Ye Olde Libertarian Pub

[timur123456789]

I'd be careful about using John 8:32 and like passages as a biblical defense for libertarianism. The freedom being referred to in John 8:32 isn't talking about freedom from government, but freedom from sin. Many other passages I could think of (Paul talks about freedom several times) probably are talking about something else as well.

Yes you are right.
Eventhough spiritual freedom usualy leads to political.

 

[Nilloc]

Yes you are right.
Eventhough spiritual freedom usualy leads to political.

True. I think that if people followed Jesus's teachings, things would move in a more libertarian direction.

 

[timur123456789]

Ron Paul's What If ? Remastered - YouTube

Ron Paul - "What if Chrisitanity actualy teaches peace and not preventive wars of agression"

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

I'd be careful about using John 8:32 and like passages as a biblical defense for libertarianism. The freedom being referred to in John 8:32 isn't talking about freedom from government, but freedom from sin. Many other passages I could think of (Paul talks about freedom several times) probably are talking about something else as well.

The safest way to derive Libertarianism is, i think, concentrating on what the human writers of Scripture did not say. Then we use that as our example of how we should live.

i keep harping on this example, and eventually somebody will get it, but here we go again:

Paul's letter to the Corinthians did not advocate "Cleaning up Corinth for Jesus"...and if ever a city needed cleaning up, it was Corinth. Instead, he dealt with the mess inside the church.

The clear implication was that we should mind our own business, and not let mission creep overtake the church, and pull it as an organisation into areas that encroach upon Caesar.

In the same way, dilligence must be exerted to make certain that Caesar does not encroach upon the domain of the church. We have examples of the Apostles' response to that issue too.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

The safest way to derive Libertarianism is, i think, concentrating on what the human writers of Scripture did not say. Then we use that as our example of how we should live.

i keep harping on this example, and eventually somebody will get it, but here we go again:

Paul's letter to the Corinthians did not advocate "Cleaning up Corinth for Jesus"...and if ever a city needed cleaning up, it was Corinth. Instead, he dealt with the mess inside the church.

The clear implication was that we should mind our own business, and not let mission creep overtake the church, and pull it as an organisation into areas that encroach upon Caesar.

In the same way, dilligence must be exerted to make certain that Caesar does not encroach upon the domain of the church. We have examples of the Apostles' response to that issue too.

He also didn't say to send thine minions to thine neighbors that thou mayest helpeth yon other neighbor.

 

[Nilloc]

The safest way to derive Libertarianism is, i think, concentrating on what the human writers of Scripture did not say. Then we use that as our example of how we should live.

i keep harping on this example, and eventually somebody will get it, but here we go again:

Paul's letter to the Corinthians did not advocate "Cleaning up Corinth for Jesus"...and if ever a city needed cleaning up, it was Corinth. Instead, he dealt with the mess inside the church.

The clear implication was that we should mind our own business, and not let mission creep overtake the church, and pull it as an organisation into areas that encroach upon Caesar.

In the same way, dilligence must be exerted to make certain that Caesar does not encroach upon the domain of the church. We have examples of the Apostles' response to that issue too.

I generally don't argue for libertarianism from the Bible, but you do make a good point. If I actually did want to make a biblical case for it, I could see a couple different roots to take. My main argument would be simply looking at the way Jesus went about doing things in His ministry and specifically the temptation in the wilderness episode. Jesus never once used the force of government to spread His teachings or punish those who didn't give to the poor, nor did He ever command His disciples to take hold of the government and install a theocracy.

This approach is nowhere clearer than in Matt. and Luke 4. I take the interpretation that Satan is tempting Jesus with different ways that He could be the Messiah, rather than the way of self-sacrifice that Jesus would eventually take. This explains why Jesus turning stones into bread would have been a bad thing: it would have been turning His mission as just a way for external goodness rather than bringing about the change of heart the cross and new covenant were supposed to be about (Jer. 31:31-34, Rom. 6:1-11). This is actually a good biblical argument against socialism. If Jesus were opposed to creating food out of thin air as a way to feed the poor, how much more would He oppose stealing bread from someone else?

Jesus throwing Himself from the temple, while not relevant to libertarianism (I don’t think) shows again that Satan’s goal was to go about his messiahship another way, namely impressing those with miracles rather than genuinely changing hearts. Probably why Jesus told others to keep His miracles a secret.

And of course, Satan’s temptation to Jesus to take hold of the kingdoms of the world. Obviously this temptation was what the Jews had expected the Messiah to do; overthrow the Romans and make the kingdom of God a literal political entity. Jesus refuses because as Paul talks about in 1 Cor. 2 (I think that’s where it is), the kingdom of God is not about force and violence, but love and service. It’s also noteworthy that Luke explicitly mentions that Satan owns all the kingdoms of the world (though it is implied in Matthew) and they are his to give, which is a rather interesting statement considering what Paul says in Romans 13.

 

[Nilloc]

What do you guys think about Joseph Sobran? I enjoyed reading "The Reluctant Anarchist", but I've heard some say that he is a racist and even spoke at Neo-Nazi seminars. Is that true?

 

[MacFall]

They say the same thing about the Mises Institute because of their general position on the Civil War (i.e., the war to prevent Southern independence) and because they're in Auburn, which is in Alabama, which is in the South. :/

I dunno, I take accusations of "racism" with a good handful of salt. That word is used between the parties of political disagreements like the word "gay" was used in my junior high school.

