Thoughts on Libertarianism

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

This, IMHO, is the slippery slope created by religious conservatives. Their ideas of “freedom” are very often defined by their religious views. How would you define “harm”?[/quote]

Well, several issues. One, you can’t presume a “slippery slope”, because that presumes that the bottom of your “slope” is a bad place to be. That is exactly what is up for debate, and cannot be assumed away.

And if a person’s definition of “freedom” is defined by their religious views, that’s ok. There’s is nothing presumptively suspect about that. But there’s more than religion in play - for example, my idea of freedom is probably defined more by “culture” and “history”, than “religion”.

How would I define harm? Anything that hurts the individual, of course, or the community or society (but to a more limited extent).

So you see government as a useful tool in social engineering? What moral standards would you use as your guide and where will you derive them from? What freedoms would you have the government deny the individual so that you could attempt to benefit society?

Sure, to a certain extent. There’s nothing radical about that, and nowhere in our own American political history will you find a single luminary who takes the position to the contrary. Where would my moral standards come from? History, tradition, experience, culture, religious understanding, and common sense.

What freedoms would I let the government deny an individual so society could benefit? How about the old stand-by example - the government can deny you the ability to engage in sexual activity in public.

You disagree with a law denying an individual the right to do that?

[bigflamer]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

This, IMHO, is the slippery slope created by religious conservatives. Their ideas of “freedom” are very often defined by their religious views. How would you define “harm”?[/quote]

Well, several issues. One, you can’t presume a “slippery slope”, because that presumes that the bottom of your “slope” is a bad place to be. That is exactly what is up for debate, and cannot be assumed away.

And if a person’s definition of “freedom” is defined by their religious views, that’s ok. There’s is nothing presumptively suspect about that. But there’s more than religion in play - for example, my idea of freedom is probably defined more by “culture” and “history”, than “religion”.

How would I define harm? Anything that hurts the individual, of course, or the community or society (but to a more limited extent).

So you see government as a useful tool in social engineering? What moral standards would you use as your guide and where will you derive them from? What freedoms would you have the government deny the individual so that you could attempt to benefit society?

Sure, to a certain extent. There’s nothing radical about that, and nowhere in our own American political history will you find a single luminary who takes the position to the contrary. Where would my moral standards come from? History, tradition, experience, culture, religious understanding, and common sense.

What freedoms would I let the government deny an individual so society could benefit? How about the old stand-by example - the government can deny you the ability to engage in sexual activity in public.

You disagree with a law denying an individual the right to do that?[/quote]

I appreciate your response, although I don’t agree with your post entirely, you give me some things to think about.

Your example of a freedom that should be denied by government is one that I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with, but what defines “public”?. Would a romp in the woods be subjected to that law? If a couple has sex in their home with the shades up, and a passerby inadvertently sees it, should they be punished?

[Tiribulus]

A divided nation is by definition incapable of freedom. When one man’s license is another man’s liberty, with each man representing large numbers in a population, that society cannot function in a representative republican manner. Somebody will have somebody else’s rules forced on them. What the libertarians today decry as the “extreme religious right” was for a century and a half the majority mainstream middle. Those views weren’t forced because the preponderance of the populous held them to be right and they didn’t have to be. THAT was the foundation of this nation’s freedom.

What is absolutely normal and encouraged on this website was once viewed by the society at large as unadulterated perversion and whoredom. There is no such thing as a society wherein what somebody does doesn’t effect the rest of that society. That’s what makes it… like… a “society” ya see?

One more time. Unless there is a supra human court beyond which there is no appeal all else is ultimately at the mercy of whatever human propensity at the moment holds sway.

Intact families modeled directly on the new testament is what provided the soil for this nation to flourish and grow in. The families are gone and so is the nation. They have been sacrificed on the altar of a hedonistic self worshiping sexual free for all launched in the 1960’s. Social libertarianism is an attempt to promote that in the guise of the virtue of liberty. It is anything but.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

Your example of a freedom that should be denied by government is one that I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with, but what defines “public”?. Would a romp in the woods be subjected to that law? If a couple has sex in their home with the shades up, and a passerby inadvertently sees it, should they be punished? [/quote]

No need to make it complicated - keep it simple: a law that prohibits sexual conduct in the public square.

