agreed - I feel most closely aligned with classical liberalism. It has an added benefit that I can call leftists “neo liberals”. It’s fun. :-)
Wow, that's cogent, well defended argument!
the crap you are about to take comes from egotistical self righteous piles of dung..
i even had one freeper tell me, and i quote...
“Since it is obvious you have no morals, i have no problem forcing my morals upon you”...
in light of this response, you have to ask yourself only one question..
who are the REAL fascists???
Agreed - I feel most closely aligned with classical liberalism. It has an added benefit that I can call leftists neo liberals. Its fun. :-)
Neo-Liberals locve the term “Neo-Conservative” because it evokes the term “Neo-Nazi”. We need to take the term liberal ABCK and start calling the control freak Socialists Commies, “Neo-Liberals”
I mostly agree with the Libertarians, but i have a problem with religion because that is what Socialism, Marxism, and Nazism is.
Christianity is a faith based on Gods word, of course i can also see that the Government would be much more involved in the life of the Church if this had of been in the constitution instead of religion.
Although i would like to see if a libertarian Congress could straighten things out a little i think we better
prepare our selves for the other possibility.
libertarianism is the enemy of civilization
We libertarians value efficiency. Crazylibertarian was simply pre-selecting an epithet for his critics who are obviously too dull to think one up by themselves.
In addition to the criticism above, namely that Roman Catholic countries are more likely to be politically corrupt, economically backwards, and, in Europe at least, socialist, the problem I have with libertarianism are much like the problems you & I both have with more extreme forms of objectivism (Randian), or anarcho-capitalism.
Objectivism is pretty much libertarianism part-and-parcel, and objectivists—to attempt to settle religious issues—simply start by ignoring them—asserting objective values exist, but we cannot talk about the how or why of them—assuming that religion in the public square in harmful, due to the potentials of conflict, and forced “altrusim...”. Hence true objectivists are atheists, and start with an assumption that only by having practical atheism in the public square, can we all get along... Even though Christian libertarians are not, obviously, objectivists...they seem to share some of those atheistic assumptions, namely that religion has no place in or around government. I will assert that that is impossible, and not even desirable.
Committed libertarians (and those are small “L” ones) also seem to overwhelmingly favor the legalization of homosexual marriage—asserting that marriage is not the business of the government. Unfortunately...since marriage involves custody of children, ownership of property, inheritance, trusts, contracts, legal divorce, & etc. among a plethora of traditional English law issues, not to mention our socialistic cocktail of government benefits, local, state and federal, than marriage does actually, IN THE REAL WORLD, involve government, in matters of law, rights, taxes, and benefits.
Marriage is, after all, a PUBLIC institution established by God, by which society (including government) recognizes an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman—providing a unique stable enclave for birthing and raising children.
Therefore marriage, and all matters involving public morality....ALWAYS involve government AND religion...and they cannot be, and never have been, neatly separated... despite libertarian wishes to the contrary. This is where I criticize libertarian ideals: There has never been a stable libertarian society....and there never will be, as public and private life are not easily (or even possibly) separated...and religion does, and always will have a legitimate place in the public square. Current day attempts to make secularism or scientism....both religious ideologies....official state dogma, actually prove my point.
Secular libertarian government is just not possible—as a peoples’ faith—or lack thereof—affects ever area of life, even, or especially, in social/political life.
crazylibertarian. Is there really any other kind?
Maybe we should give the Libertarian idea a chance.
You realize that you’re in the minority with those views, don’t you?
Is Latin America a Libertarian nation?
I am not a Catholic and most likely will not be but i fail to see what that has to do with it except that he stated he was a Catholic.
Romney stated he was a Mormon so we have a Muslim socialist for president.
He claimed to be Catholic in his post. I was pointing out that, as a Catholic, his political views are in the minority of those held by his fellow Catholics.
agreed . your head line confused me mightily
I was pointing out that, as a Catholic, his political views are in the minority of those held by his fellow Catholics.
"civilization" is the enemy of liberty
liberty and license are not the same thing
I’m simply in favor of “the minimum government consistent with public order” (Reagan’s description of his own political philosophy).
With your attitude toward authority, I bet you were just an ADORABLE kid.
I'm sure he is WELL-LOVED by Congress [sarcasm]. The problem with that is the isolation he brings upon himself, sometimes sounding like nothing more that a self-righteous prig.
You have to make some PALS in the aisles if you want to get some of your OWN legislation listened to, discussed and passed. Otherwise you're just busting your gums for the sound of your own voice.
I really don’t care if I’m in the minority.
I differentiate between libertarianism and the LP. I never agreed with the LP when it countenanced abortion.
I chose the screen name crazylibertarian because I went to one of the most radical colleges in the country, NYU. People told me I was a lunatic for my then conservative views. As time went on I became more & more libertarian so when it came to choosing a political screen name. I figured I might as well accept that I am a lunatic, hence the name.
Wow. He’s in the minority. That must mean he’s wrong. Great argument.
We’ve always had a king. Any society that allowed the people to rule themselves failed. Sure, in theory, it seems really nice, but IN THE REAL WORLD, every modern, successful nation has a king. No matter what they think, those silly colonists will fail because it’s never been done.
Yeah, that argument also failed.
Get out of my wallet, my church and my way.
And I’ll bet you have actual evidence to support an actually valid argument . . . NOT.
Thanks for the ad hominem. We’d don’t read enough of those.
Huh? I don't recall an argument with you, let alone an attack on you.