[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Hey, like I said, if you saw the way I lived my life you’d think I was a good, family values Christian as opposed to an agnostic libertarian.[/quote]
Ethically, Jesus was a libertarian. He taught people to keep their mitts to themselves and mind their own business.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Hey, like I said, if you saw the way I lived my life you’d think I was a good, family values Christian as opposed to an agnostic libertarian.[/quote]
Ethically, Jesus was a libertarian. He taught people to keep their mitts to themselves and mind their own business.[/quote]
Yes, in the sense that he preached non-force, absolutely not in what he taught to do. Give to the poor give to ceasar, sell all your things give the money to the poor and come with me. In practice he was a “from each according to his ability to each according to his need” kind of guy. He just didn’t agree with using force to do it.
I’d call him a voluntary communist.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Hey, like I said, if you saw the way I lived my life you’d think I was a good, family values Christian as opposed to an agnostic libertarian.[/quote]
Ethically, Jesus was a libertarian. He taught people to keep their mitts to themselves and mind their own business.[/quote]
I don’t know about that, but I do recall reading the part of the Bible where the villagers were stoning a woman for I guess it was adultery. Jesus said something like let the person who is without sin cast the first stone. The villagers walked away feeling rather sheepish. I like that story. It seems like a lot of people who call themselves Christians didn’t read that story, or at least forgot about it.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Hey, like I said, if you saw the way I lived my life you’d think I was a good, family values Christian as opposed to an agnostic libertarian.[/quote]
Ethically, Jesus was a libertarian. He taught people to keep their mitts to themselves and mind their own business.[/quote]
Yes, in the sense that he preached non-force, absolutely not in what he taught to do. Give to the poor give to ceasar, sell all your things give the money to the poor and come with me. In practice he was a “from each according to his ability to each according to his need” kind of guy. He just didn’t agree with using force to do it.
I’d call him a voluntary communist.[/quote]
I thought he said something like, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” He never made mention of what actually belonged to Caesar; probably because he was not materialistic. He promoted charity and that is a libertarian ideal.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Suppose there was a fire in a medical facility. Inside the facility was a one-year old child and 10 test tubes filled with one-week old embryos. You can only go inside once and either grab the child or the test tubes. Which do you save?[/quote]
Simple. The child. I have no way of ensuring the survival (then and long term) and care of the embryo. After all, the child I can remove and attempt to find it’s parents. This says nothing about the human lives created and then lost for industrial or vampirific purposes. The guilt falls upon the scientists and those who supported/enabled this industry.
Would I save the elderly man on the breathing machine, or the young lady with a twisted ankle? The young lady. I’m more likely to keep her alive. It’s not a judgment about whose life is more or less valuable. It’s a practical judgment about what I most likely can accomplish. If I have the resources to save both, I will.
[quote]
Okay, I agree that it is better to raise kids in a marriage with a mom and dad. No problem there. The question is how are you going to enforce this? Do you want to make divorce more difficult?
Yes.
The problem with this thinking is that it makes an absolute statement…[/quote]
Like I said. Libertarians really don’t have anything to offer besides trying to starve people back into right behavior. Well, that or mass abortion.
Most libertarians say the same thing as you have.
“Oh, I agree people are going to have to practice alot more self-restraint, become less self-interested, and seeks rational pleasure within a secure environment, such as an intact home within an intact community.”
“Great, so we need to support politicians and private sector activists who’ll speak to social conservatism.”
“Whu…wait…no! We can’t suggest what people should do with their own bodies!”
“Erm, ok. How about toughening up divorce laws?”
“Even worse! Great googly-moogly, man. What do you think we are? Marxist? Slavers?”
Basically no plan, no action, nor even words, to start rebuilding civic society so consensus can be reached to decentralize, or drastically shrink, or even–eventually–do away with the nanny state.
Just because I think you’re dead wrong doesn’t mean I wouldn’t think of–when all is tallied up–you as a good man. You don’t have to ensure me that you’re a good husband and father. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Hey, like I said, if you saw the way I lived my life you’d think I was a good, family values Christian as opposed to an agnostic libertarian.[/quote]
Ethically, Jesus was a libertarian. He taught people to keep their mitts to themselves and mind their own business.[/quote]
Yes, in the sense that he preached non-force, absolutely not in what he taught to do. Give to the poor give to ceasar, sell all your things give the money to the poor and come with me. In practice he was a “from each according to his ability to each according to his need” kind of guy. He just didn’t agree with using force to do it.