So, should there be a law restricting a person’s liberty to have consensual sex on the public square in full view of everyone?

[Tiribulus]

A country in regular need of such a law is already far beyond whatever meager temporary restraint the force of that law might have provided.

Discussing what personal conduct should and shouldn’t be regulated by civil law, in my view, misses the point entirely. Morality indeed cannot be legislated. It must be practiced voluntarily for freedom to flourish.

That’s why something like overturning roe v. wade in itself to me is also not the point. I’d be willing to see it remain law forever if I could also see a citizenry that was properly abhorred by the notion of killing it’s own offspring.

Adultery is still illegal in many states (I think it still is), but that doesn’t stop multitudes of men and women from regularly violating each other. The law hasn’t changed. The character of the people has and the law has no effect whatsoever. So their family, feeble though it may have been, dissolves, they joke about their ex, move on to somebody else and the children learn to do the same by watching their parents while we have study groups to try n figure out what’s gone wrong with our culture.

Where you and I will not likely agree Thunderbolt is that I do not believe that the morality you rightly see as essential for a stable, free and prosperous society is at all possible apart from it’s belief in that supra human court beyond which there is no appeal. Not for a true superpower. You may get some rinky dink spot on the map that boasts of all it’s peace and socialistic harmony, but it won’t be leading the world any time soon. There will never be “pax Norway”, no offense to my Norwegian friends. Especially you Quick Ben.

[SexMachine]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
It existed on every single continent on the planet (I don’t know whether it existed among aboriginal tribes Down Under. Maybe SM can comment)[/quote]

Yes, slavery has been practiced by just about every cultural/ethnic people. But slavery was not practiced by the Australian aborigines. They did not have the sort of society where slavery could function - they were hunter-gathers and because of their isolation from other cultures, the harsh environment, living on the edge of survival, tribal warfare etc. Australian aborigines were never enslaved by Europeans either. The white slaves, white ‘indentured servants’ and white ‘convicts’ provided the labour that built the colonies - along with free men of course. Later (1860’s) we also had small numbers of Melanesian Islanders who were ‘blackbirded’ and used as slaves in Northern Queensland sugar cane plantations. I only mention that it was ‘small numbers’ not to minimise it but to give context. We’re talking about a few thousand people - not a plantation slave society like the American South.

[SexMachine]

Is compromise the lubricating agent on our slide to statism/tyranny? Is it utopianism to believe that we haven’t already long passed the point of no return? If the answer to either of those is yes then what is the logical extension of that?

[Tiribulus]

I just now saw Sparky’s post from yesterday morning. I told you where to find answers if that’s what you wanted. You don’t though. It’s not a reading list. It’s a commentary by a reformed baptist (used to be only kind) who lived a very long time ago that I trust will not lead you astray. You take the passage you want the explanation for and you look it up in his exposition. He has done it better than I ever will. Besides, you don’t want answers anyway. Despite what you may think the majority of my interaction with people from these forums happens in PM’s and especially email.

Nobody ever sees probably 60 percent of my conversations. The point is there are only so many hours in the day. There are people who do want answers, at least for a while. They get what little time I have. This doesn’t mean I think you’re an exceptionally horrid guy. Not at all. You’re just a typical hostile God hater. At present your line of questioning, from you, is a waste of my time which is NOT the same as saying that YOU are a waste of my time because you are still created in God’s image and could therefore never be a waste of my time. You are searching for ways to reinforce your hatred of God’s authority over your life. I would only be helping you.

JOHN GILL’S EXPOSITION OF THE BIBLE John Gills Exposition of the Bible Commentary will surely get you what you would want if you actually wanted it.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Where you and I will not likely agree Thunderbolt is that I do not believe that the morality you rightly see as essential for a stable, free and prosperous society is at all possible apart from it’s belief in that supra human court beyond which there is no appeal.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with this. I believe morality exists independent of humans.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

I have a simple solution to this debate and most others. If you are not a libertarian you cannot have an opinion about libertarianism.

