Religion is the opiate of the masses. Marx was right.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Does it matter? A secular society of broken families, materialists, and anchorless pleasure seekers isn’t voluntarily turning to libertarianism of any form. Social liberalism? Sure. Economic liberalism? Hell no. “Someone has to pay for my diabetes.” “Someone needs to pay for my birth control/abortion.” Someone has to take take care of all those aging folks with little to no families of their own.
Really, who’d take care of the elderly? All those non-existent extended families? A smaller young workforce? You think they’ll elect to die without their insulin, diabetes, and hip replacements? To go gracefully to oblivion with clawing for every last second they can get from the best medicine entitlements can buy? Hah! Bull.
And the younger ‘tax-producer?’ If they’re (the younger folk) not in jail or collecting food-stamps, they’re looking for a subsidized college education they probably won’t use. Well, maybe they’ll be able to figure out just how crushing their debt has become.
What about those children increasingly born to broken homes? Right, we all know they’ve born into the perfect structure with the socioeconomic correlations present to be good little self-governing libertarians.
Give me a break. The increasingly underrepresented young, socioeconomic set worker, taking care of his own parents, grandparents, and children (future worker/caretaker) has lost already. [/quote]
Sadly, even though I consider myself a Libertarian, I agree with this considerable. I suppose this is what some mean when they say that Libertarianism is “utopian”.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This country was founded on what amounted to Christian libertarianism.
[/quote]
Christianity/classical liberalism. Not libertarianism.
[/quote]
The difference being what?[/quote]
Classical liberalism = small government
Libertarianism = no government utopianism.[/quote]
Your terms are confused.[/quote]
Paulestinian = dangerous fruitcake
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Fact = something that is true. I say most libertarians advocate the destruction of the state - something completely incompatible with the founding fathers and constitutionalism for obvious reasons.[/quote]
So…if a fact is something that is true, why are you using it to describe something that is a flat out lie or misrepresentation?
I have never met a single person who identifies as a libertarian; or seen an interview with anyone who identifies themselves as a libertarian; or written any literature by anyone who identifies themselves as a libertarian; who wants to see the destruction of the state. While there is small variations on individual issues, one area where every libertarian I have talked to agree on is that we want a small government that still has enough power and income to take care of things such as national defense. We just don’t want a nanny state.
Get your definitions straight. [/quote]
@benos - I myself am a libertarian and you are very very mistaken. A good portion ( I’m unsure of what percentage) of libertarians are full on " anarcho-capitalists" which is a branch of Libertarianism that calls for the total abolition of the state. They differ though from the people that simply identify as “anarchist” in that they see society functioning largely as it does now - simply with private enterprise replacing all the roles of government ( courts, police, schools, roads, healthcare etc ). This is an important distinction as most equate “anarchy” with lawlessness. Under the Libertarian model “anarcho-capitalism” is far from a lawless society.
Read the wiki entry, the Mises institute site, Rockwell’s site and many others for more info.
The early US citizen wasn’t some social and economic liberal. He was governed by a more authoritarian ruler than any King, piece of paper (Constitution), or secular philosophy. Heck, that ruler even had/has expectations about one’s ‘personal’ non-criminal conduct.
You don’t covet. You respect and care for your sick, elderly, and children. You don’t knock up young women and move along to the next. You didn’t corrupt children with filth and public vulgarity. You treated your vocation as if it was the greatest vocation. Personal thrift was a virtue. You accepted help from your neighbor, but was expected to help yourself. Sloth (not me) was a sin. No one made excuses or justifications for you. You didn’t worship material goods or individualistic detachment ("You’re pregnant? I’m too young to get married! I got a life ahead of me! /Vanish) to acquire those goods.
Family and faith, THEN ‘freedom’ and the individual. The masses could only live under the Constitution, not because they were a nation of Lockeans, but because they were ruled by a Judge and King who had already spelled out the most important laws. And whose judgement couldn’t even be escaped in death. And often enough, even your neighbors would hold you to those standards, if you don’t hold them yourself.
