If Jesus was a libertarian...

Post Reply New Topic

Right, because no libertarian believes in charity or the value of others.

^ Definitely agree there. Thomas, I don't think you totally understand what Libertarians stand for, whether it's the modern sense or classical sense.

Charity and altruism aren't the same thing.

Charity usually implies some degree of cost or sacrifice for the donor.

Its questionable that the feeding of the five thousand was an act of charity, since if Christian beliefs are to be taken as correct, then Christ was a divine entity for which such a miracle cost nothing.

Objectivism, which by far and away libertarians seem to adhere to, is antithetic to Christian teaching.

I think the condensed version is

* Small or even better yet, no government

* No taxes. Yay private sector!

*Property ownership trumps all

* Pull the ladder up, I'm alright, Jack.

Perhaps the thread title was a little mean spirited (i know socialist libertarians exist). I would like to have titled the thread, if Jesus had read Atlas Shrugged, taken it to its absolute logical conclusion and disregarded every other book, unfortunately Wrong Planet doesnt allow for such long winded thread titles.

I think most libertarians have the disposition that people can make deals among themselves without having a moral authority intervene.
People who don't believe in Libertarianism, tend to believe there is a class of people (like politicians) who are morally superior. They believe usually that without this kind of intervention, if people deal among themselves they can find themselves in situations which are less beneficial to the entire population.

Suppose we could exist in some kind of metaverse where we have the choice of 2 different outcomes. One outcome is the result of pure free market interactions, the other with a degree of intervention. The hypothesis is that the people acting on their own free will will be less well off than the people with a certain degree of intervention.

There is a study of psychology and game theory that explores things like diffusion of responsibility and Prisoner's Dilemma. You might construct a thought experiment, could you devise a scenario where people acting freely create a less beneficial environment for mankind than a society with some intervening authority?

For instance, in the case of charity, how much would the average person donate to the poor and disabled compared to how well off those people would be if everyone was donating on their own. Suppose that in a purely free society the poor are worse off, even desperate, and there is a population of these people who cause disruption to the market, by stealing, murdering, etc. And so the response to protect from this desperate population is more costly than it would have been just to pay them a welfare check.

Suppose someone was really bad off, like he had a debilitating brain disease but could still make rational decisions. In a free market it wouldn't be so absurd to say that some entrepreneur could come up to that individual and make the following deal. We will wire $50,000 to an account of your choice if you sell the rights to your organs to us and agree to commit suicide by a certain date.

Many people might find that morally reprehensible. The issue of apriori reasoning is that you get into reasonings that. A cocaine user wouldn't be taking the drug if it wasn't good for him. Maybe the high he is getting is worth the fact that he is impoverished, malnourished loosing teeth ect. If you don't accept that premise, than you must either value individual freedom over well being or implicitly agree that there is such a thing a moral superiority, because that person is unable to make the decision for himself.

This is where I take issue. It isn't necessarilly that the critics of libertarianism believe that politicians are morally superior, the problem is that if you allow the dictats of the market to trump all then invariably businesspeople end up in charge so all you are doing is replacing a state leadership with an oligarchy or private dictatorship.

Its far fairer to have a system not necessarilly led by politicians or rich people, but one where those most qualified to make decisions that effect peoples lives in the most utilitarian way possible are enabled to do so.

As I am neither a Christian nor an Objectivist, all of that is of merely academic relevance to me.



For once, you've actually expressed a political opinion that I can agree with.

The people most qualified to make economic and social decisions that affect them, is themselves. They can make these decisions by free and unhampered economic exchange, and a minimal state in place to enforce contracts and make sure nobody uses coercive violence.

Last edited by drh1138 on 22 Feb 2014, 12:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

Obligatory link to The Gospel of Supply-Side Jesus: http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/0 ... anken.html

+1

Wrong. Again. Still.

This has been explained to you numerous times by a multitude of people, and yet you continue to make the assertion, without any supporting evidence, and apparently only for the purpose of riling people up. There is a word for people who have a habit of pointlessly irritating others online by repeatedly telling willful lies, and they don't tend to be welcome on this board.

