Is Christian Libertarianism Consistent With Voting? A Personal View.

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Is Libertarianism Consistent With Voting? A Personal View.​

Is Libertarianism Consistent With Voting? A Personal View. | Libertarian Christian Institute

Coercion is the opposite of a live-and-let-live attitude. And our current American governmental coercion enforces subjugation and imposes laws and taxation on

libertarianchristians.com

Coercion is the opposite of a live-and-let-live attitude. And our current American governmental coercion enforces subjugation and imposes laws and taxation on unwilling, unconsenting individuals. To vote is to participate in this process, enabling governments to claim a “mandate” for their coercive activities. Thus, voting is inconsistent with libertarian ideas.

“The fact is that the average man’s love of liberty is nine-tenths imaginary, exactly like his love of sense, justice and truth. He is not actually happy when free; he is uncomfortable, a bit alarmed, and intolerably lonely. Liberty is not a thing for the great masses of men…like knowledge, courage and honor. It takes a special sort of man to understand and enjoy liberty — and he is usually an outlaw in democratic societies.”
H.L. Mencken, Baltimore Evening Sun 12 February 1923

Libertarian voters claim they want to remove government tyranny, but if they attempt to do so via voting then they are forcing their ways on others. Most people do not want liberty or freedom; in fact, they often not only desire to be part of a collective mass of people swayed, manipulated, and “protected” by a “state,” but they also want others forced into the same mold. This is where libertarians should differ from Republicans and Democrats, who do seek to control others.

We universally agree it is immoral if one person forces another to do his will when it is against their own. Unfortunately, this principle is forgotten when election time comes. If someone desires to control another, he can vote, or worse, make a good living by entering politics. Democracy creates an entire tax-funded system of bullying. It is not a loving but a mean system of governance.

To enter into politics via voting, we are joining a war that is opposed to libertarian ideas. To force our ways on others who do not desire it. Even if what we are trying to impose is our view of liberty and freedom, if that is not what they want, it is tyranny; it is government coercion; it is prideful to levy our ways on others. God does not impose His way on us; He gives us the chance to choose Him as Lord.

Democracy indulges the worst part of human nature; the desire to rule others. It brings out the Saruman and Sauron within us as we seek to use the One Ring – or in our case government power – to coerce others to do our bidding. It is a corrupt, backward, and oppressive system.

Voting is not about getting the government you desire; it is more about preventing others from having theirs. It propagates a mindset saying we must fight over Tolkien’s “One Ring to Rule them all.” We puritanically believe we are better than the other dumb peasants, those who do not vote like us. So we must vote to coerce them away from their self-governance and into our mold. Democracy is one big war of people denying each other self-rule.

One thing I won’t be doing is voting or attempting to force my way on others; instead, I will follow the golden rule and treat others the way I want them to treat me. I do not want others to use government coercion and power to force me to do what I don’t desire or support what I would otherwise not, and even though they will continue to do that, from now on I choose to turn the other cheek and not repay evil for evil.

 

[Richard T]

Is Libertarianism Consistent With Voting? A Personal View.​

Is Libertarianism Consistent With Voting? A Personal View. | Libertarian Christian Institute

Coercion is the opposite of a live-and-let-live attitude. And our current American governmental coercion enforces subjugation and imposes laws and taxation on

libertarianchristians.com

Coercion is the opposite of a live-and-let-live attitude. And our current American governmental coercion enforces subjugation and imposes laws and taxation on unwilling, unconsenting individuals. To vote is to participate in this process, enabling governments to claim a “mandate” for their coercive activities. Thus, voting is inconsistent with libertarian ideas.


Libertarian voters claim they want to remove government tyranny, but if they attempt to do so via voting then they are forcing their ways on others. Most people do not want liberty or freedom; in fact, they often not only desire to be part of a collective mass of people swayed, manipulated, and “protected” by a “state,” but they also want others forced into the same mold. This is where libertarians should differ from Republicans and Democrats, who do seek to control others.