I’d call him a voluntary communist.[/quote]
I thought he said something like, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” He never made mention of what actually belonged to Caesar; probably because he was not materialistic. He promoted charity and that is a libertarian ideal.[/quote]
It’s obvious he was referring to money. essentially saying “pay your taxes”.
He promoted keeping enough to get by and giving everything else to the poor, no exactly charity. He taught self reliance was bad and that reliance on god is what gets a person through. He also taught selfishness as a sin.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Hey, like I said, if you saw the way I lived my life you’d think I was a good, family values Christian as opposed to an agnostic libertarian.[/quote]
Ethically, Jesus was a libertarian. He taught people to keep their mitts to themselves and mind their own business.[/quote]
Sigh…You don’t mind your own business by preaching against other people’s lifestyles. Including sending out apostles charged with carrying on just that. As for law? Who knows! Jesus and the Apostles weren’t exactly welcome to run for government offices even if they wanted to.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What is a Libertarian? He’s the guy that stands before America with no further plan than:
“I’m going to work to tear down entitlements and welfare for good!”
“Ok…what about the poor and the working lower/middle class?”
“They’ll just have to not do stupid stuff, or starve”
[/quote]
I just have to point out this mega-sized strawman here. I mean really, at least try to get libertarian views right. Again, I’ve never EVER heard a libertarian say anything along these lines. Most recognize first and foremost that the welfare state does NOT help the poor. You seem to believe it does. They recognize that most governmental institutions distort the market and cause serious problems that wouldn’t exist in a more free market. You do not see this. Furthermore, I have yet to see many libertarians that do not advocate private charity or think that it is some vice. Not all libertarians are Randians. Can’t we solve our problems peacefully instead of with the force of government?
You seem not to realize the opportunities that would open up if government let the market be instead of distorting it through regulation, taxes, and inflation. It’s like you only view this from a social standpoint and COMPLETELY forget the economic one. Granted, sometimes libertarians may get carried away and completely forget the social aspect, but you are absolutely just as bad, if not worse.
Sloth, where are these social AND economic conservatives? I don’t see them anywhere. All I see are big spending so-called “conservatives” that usually happen to be socially conservative as well.
[quote]Agressive Napkin wrote:
Didn’t read the thread but am going to throw in my 2 cents:
Most people who say they know economics probably only know a little bit (conservatives and my self included). Economics is way more complicated and difficult than most people who talk about it give it credit for. Not targeting anyone in particular but the people who bitch about others not knowing economics probably don’t know as much economics as they think they do.
Food for thought:
http://baselinescenario.com/2010/06/08/the-perils-of-studying-economics/[/quote]
What a pathetically weak and biased article. So, basically the author is saying that, actually all those people that study economics are wrong and he is right? Completely ridiculous.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Hey, like I said, if you saw the way I lived my life you’d think I was a good, family values Christian as opposed to an agnostic libertarian.[/quote]
Ethically, Jesus was a libertarian. He taught people to keep their mitts to themselves and mind their own business.[/quote]
This must be in the lost first epistle of LIFTICVSMAXIMVS to himself.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Which is why Democrats are at least more respectable then libertarians. At least they understand what social liberalism does to family/civic institutions. Being smarter then the libertarian, they realize that since said institutions have been decimated, the people want–no, demand–a central power fill the void.[/quote]
Bold statement, and I have to say I agree.
It creates a permanent underclass that are guaranteed to never vote for their own starvation.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What is a Libertarian? He’s the guy that stands before America with no further plan than:
“I’m going to work to tear down entitlements and welfare for good!”
“Ok…what about the poor and the working lower/middle class?”
“They’ll just have to not do stupid stuff, or starve”
Dabba wrote:
I just have to point out this mega-sized strawman here. Again, I’ve never EVER heard a libertarian say anything along these lines[/quote]
Me neither. Not outright. Well, perhaps from Randians.