Edited.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The early US citizen wasn’t some social and economic liberal. He was governed by a more authoritarian ruler than any King, piece of paper (Constitution), or secular philosophy. Heck, that ruler even had/has expectations about one’s ‘personal’ non-criminal conduct.
You don’t covet. You respect and care for your sick, elderly, and children. You don’t knock up young women and move along to the next. You didn’t corrupt children with filth and public vulgarity. You treated your vocation as if it was the greatest vocation. Personal thrift was a virtue. You accepted help from your neighbor, but were expected to help yourself. Sloth (not me) was a sin. No one made excuses or justifications for you.
Family and faith, THEN ‘freedom’ and the individual. The masses could only live under the Constitution, not because they were a nation of Lockeans, but because they were ruled by a Judge and King who had already spelled out the most important laws. And whose judgement couldn’t even be escaped in death.[/quote]Very very VERY good indeed. This is the truth.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The early US citizen wasn’t some social and economic liberal. He was governed by a more authoritarian ruler than any King, piece of paper (Constitution), or secular philosophy. Heck, that ruler even had/has expectations about one’s ‘personal’ non-criminal conduct.
You don’t covet. You respect and care for your sick, elderly, and children. You don’t knock up young women and move along to the next. You didn’t corrupt children with filth and public vulgarity. You treated your vocation as if it was the greatest vocation. Personal thrift was a virtue. You accepted help from your neighbor, but was expected to help yourself. Sloth (not me) was a sin. No one made excuses or justifications for you.
Family and faith, THEN ‘freedom’ and the individual. The masses could only live under the Constitution, not because they were a nation of Lockeans, but because they were ruled by a Judge and King who had already spelled out the most important laws. And whose judgement couldn’t even be escaped in death.[/quote]
Firstly, you expressed something that I always found ironic - that many fringe libertarians are, spiritually absolute monarchists.
Largely agree with what you say but the colonies were far from homogenous. You’re describing (mostly) the puritans. There were others. Jefferson had a different approach with the quasi-Christianity, working his fields with slaves then tossing up whether he should sell them or work them to pay off his debts.
The merchant classes and yeomans of the North-Eastern states, the class-based aristocratic oligarchy in the South, the egalitarian pioneers who opened up the West. It was quite a mixed bag.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The early US citizen wasn’t some social and economic liberal. He was governed by a more authoritarian ruler than any King, piece of paper (Constitution), or secular philosophy. Heck, that ruler even had/has expectations about one’s ‘personal’ non-criminal conduct.
You don’t covet. You respect and care for your sick, elderly, and children. You don’t knock up young women and move along to the next. You didn’t corrupt children with filth and public vulgarity. You treated your vocation as if it was the greatest vocation. Personal thrift was a virtue. You accepted help from your neighbor, but were expected to help yourself. Sloth (not me) was a sin. No one made excuses or justifications for you.
Family and faith, THEN ‘freedom’ and the individual. The masses could only live under the Constitution, not because they were a nation of Lockeans, but because they were ruled by a Judge and King who had already spelled out the most important laws. And whose judgement couldn’t even be escaped in death.[/quote]Very very VERY good indeed. This is the truth.
[/quote]
Thanks. Edited in a few things.
If you want to understand the early colonies you need to understand British history and the English revolution. Cromwell banished much of the aristocracy and many fled to America where they largely settled in Virginia. The puritans who had expelled them were themselves exiled after the monarchy was restored. They largely settled in Massachusetts. Seems to be some revisionism or forgetfulness on the part of some American historians in this area.
[quote]We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness<<<>>> And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.[/quote] Jefferson wrote that and while a hypocrite to be sure, he KNEW that’s what would fly amongst the citizenry with which he was quite familiar. Divine providence is, I promise you, the very doctrine I am incessantly preaching here.