This seems to be consistent with other lines of argument – viz., having an opinion about American politics and no being an American taxpayer, etc.

Also, if you’ve never been in the US military, sorry, you cannot comment on anything military related.

This should shut some people up…

[pat]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I have a simple solution to this debate and most others. If you are not a libertarian you cannot have an opinion about libertarianism.

This seems to be consistent with other lines of argument – viz., having an opinion about American politics and no being an American taxpayer, etc.

Also, if you’ve never been in the US military, sorry, you cannot comment on anything military related.

This should shut some people up…

:/[/quote]

My thought on libertarianism is that it’s damn near dead. It’s got no teeth, it barely made a dent. Anybody know who the libertarian candidate is? I don’t.
It was a good idea, but it needs funding and momentum. I believe it has ceded control to the Tea Party.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

You don’t need a “political party” to spread good ideas.

Welcome to PWI.

[pittbulll]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I have a simple solution to this debate and most others. If you are not a libertarian you cannot have an opinion about libertarianism.

This seems to be consistent with other lines of argument – viz., having an opinion about American politics and no being an American taxpayer, etc.

Also, if you’ve never been in the US military, sorry, you cannot comment on anything military related.

This should shut some people up…

:/[/quote]

My thought on libertarianism is that it’s damn near dead. It’s got no teeth, it barely made a dent. Anybody know who the libertarian candidate is? I don’t.
It was a good idea, but it needs funding and momentum. I believe it has ceded control to the Tea Party.[/quote]

I would say Paul is the libertarian candidate

[Tiribulus]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Where you and I will not likely agree Thunderbolt is that I do not believe that the morality you rightly see as essential for a stable, free and prosperous society is at all possible apart from it’s belief in that supra human court beyond which there is no appeal.[/quote]

I don’t disagree with this. I believe morality exists independent of humans.[/quote]Ok, I believe that. That is a very precise and judicious way of stating it. You won’t bite because it ain’t yer thing, at least here, but I would love one day to see how justified you are in that very correct, as far as it goes, position. I BTW do stand by my previously stated opinion of your being one of our most capable PWI posters.

[bigflamer]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I just now saw Sparky’s post from yesterday morning. I told you where to find answers if that’s what you wanted. You don’t though. It’s not a reading list. It’s a commentary by a reformed baptist (used to be only kind) who lived a very long time ago that I trust will not lead you astray. You take the passage you want the explanation for and you look it up in his exposition. He has done it better than I ever will. Besides, you don’t want answers anyway. Despite what you may think the majority of my interaction with people from these forums happens in PM’s and especially email.[/quote]

So, since YOU don’t have the answers, you’ll avoid the problem by posting a link and walking away. That’s some seriously weak shit right there. Here’s a tip for you, use links and references to SUPPORT your argument.

Also, I posted more than just select evil bible verses, I asked some legitimate questions not having to do with verse; you never answered them. Should I go ahead and re post them? Or are you so consumed with saving the savable, that you simply do not have the time to address them? It would seem that very often you revert back to “I only have so much time in the day”, and “I have so many posts to address, I don’t have time for yours”. LOL…whatever.

[quote]
Nobody ever sees probably 60 percent of my conversations. The point is there are only so many hours in the day. There are people who do want answers, at least for a while. They get what little time I have. This doesn’t mean I think you’re an exceptionally horrid guy. Not at all. You’re just a typical hostile God hater. At present your line of questioning, from you, is a waste of my time which is NOT the same as saying that YOU are a waste of my time because you are still created in God’s image and could therefore never be a waste of my time. You are searching for ways to reinforce your hatred of God’s authority over your life. I would only be helping you.