However, that’s the only conclusion libertarians leave me with. You see, whenever a libertarian and myself agree on the burden of an oversized/overcentralized entitlement state, I bring up the social aspect. In times past a strong civic spirit could be found scattered throughout this nation. Little Platoons. An associational life, if you will. Whatever you want to call the concept, it was as an anti-centralizing mechanic. And it is the only thing that will usher in a realistic decentralization.
Committed families. Neighbors who knew each other. Community. Much less job competition with 3rd world labor (outsourced and illegally here) expecting mere 2nd world wages. These things are formed from a sense of belonging, time, and place. Those things in turn are born of a rather common culture; norms, morals, obligations, loyalty, limits, a sense of duty, and yes…even law. Furthermore, those things are best learned in an intact home, reinforced by a community with expectations of behavior for it’s denizens (they know your name!). Today? Hollowed out. Where we once softened the excesses of Market and State through the buffer of a civic life, today we’re left with the Market-State and Welfare-State.
So, I bring all this up to the libertarian, and you know what? I’ve never had one disagree. Ever. So, I ask them “What ever shall we do to rectify this situation?” They, “Dismantle the welfare state, of course.” Me, “How do you intend to sell that to a people who no longer have the safety net of family and community as our forefathers once did?” They, “By dismantling the welfare state.” Me, “No, look, how are you going to get the people to vote for your agenda. What will you tell the single mothers in poverty, with absentee fathers. A single mother who probably doesn’t even know her neighbors. In fact, is most likely suspicious of them for all the crime in her community? What will they feed their children?” They, “They can eat the welfare state?”
And it doesn’t even have to be an impoverished woman. It could be the middle class man who sees the possibility of a sudden health issue wiping him out financially. Or, any other such crises. Where are the civic safety nets?
And the libertarian agrees, again. “Yeah, yeah, that’s an issue. But somehow, someway, we’re still going to sell it to the American people. Down with the entitlement state! Once it’s down, the people will pick up the scattered family/community pieces out of necessity!” In short? The plan is to starve them into prudence and self-governance.
Oh, and as much as I hate it, the welfare state is helping the poor as we speak. Forgotten elderly, fatherless children, the ill, the displaced laborer…
What exactly do you libertarians plan to replace it with? Or, do you guys really think you’d be allowed to tear down the welfare state with nothing left in it’s place? It’ll never happen.
Ah, but I forget myself. The economically sensible thing to do is to abort the poor, talk up the legitimacy of elderly euthanasia (“Who wants to be a burden?! AmIright?”). All, while hoping that our wealth, and the advances of science-savior, will buy ourselves unimaginably long life through the vampiric creation-destruction of human life in a test tube before our own runs out. Like I said, monsters.
[quote]Dabba:
All I see are big spending so-called “conservatives” that usually happen to be socially conservative as well.[/quote]
They lost their senses and became Bush-Conservatives and Ron Paul-“Conservatives.”
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Which is why Democrats are at least more respectable then libertarians. At least they understand what social liberalism does to family/civic institutions. Being smarter then the libertarian, they realize that since said institutions have been decimated, the people want–no, demand–a central power fill the void.[/quote]
Bold statement, and I have to say I agree. [/quote]
Yep. I just can’t see it any other way, now. Our Democrat can see the holes punched through the social fabric, knowing it must be filled. That the people insist on it being filled. The Democrat has adapted to the loss of civic spirit, replacing it with an ever increasingly collective spirit haunting D.C.
Liberals think the laws of economics are determined by popular vote.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Committed families. Neighbors who knew each other. Community. Much less job competition with 3rd world labor (outsourced and illegally here) expecting mere 2nd world wages. These things are formed from a sense of belonging, time, and place. Those things in turn are born of a rather common culture; norms, morals, obligations, loyalty, limits, a sense of duty, and yes…even law. Furthermore, those things are best learned in an intact home, reinforced by a community with expectations of behavior for it’s denizens (they know your name!). Today? Hollowed out. Where we once softened the excesses of Market and State through the buffer of a civic life, today we’re left with the Market-State and Welfare-State."[/quote]
I think moving away from the “Move out of your parents house as soon as possible or you’re a loser” ideal would help foster that sense of family and community.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Hey, like I said, if you saw the way I lived my life you’d think I was a good, family values Christian as opposed to an agnostic libertarian.[/quote]
Ethically, Jesus was a libertarian. He taught people to keep their mitts to themselves and mind their own business.[/quote]
This must be in the lost first epistle of LIFTICVSMAXIMVS to himself.[/quote]
Hey, what do I know I am just an atheist that never paid attention in Sunday school. I am just going on the theme those brainwashed mythology teachers used. Peace and love and all that good hippie stuff…
[quote]Dabba wrote:
[quote]Agressive Napkin wrote:
Didn’t read the thread but am going to throw in my 2 cents:
Most people who say they know economics probably only know a little bit (conservatives and my self included). Economics is way more complicated and difficult than most people who talk about it give it credit for. Not targeting anyone in particular but the people who bitch about others not knowing economics probably don’t know as much economics as they think they do.
