• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Ye Olde Libertarian Pub (2)

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by Sojourner1, Feb 17, 2015.

  1. Sojourner1

    Sojourner1 CF Advisory Team, Policy Manager Staff Member Site Advisor Supporter

    +3,504
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
    The old thread automatically closed is here: "Ye Olde Libertarian Pub"
     
  2. Tallguy88

    Tallguy88 We shall see the King when he comes! Staff Member Administrator Supporter

    +7,532
    United States
    Catholic
    Single
    I'll stick this and unstick the old one.
     
  3. FreedByte

    FreedByte .

    +78
    Humanist
    Private
  4. Calvinist Dark Lord

    Calvinist Dark Lord Regular Member

    +454
    Presbyterian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Just marking the ground so i can get here again if i need to.
     
  5. Calvinist Dark Lord

    Calvinist Dark Lord Regular Member

    +454
    Presbyterian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Actually i am more curious as to why you would think that this:
    Is a definition placed by the US Government when it is not in any official US Government Document, but rather a statement of the Declaration of Independence which is not an Official US Government document since there was no US government at the time of this document's creation. You will also note that the United States are referred to in the plural.

    Care to explain that?

    i believe that you owe Pengwyn an apology for your error.
     
  6. FreedByte

    FreedByte .

    +78
    Humanist
    Private
    Ah, I meant to say "Founders", not US government. Either way my statement holds, I was just pointing out that it's arbitrary.

    Despite believing that it's arbitrary, I still think that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is a good motto to follow. I was trying to encourage critical inquiry by asking probing questions into the philosophical ramifications of the concept, and I think I may have come across as oppositional as a result.
     
  7. FaithfulPilgrim

    FaithfulPilgrim Eternally Seeking

    425
    +104
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    US-Libertarian
    I identify as a social conservative, but I have found a new respect for libertarians.

    Where does one draw the line between libertarianism and conservatism?

    I am against abortions, but support the death penalty. I know it sounds hypocritical, so I sum it up as this: I support the right of life for the innocent and the defenseless. I also believe the abortions violate the non-aggression principle. The murderer has violated this and is therefore a threat that must be purged from society.

    I support cracking down on illegal immigrants because they take our jobs. I have nothing against immigrants if they come legally. After all, America was built by immigrants. If they come here legally, then I feel they deserve to be treated just like any other American, no less.

    Economically, I adhere to a monetarist policy. I am a capitalist and support free trade, but I strongly oppose debt, borrowing, and the credit industry. The only regulations that should exist should be for the health and safety of workers and prevent monopolies, otherwise businesses can do what they want.

    I am neutral regarding same sex marriage. I oppose it religiously, but I am politically neutral on it. I do recall the Founding Fathers opposing homosexuality. Jefferson said something about a society created for moral people. Washington fired two soldiers for having a homosexual relationship. Despite this, I consider the founding fathers to be the first libertarians in America.

    Could I be a libertarian?
     
  8. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +13,846
    Anglican
    Married
    Probably.

    While there are those Libertarians who'd oppose you on some of what you've said, there are those other Libertarians who would be very much in step with you on every point. The party is made up of a large number of factions, so there's no reason that I can see why you should feel reluctant. When you turn to the Conservative alternative, you'd be comfortable with them on most everything you wrote except perhaps for your receptiveness towards same sex marriage.

    The deciding issue, therefore, might be that there's a Libertarian Party (as well as libertarian organizations), but there isn't a national Conservative Party. There is the Constitution Party, but it's so small and not organized in most states. Almost all social conservatives instead work through the Republican Party, and it houses many "Establishment" types which are in control in most places and would oppose almost all that you said you favor. So, would you want to walk into that kind of a situation? Some are eager to do battle for the soul of the party, but other people are sick of doing that.
     
  9. FaithfulPilgrim

    FaithfulPilgrim Eternally Seeking

    425
    +104
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    US-Libertarian
    I do oppose homosexuality when it comes to religion, but I am undecided about how I feel about it politically.

    The Constitution Party is a bit too religious and theocratic, though I am sure it is the same as the LP with factions.

    I think I will remain an independent since I see both major parties as corrupt. I hardly agree with Democrats on anything and I feel the G.O.P. is inefficient, has terrible leadership, and gives in to the Democrats to easily. Still I would prefer them over Dems anyday.

    I think I will remain an independent.
     