We universally agree it is immoral if one person forces another to do his will when it is against their own. Unfortunately, this principle is forgotten when election time comes. If someone desires to control another, he can vote, or worse, make a good living by entering politics. Democracy creates an entire tax-funded system of bullying. It is not a loving but a mean system of governance.

To enter into politics via voting, we are joining a war that is opposed to libertarian ideas. To force our ways on others who do not desire it. Even if what we are trying to impose is our view of liberty and freedom, if that is not what they want, it is tyranny; it is government coercion; it is prideful to levy our ways on others. God does not impose His way on us; He gives us the chance to choose Him as Lord.

Democracy indulges the worst part of human nature; the desire to rule others. It brings out the Saruman and Sauron within us as we seek to use the One Ring – or in our case government power – to coerce others to do our bidding. It is a corrupt, backward, and oppressive system.

Voting is not about getting the government you desire; it is more about preventing others from having theirs. It propagates a mindset saying we must fight over Tolkien’s “One Ring to Rule them all.” We puritanically believe we are better than the other dumb peasants, those who do not vote like us. So we must vote to coerce them away from their self-governance and into our mold. Democracy is one big war of people denying each other self-rule.

One thing I won’t be doing is voting or attempting to force my way on others; instead, I will follow the golden rule and treat others the way I want them to treat me. I do not want others to use government coercion and power to force me to do what I don’t desire or support what I would otherwise not, and even though they will continue to do that, from now on I choose to turn the other cheek and not repay evil for evil

There always has to be some coercion because there are people who would prefer no common defense, ni police, no roads, no parks. Some of that might be provided privately but nonetheless if you took all coercivw acts if government uot you would have anarchy.

 

[Richard T]

There always has to be some coercion because there are people who would prefer no common defense, no police, no roads, no parks. Some of that might be provided privately but nonetheless if you took all coercive acts of government out you would have anarchy. Strict libertarians agree only on defense and courts that uphold contracts but even that is far too narrow.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

There always has to be some coercion because there are people who would prefer no common defense, ni police, no roads, no parks. Some of that might be provided privately but nonetheless if you took all coercivw acts if government uot you would have anarchy.

I think you are missing the option of everyone getting the local law/government of their choice. This can be achieved without the tyranny of the majority.

 

[public hermit]

Is Libertarianism Consistent With Voting? A Personal View.​

Is Libertarianism Consistent With Voting? A Personal View. | Libertarian Christian Institute

Coercion is the opposite of a live-and-let-live attitude. And our current American governmental coercion enforces subjugation and imposes laws and taxation on

libertarianchristians.com

Coercion is the opposite of a live-and-let-live attitude. And our current American governmental coercion enforces subjugation and imposes laws and taxation on unwilling, unconsenting individuals. To vote is to participate in this process, enabling governments to claim a “mandate” for their coercive activities. Thus, voting is inconsistent with libertarian ideas.


Libertarian voters claim they want to remove government tyranny, but if they attempt to do so via voting then they are forcing their ways on others. Most people do not want liberty or freedom; in fact, they often not only desire to be part of a collective mass of people swayed, manipulated, and “protected” by a “state,” but they also want others forced into the same mold. This is where libertarians should differ from Republicans and Democrats, who do seek to control others.

We universally agree it is immoral if one person forces another to do his will when it is against their own. Unfortunately, this principle is forgotten when election time comes. If someone desires to control another, he can vote, or worse, make a good living by entering politics. Democracy creates an entire tax-funded system of bullying. It is not a loving but a mean system of governance.

To enter into politics via voting, we are joining a war that is opposed to libertarian ideas. To force our ways on others who do not desire it. Even if what we are trying to impose is our view of liberty and freedom, if that is not what they want, it is tyranny; it is government coercion; it is prideful to levy our ways on others. God does not impose His way on us; He gives us the chance to choose Him as Lord.