Food for thought:
http://baselinescenario.com/2010/06/08/the-perils-of-studying-economics/[/quote]
What a pathetically weak and biased article. So, basically the author is saying that, actually all those people that study economics are wrong and he is right? Completely ridiculous.[/quote]
I posted it more for the fact that people with more, uh… juvenile (basic?) economics training are more likely to be like many of the people on this board (free market is the be all, end all), whereas the people who most know what’s going on are not uniformly like this. Basically I think we should all keep in mind how limited our grasp of economics is. And yes, I recognize that liberals don’t understand a lick of economics 
[quote]Agressive Napkin wrote:
[quote]Dabba wrote:
[quote]Agressive Napkin wrote:
Didn’t read the thread but am going to throw in my 2 cents:
Most people who say they know economics probably only know a little bit (conservatives and my self included). Economics is way more complicated and difficult than most people who talk about it give it credit for. Not targeting anyone in particular but the people who bitch about others not knowing economics probably don’t know as much economics as they think they do.
Food for thought:
http://baselinescenario.com/2010/06/08/the-perils-of-studying-economics/[/quote]
What a pathetically weak and biased article. So, basically the author is saying that, actually all those people that study economics are wrong and he is right? Completely ridiculous.[/quote]
I posted it more for the fact that people with more, uh… juvenile (basic?) economics training are more likely to be like many of the people on this board (free market is the be all, end all), whereas the people who most know what’s going on are not uniformly like this. Basically I think we should all keep in mind how limited our grasp of economics is. And yes, I recognize that liberals don’t understand a lick of economics :P[/quote]
If I say something bad about liberals too, can I be cool? Gee, I hope so.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What is a Libertarian? He’s the guy that stands before America with no further plan than:
“I’m going to work to tear down entitlements and welfare for good!”
“Ok…what about the poor and the working lower/middle class?”
“They’ll just have to not do stupid stuff, or starve”
Dabba wrote:
I just have to point out this mega-sized strawman here. Again, I’ve never EVER heard a libertarian say anything along these lines[/quote]
Me neither. Not outright. Well, perhaps from Randians.
However, that’s the only conclusion libertarians leave me with. You see, whenever a libertarian and myself agree on the burden of an oversized/overcentralized entitlement state, I bring up the social aspect. In times past a strong civic spirit could be found scattered throughout this nation. Little Platoons. An associational life, if you will. Whatever you want to call the concept, it was as an anti-centralizing mechanic. And it is the only thing that will usher in a realistic decentralization.
Committed families. Neighbors who knew each other. Community. Much less job competition with 3rd world labor (outsourced and illegally here) expecting mere 2nd world wages. These things are formed from a sense of belonging, time, and place. Those things in turn are born of a rather common culture; norms, morals, obligations, loyalty, limits, a sense of duty, and yes…even law. Furthermore, those things are best learned in an intact home, reinforced by a community with expectations of behavior for it’s denizens (they know your name!). Today? Hollowed out. Where we once softened the excesses of Market and State through the buffer of a civic life, today we’re left with the Market-State and Welfare-State.
So, I bring all this up to the libertarian, and you know what? I’ve never had one disagree. Ever. So, I ask them “What ever shall we do to rectify this situation?” They, “Dismantle the welfare state, of course.” Me, “How do you intend to sell that to a people who no longer have the safety net of family and community as our forefathers once did?” They, “By dismantling the welfare state.” Me, “No, look, how are you going to get the people to vote for your agenda. What will you tell the single mothers in poverty, with absentee fathers. A single mother who probably doesn’t even know her neighbors. In fact, is most likely suspicious of them for all the crime in her community? What will they feed their children?” They, “They can eat the welfare state?”