Sloth is quite welcome. Despite our great differences we have always been in one accord in these waters.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you want to understand the early colonies you need to understand British history and the English revolution. Cromwell banished much of the aristocracy and many fled to America where they largely settled in Virginia. The puritans who had expelled them were themselves exiled after the monarchy was restored. They largely settled in Massachusetts. Seems to be some revisionism or forgetfulness on the part of some American historians in this area.[/quote]That’s fine, but by the time of the revolution and the convention there was enough homogeneity regarding major theological issues so as to make way for the founding of a soon to be rapidly rising superpower. A divided people could not have launched this nation and what, pray tell, is more divisive than religious differences. I need sleep. 6 am tomorrow is coming soon.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
If you want to understand the early colonies you need to understand British history and the English revolution. Cromwell banished much of the aristocracy and many fled to America where they largely settled in Virginia. The puritans who had expelled them were themselves exiled after the monarchy was restored. They largely settled in Massachusetts. Seems to be some revisionism or forgetfulness on the part of some American historians in this area.[/quote]That’s fine, but by the time of the revolution and the convention there was enough homogeneity regarding major theological issues so as to make way for the founding of a soon to be rapidly rising superpower. A divided people could not have launched this nation and what, pray tell, is more divisive than religious differences. I need sleep. 6 am tomorrow is coming soon.
[/quote]
I think it had more to do with political differences than theological. Pretty much everyone was a Christian in those days and the founding fathers were more concerned with ensuring that no one denomination could gain political ascendency.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
I have a question for the crowd.
Since I think we can agree that the Founding Fathers were not true libertarians but rather as you mentioned more along the lines of Burkean conservatives who did the very best they could at the time and introduced one of the most remarkable documents in human history…what went wrong?
[/quote]
Human nature. But I’m no American historian. I only know about some of the major events in American history. I am aware of the criticism of Alexander Hamilton and John Adams but I don’t feel I know enough to comment on that.
Agree with 1 and 2 - 2 is partly a result of necessity in wartime. The fact that Wilson, FDR and Obama presided during wartime allowed them to extend federalism beyond its constitutional bounds.
[quote]
3) the erosion of personal liberty and states’ rights (that the the 9th and 10th Amendments should’ve protected)
Did they do enough?
Should they have taken a more libertarian approach?[/quote]
I’ll leave that one to more knowledgable posters.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Fact = something that is true. I say most libertarians advocate the destruction of the state - something completely incompatible with the founding fathers and constitutionalism for obvious reasons.[/quote]
An anarchist iiiiiiissss, by definition, not a libertarian.
So, to claim that most libertarians are anarchists is contradictory from the start.
If you dont like anarchists, take it up with them.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
“fuck you. I got mine” Is hard for me to get behind, probably because of my religious upbringing.[/quote]
I agree with you. I believe that people who really need help - disabled people, elderly, veterans - should be helped BY THE STATE when necessary - it’s part of the social contract. Some of those elderly worked their whole lives and their families are dead. Some of those veterans served their country and don’t have family to care for them.
The problem is not a single person in the west has gone hungry since the depression and we now have a nanny state with half the federal budget(in the US) going to the ‘needy’ who largely aren’t really needy at all. I guess at heart I’m a realist and if playing devil’s advocate helps move the pendulum in the right direction then that’s what I’ll do. As a ‘conservative’ I lean more towards tough love than a ‘liberal.’ At the end of the day I’m no extremist and I try to do what I believe is right - I think all moderate/reasonable people whether ‘liberals,’ ‘libertarians’ or ‘conservatives’ need to work together for the betterment of society and I’d like to build solidarity and consensus.
[quote]orion wrote:
An anarchist iiiiiiissss, by definition, not a libertarian.
[/quote]
Seems you’ve missed some of the fine print orion my boy. I didn’t realise you’re a true believer. My advice is stop investing in gold, start reading history and philosophy and question everything.