 

[Nilloc]

Most of the accusations I've read were actually on libertarian websites whose authors are probably Southern Sympathizers. Apparently Sobran has links to the Institute for Historical Review, which, according to Wikipedia, is the world's biggest Holocaust denial organization. I too tire of the constant accusations of racism in politics, but speaking at a Neo-Nazi conference actually does sound racist to me.

 

[MacFall]

Well, if there's evidence that he actually did that, I'd have to put my handful of salt back in the shaker.

 

[Nilloc]

Well, if there's evidence that he actually did that, I'd have to put my handful of salt back in the shaker.

Now there's an expression I've never heard.

I didn't read this but Sobran does have at least one article on IHR's website. And based on the title, I'm gonna guess it isn't very positive towards Jews.

Joe Sobran, 'For Fear of the Jews'

 

[MacFall]

This seems to be the point of the article:

Why on earth is it "anti-Jewish" to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination? Surely these are controversial conclusions; but if so, let the controversy rage. There is no danger in permitting it to proceed. It might be different if denying the Holocaust could somehow affect the course of events, as the denial of Stalin's crimes by the New York Times in the 1930s helped him to continue committing them. Why is the Institute for Historical Review notorious, while the Times, despite its active support of Stalin at the height of his power, remains a pillar of respectability?

​

I skimmed rather than reading it, but not much in there indicates any actual antisemitism to me, although it could be interpreted that way by someone who wanted to see it. I will continue to withhold judgment either way.

 

[MacFall]

Closer reading shows that he may be closer to my own position than to any actual hate-group ideology: against the political state of Israel without any antipathy towards individual Jews.

If I were to hate Jews en masse, without distinction, I would be guilty of many things. Obviously I'd be guilty of injustice and uncharity to Jews as human beings. I would also be guilty of willful stupidity. More personally, I'd be guilty of ingratitude to my benefactors -- which Dante, in his Inferno, ranks the worst of all sins -- since many of my benefactors, in large ways and small, have been Jewish.

Moreover, I would be becoming exactly the man my Zionist enemies would like me to be; a man like them, in whom ethnic hostilities take priority over all other values and considerations. I would justify them in treating me as an enemy. In fact I'd go so far as to say that I would be helping to justify the state of Israel. I consider that if I fight these people on their terms, they have already won.

What, exactly, is "anti-Semitism"? One standard dictionary definition is "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or racial group." How this applies to me has never been explained. My "hostility" toward Israel is a desire not for war, but for neutrality -- out of a sense of betrayal, waste, and shame. Our venal politicians have aligned us with a foreign country that behaves dishonorably. Most alleged "anti-Semites" would wince if Jews anywhere were treated as Israel treats its Arab subjects. Moreover, Israel has repeatedly betrayed its only benefactor, the United States. I have already alluded to the place Dante reserves for those who betray their benefactors.​

 

[Nilloc]

I've skimmed through the article now as well and it didn't appear to be racist. Since you've read it closer, I'll just take your word for it (yeah, I'm lazy).

Moving on . . .

I've heard some say that Frederic Bastiat was a devout Catholic, while others say he was more a Jeffersonian Christian Deist. I was curious cause I was gonna read through The Law soon and I wondered if he would be coming at it from a Christian perspective.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

I've skimmed through the article now as well and it didn't appear to be racist. Since you've read it closer, I'll just take your word for it (yeah, I'm lazy).

Moving on . . .

I've heard some say that Frederic Bastiat was a devout Catholic, while others say he was more a Jeffersonian Christian Deist. I was curious cause I was gonna read through The Law soon and I wondered if he would be coming at it from a Christian perspective.

I've read it, and I'm wasn't really sure, He does mention God a lot though.

 

[Nilloc]

Had to have Independence Day church service today. I don't particularly like the idea (and I remember reading stuff on LRC about this), but what do you expect in a church with mostly Neocons?

 

[MacFall]

My church doesn't do that, really. But for the past few years I've been going to my grandmother's church on the Sunday of the 4th, because my family reunion in Tennessee is on that weekend.

For some reason, today really got to me. My brother and I said the Lord's Prayer while everyone else did the mantra of allegiance, which helped, but even so by the end of it I felt nauseous. I felt like going to a Quaker meeting after all that Caesar worship.

 

[Nilloc]

Usually an Independence Day service is just comprised of singing patriotic songs and having the sermon vaguely tie in with America. But today the only patriotic song was The Battle Hymn of the Republic. After that we had a brief slide show with quotes from some of the founding fathers (including Alexander Hamilton, ugh) that they think proves the U.S. is a Christian nation (whatever that means). The sermon drew parallels between the founding fathers and the apostles, the founders of the church.

I really wouldn't mind this so much if maybe they saw the Fourth the way I do: a celebration of freedom from tyranny, rather than the birth of a new country. Not that I like bringing politics into church, but at least that way it would seem like a rejection of the rulers of this world (1 Cor. 2:6-8) rather than worshiping America.

Quakers . . . yeah, I find a lot in common with them.

 

[zoink]

I just started coming across agorists advocating combining the standard get paid under the table strategy with collecting as much welfare as possible. Is this a new thing, or has that been around for awhile?

 

[MacFall]

I've never heard of it and it sort of disgusts me. :/

I'm not morally opposed to a person receiving welfare not in excess of what they've paid into the system, but the whole point of Agorism is to operate as far out of the system as possible. Collecting welfare to - I'm guessing here - try to drain the system faster? is not Agorism. It's a separate strategic ideology, and one which is arguably opposed to agorist principles.