Oh-oh. Someone is about to tattle. No-one is to "rile up" or "irritate" the Libertarians. It is a banning offense.

So, with that, good bye to you all.

Let me say this first off - the two party system the US has is a ruse. Both are for big government (I throw the BS flag on Republicans who say they're "fiscally conservative" as it was the Republican party, historically, who have been the "government glutton" and the Democrats have done well to unabashedly carry the "government glutton" torch in recent times) and the only difference between each party is social agenda. Otherwise, all you have is the illusion that there is a difference and it looks nice on a ballot and gives the undereducated a sense that they're "making a difference".

Being Libertarian in modern times is more about returning to the fundamentals of the Constitution rather than leaning towards anarchy. One would argue that someone who is for the Constitution is a member of the Constitution Party however there is one very fundamental difference between a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist; The Constitution Party bases their philosophy on Christianity, while the Libertarian Party has no such religious affiliation. Consitutionalists are social and fiscal conservatives. Libertarians are social liberals and fiscal conservatives. Here's a pretty decent writeup of the differences between each party: http://www.independentpoliticalreport.c ... -analysis/

With that out the way...

Nothing wrong with smaller government but as much as I'm not in favor of government, the realist in me knows that a country cannot exist without it. Anarchy and "true Democracy" will eventually, and quickly, dissolve and as you stated will produce an oligarchy or private dictatorship of sorts. An entity must exist to supervise the nation, so by that admission I do believe that the Federal government has its place which is to oversee issues that affect ALL states, such as infrastructure, energy (believe it or not I do believe that utilities should be regulated), interstate and international commerce, etc. What I disagree about today's Federal government is that it should not have the right to impose policies/regulations on states or localities unless a state's or locality's policies impinge or completely contradict a Federal policy of the above.

With government comes the necessary evil that are taxes and that's not a problem to me. What I take issue with is when those taxes are being used for things that do not benefit the public as a whole, such as foreign aid to countries that hate us, or go to no-bid contracts to government contractors (who are either in the pocket of politicians or are main backers of politicians). No, taxes belong to us and should be used to benefit us. They should be used to fund infrastructure projects, provide for a well-trained military used to protect us, not to nationalize other nations, etc. They should also be used to help provide for those who have served our country who have returned less than 100% of when they were deployed. Again, quit funding other countries.

I have no response to your last two bullet points. I can't decide whether you are being purposefully inflammatory/contradictory or are being silly.


The way I see things at this point in time, this is what the US has now - an oligarchy. The whole idea and practice of "checks and balances" either is extremely blurred and not at all in line with the Constitution, or is altogether ignored. We have lifetime politicians who act as if they're above the laws of this nation and overtly lavish themselves with the people's money. Government officials are supposed to be "civil servants", not lords of the fiefdom.


I can agree with that statement which is why I believe in less government because ours has gotten out of hand. In my opinion, we don't necessarily have the most qualified people in office, but we seem to have ones who were willing to be bought off by corporations to run this country. Due to the "corporate sponsorship" of our political leaders, we in essence have a country run by corporations by proxy. How else to you explain million dollar campaigns with corporations like BP, Goldman Sachs, AT&T, etc. backing politicians? Why would a candidate who is backed by corporations cater to citizens when they owe far more to their corporate sponsors?

Take a real hard look at the laws that are being passed under the guise of "beneficial to the public" and most of them have some sort of corporate angle to them that is the real driver. For example, and I will only mention this once and won't get into a pissing match over it, but I believe that Obamacare is not about the health and well-being of US citizens rather a government-backed cash cow for the pharmaceutical industry. In no way did Obamacare address the overwhelming cost of medical care in this country - only that everyone should have to pitch in to fund the ever-increasing money suckhole that is the medical industry. As one who believes that each person is responsible for their own lives and, indirectly, responsible for others, I find the legislation a major violation of our individual rights and proof that government is in bed with corporate entities.

So did they have libraries back then then?

You haven't been banned yet, so I imagine Tommy boy here is safe for the moment. Perhaps you and he could take the Rabbi's advice and go saddle shopping together:

"My father used to say: "The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk but the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."

You're definitely in the market, and he's working on it.