JOHN GILL’S EXPOSITION OF THE BIBLE John Gills Exposition of the Bible Commentary will surely get you what you would want if you actually wanted it. [/quote]

Now this is just ridiculous right here. How could I possibly hate something that doesn’t exist? There is no god for me to hate; your imaginary friends have no sway over me. What I do have a real problem with, is the bat shit crazy people like yourself, who do actually give their imaginary friends so much dominion over their intellect.

“God save me from your followers”

[bigflamer]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[/quote]

Your book is blatant “revisionism.”

Amazon.com: Customer reviews: The Imperial Cruise: A Secret History of Empire...

Read some of the reviews there. Like this from S R Stout:

‘Bradley makes it seem that anyone of Anglo-Saxon race was in on a master plan. The incredible literary license the man takes is incredible. Bradley also loves to pad his text with unnecessary information’

Example of this ‘unnecessary information’ from another reviewer ‘Menlo Dog Owner’:

“He also seems to make a point of suggesting that T. Roosevelt was likely pro-slavery. He points out (p. 36) for no apparent reason, that Roosevelt’s 17th century ancestor owned slaves in the Dutch Colony of “New Amsterdam”; presumably implying that TR inherited the same inclinations of his ancestor 200 years later. (Note, that slavery in the 17th century was common in all parts of what is now the United States, including all of the European colonies as well as the areas controlled by the Native Americans (e.g., “Indians”). It was also common in Europe, Asia, and Africa.) As slaves at the time in New Amsterdam were predominately Europeans, not Africans,”

Or Brian Horgan:

“(The author contends that the) 2008 Muslim terorist attacks in the Philippines are a result of Roosevelt and Taft’s policies over 100 years before.)”

and:

“Think Noam Chomsky and you’ll capture the central theme of Bradley’s book.”[/quote]

“Revisionism” is often the charge leveled towards those works outside of the accepted historical teachings of the time. As we know, history is a tale told by the victors, with “accepted” historical perspectives usually being very pleasing (read: biased) towards the victors. Read through the historical textbooks being used in Japan right now, and you will find nary a reference to their rape of China and various other atrocities committed by Japan in the past. America is no different. Our “accepted” textbooks on US history leave out much that would be embarrassing to our country.

[/quote]

This doesn’t change one thing SM wrote.

Take particular note that slavery was rife and practiced by Native Americans long before Columbus was a gleam in his daddy’s eye. It was institutionalized and widespread from sea to shining sea.[/quote]

Not even close to the same.

[quote]
It goes beyond disingenuousness to suggest the white man is the root of this despicable activity. It existed on every single continent on the planet (I don’t know whether it existed among aboriginal tribes Down Under. Maybe SM can comment)[/quote]

I don’t think the book is suggesting that “the white man is the root of this despicable activity”, not at all. What he was suggesting was that white christians believed in the superiority of their race, and that they believed both science AND their religion gave them this belief. They believed that it was their divine moral right to establish their dominion, by force if necessary. Whether or not they believed in slavery, as there certainly was plenty of white christians at the time who did not support slavery, but they most certainly did believe that they were the superior race, and that in order to achieve “peace and civility in society”, the white christian must establish their dominion.

That is a very aryan line of thought, and as the author points out, one that was being taught widespread in the universities of the day.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]bigflamer wrote:So, since YOU don’t have the answers, you’ll avoid the problem by posting a link and walking away. That’s some seriously weak shit right there. >>>[/quote]Since YOU’RE not really interested in answers I won’t take the considerable amount of time required to provide the ones I have to your shotgun attacks because that time can be better spent with people who may actually in fact want those answers. Instead, I will provide you a link to a very competent man of God from yesteryear who has the answers you lie in saying you want just in case you ever actually do.

[Sloth]

Atheist Johnny-come-latelies are all talk. They criticize the development of the West after we religious did all the heavy lifting for them. After Christian men settled the major issues for them. Including slavery. Why argue with them? They’re comparing some hypothetical world where man’s history starts with widespread atheism. And because of that, they “could’ve done better.” It’s liking arguing with Marxist and Anarcho-Capitalist utopias. No point.