And it doesn’t even have to be an impoverished woman. It could be the middle class man who sees the possibility of a sudden health issue wiping him out financially. Or, any other such crises. Where are the civic safety nets?
And the libertarian agrees, again. “Yeah, yeah, that’s an issue. But somehow, someway, we’re still going to sell it to the American people. Down with the entitlement state! Once it’s down, the people will pick up the scattered family/community pieces out of necessity!” In short? The plan is to starve them into prudence and self-governance.
Oh, and as much as I hate it, the welfare state is helping the poor as we speak. Forgotten elderly, fatherless children, the ill, the displaced laborer…
What exactly do you libertarians plan to replace it with? Or, do you guys really think you’d be allowed to tear down the welfare state with nothing left in it’s place? It’ll never happen.
Ah, but I forget myself. The economically sensible thing to do is to abort the poor, talk up the legitimacy of elderly euthanasia (“Who wants to be a burden?! AmIright?”). All, while hoping that our wealth, and the advances of science-savior, will buy ourselves unimaginably long life through the vampiric creation-destruction of human life in a test tube before our own runs out. Like I said, monsters.
[quote]Dabba:
All I see are big spending so-called “conservatives” that usually happen to be socially conservative as well.[/quote]
They lost their senses and became Bush-Conservatives and Ron Paul-“Conservatives.”[/quote]
Sloth, this post makes you sound like one of those old people who talk about the good old days of the 1950s and “Leave it to Beaver.” You are very naive. Let me just take apart one of your arguments. I’ll do an easy one - this idea of knowing your neighbors. In the days of Leave it to Beaver, once a person started working for a company he or she was there for life. You worked at a company for 30-40 years, usually in the same location, then you retired. You died shortly thereafter. You bought a house and lived there until you died.
Today, the idea of working for one employer for life is laughable. Companies downsize and outsource all the time. Most people work for smaller companies with limited opportunities and benefits, so they change jobs. Some form their own businesses, which most would acknowledge is a great thing. If you still work for one of the mega multi-national companies, expect to be transferred to different job locations several times during your career. One of those transfers will likely be overseas. The workforce must remain mobile. It is natural that someone will not form strong ties with a neighbor they may not see in two years.
In addition to the need for mobility is time. In Leave it to Beaver world, you worked 9:00 to 5:00 and had weekends off. Today, if you work from 9:00 to 5:00 and have weekends off you have a part-time job. We have less time to socialize with people. Most people would rather spend their free time with families, which is a good thing, or with close friends that they’ve managed to remain in contact with over the years. This is also a good thing. I’d rather have a few close friends that I visit a few times a year and otherwise communicate with by email than try and strike up a friendship with a neighbor who may not even be here next month.
What changed? Well, in Leave it to Beaver days, the US was the world’s only economic superpower. The former USSR was a military superpower, but obviously its economy sucked. Europe was devastated after the war and needed to be rebuilt. Japan, too, was war torn. China was but a Third World country whose population road on bicycles, if they were lucky to have a bicycle. The US faced virtually no global competition. I hope I don’t need to educate you on today’s global economy.
Sure, we can try to somehow go back to Leave it to Beaver days. Companies could stop outsourcing work and return manufacturing to the US. Get ready to pay double what you pay now for a pair of shoes. Of course, most overseas operations exist in order to sell goods in that particular country - also known as exports. So closing down overseas operations will kill the export market. And we can pass laws that prevent companies from transferring employees and downsizing employees. After suffering a major economic depression, the US will re-emerge as a Third World nation. But hey, I’ll get to know my neighbors real well. We’ll all be living in boxes, and we’ll be able to talk to each other all day since we’ll all be unemployed. They’ll be lots of trust among neighbors since we’ll need to take turns standing guard against looters. Casual sex will disappear, too. As homeless people, we’ll all stink too bad to be able to even get close to one another.
There’s no way of going back to Leave it to Beaver. Anyone who understands economics knows this. Welcome to the future, Sloth.