Democracy indulges the worst part of human nature; the desire to rule others. It brings out the Saruman and Sauron within us as we seek to use the One Ring – or in our case government power – to coerce others to do our bidding. It is a corrupt, backward, and oppressive system.

Voting is not about getting the government you desire; it is more about preventing others from having theirs. It propagates a mindset saying we must fight over Tolkien’s “One Ring to Rule them all.” We puritanically believe we are better than the other dumb peasants, those who do not vote like us. So we must vote to coerce them away from their self-governance and into our mold. Democracy is one big war of people denying each other self-rule.

One thing I won’t be doing is voting or attempting to force my way on others; instead, I will follow the golden rule and treat others the way I want them to treat me. I do not want others to use government coercion and power to force me to do what I don’t desire or support what I would otherwise not, and even though they will continue to do that, from now on I choose to turn the other cheek and not repay evil for evil.

Isn't Libertarianism a political position. How does one realize a political position while not participating in politics? Wu wei?

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Isn't Libertarianism a political position. How does one realize a political position while not participating in politics? Wu wei?

That is what i am arguing, or trying to point out. That to implement libertanism on anyone who is not willing, is inconstant with libertarnism!

 

[public hermit]

That is what i am arguing, or trying to point out. That to implement libertanism on anyone who is not willing, is inconstant with libertarnism!

Okay, it can't be implemented by force, and that does make some intuitive sense. I don't know much about Libertarianism, really. Is the idea that non-political action can result in political change? (Hence my question about wu wei)

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Okay, it can't be implemented by force, and that does make some intuitive sense. I don't know much about Libertarianism, really. Is the idea that non-political action can result in political change? (Hence my question about wu wei)

No, the libertarian party seeks to implement lack of government control (liberty from control) against people will who desire either republican or democratic policy.

 

[public hermit]

No, the libertarian party seeks to implement lack of government control (liberty from control) against people will who desire either republican or democratic policy.

Not to be redundant, but how would that be implemented? Or is that your point? I mean, is Libertarianism a political position that can't be realized?

 

[Richard T]

I think you are missing the option of everyone getting the local law/government of their choice. This can be achieved without the tyranny of the majority.

Eveeyone is never achieved. There is some choice though as people sometimes do vote wirh their feet. Still, most cities and states operate similarily at the local level. That result is that most oeople are like sheep and follow the patterns. Federal and state mandates also dictate many policies like age fror drinking alcohol and minimum number school days as examples.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Not to be redundant, but how would that be implemented? Or is that your point? I mean, is Libertarianism a political position that can't be realized?

They seek to do so via voting!!

They attempt to win over voters intellectually.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Eveeyone is never achieved. There is some choice though as people sometimes do vote wirh their feet. Still, most cities and states operate similarily at the local level. That result is that most oeople are like sheep and follow the patterns. Federal and state mandates also dictate many policies like age fror drinking alcohol and minimum number school days as examples.

I agree in America this is so, but if you can move beyond our centralized authoritarian state, you will find it has been achieved by many.

 

[Richard T]

I agree in America this is so, but if you can move beyond our centralized authoritarian state, you will find it has been achieved by many.

single Westeen nation is not somwhat aurhoritarian that i am aware of.

Some dwveloping market economies might offer more freedom though. .

I agree in America this is so, but if you can move beyond our centralized authoritarian state, you will find it has been achieved by many.

Yes, but are any contemporary Western nations without aurhoritarianusm? I think you have to go back to early Ameeica. If you subtracted out slavery, and the lack of womens rights ir was freer in many aspects.

 

[Tolkien R.R.J]

Some dwveloping market economies might offer more freedom though. .

Yes, but are any contemporary Western nations without aurhoritarianusm? I think you have to go back to early Ameeica. If you subtracted out slavery, and the lack of womens rights ir was freer in many aspects.

Yes you would have to go back to before the Civil War to find self governance, but also tribal life and medieval Europe.

 

[Grafted In]

"You can't mix matter and antimatter, Captain"