  10. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +13,846
    Anglican
    Married
    I understand completely, but I'm just thinking that this perspective would work best for you as a Libertarian rather than as a Republican.

    I agree with that assessment of the Constitution Party (too religious) but no, I don't think it's the same with the Libertarian Party. It is the same in the sense of there being factions, but although many of its members and leaders are practicing Christians, I don't think there's anything like a religious wing or faction. Those people view things the way you have described your own thinking about gay issues--a personal, moral view that opposes but no desire to impose it through legislation upon those who disagree.

    I'd guess that this POV resonates with only about a hundred million other Americans. ;)

    Well, keep an eye on things. Being an independent is fine but, of course, it also limits your influence in the political arena, and that's unfortunate. Maybe you can find a political action organization to work in which isn't directly affiliated with one party or the other.
     
  11. TheApostleJohn

    TheApostleJohn Newbie

    610
    +102
    Christian
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    I personally am against both the death penalty and abortion, but I don't see them as related issues where someone could be a "hypocrite" in regards to their position on them. Libertarians are generally split on the abortion issue, but generally no one will catch too much heat on that no matter what your view is. The death penalty might be one that would get you in a little more "trouble" with some libertarians.

    Immigration is another issue where libertarians are split, with the rule of law and liberty being separate convictions that sometimes conflict. I think most libertarians would say that we should enforce whatever immigration laws we have, but that they should be more permissive/liberal than the ones we have right now.

    The Constitution Party is full of neo-confederates and is actually the organizational successor of George Wallace's racist, pro segregation "American Independent Party". Not the case with Libertarians.
     
  12. FaithfulPilgrim

    FaithfulPilgrim Eternally Seeking

    425
    +104
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    US-Libertarian
    Thanks for your input! I guess I am going through a phase of political confusion.

    I do support capitalism, but mainly because it seems to be the only thing working right now, and many so- called socialist states seem more fascist to me.

    I have heard the Constitution Party were neo-Confederates, but I thought it was nothing more than a deregotory term. The Party seems like Southern Democrats except I did not detect any racism.
     
  13. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +13,846
    Anglican
    Married
    .
    It's probably best called an exaggeration. And no, racism, is not a characteristic, nor is it accurate to call the CP the successor to George Wallace's party.
     
  14. Calvinist Dark Lord

    Calvinist Dark Lord Regular Member

    +454
    Presbyterian
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    In the region of the nation that i live in, the Constitution Party is actually strong amongst Traditionalist Catholics. In fact, one of their candidates for PA governor was a Trad Catholic woman from Johnstown PA who polled 13% of the vote against a popular incumbant Republican Governor. It was one of the highest ever showings by a third party candidate.
     
  15. TheApostleJohn

    TheApostleJohn Newbie

    610
    +102
    Christian
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    Well I know one of their recent presidential nominees said that the South should have won the Civil War, and they absorbed what was left of Wallace's party when they were founded.
     
  16. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +13,846
    Anglican
    Married
    I don't know about the remark you refer to, but one man does not a membership describe. And the other is simply not true.

    Some of Wallace's party may and probably did gravitate in that direction, because it was by nature committed to a third party course of action; but much of it did not, and in many states, the CP came from older movements or other third parties. And of course we must also admit that Wallace was over a half century ago and very few of his supporters are still on the political scene anywhere.
     
  17. Eudaimonist

    Eudaimonist I believe in life before death!

    +2,503
    Atheist
    Private
    US-Libertarian
    I could count as a libertarian, and was a member of the Libertarian Party for many years. (I had left the LP only because I had moved to Sweden.)

    The term classical liberal could work as well, though the term Aristotelian liberal is perhaps better, since I am not a liberal for quite the same reasons articulated by the founders of classical liberalism. I have a more Aristotelian foundation. (Even though, ironically, Aristotle wasn't a liberal himself.)

    As I see it, a liberal order preserves the personal liberty we need to live rationally self-directed lives, which is a necessary precondition of personal flourishing.


    eudaimonia,

    Mark
     
  18. Albion

    Albion Facilitator

    +13,846
    Anglican
    Married
    From all that I've witnessed, that's what the average Libertarian believes. It's only a few who imagine that complete anarchy is compatible with individual freedom.
     
  19. Haloman800

    Haloman800 Newbie

    80
    +6
    Christian
    Anyone /minarchist/ here? I also sympathize with anarchists.
     
  20. Eudaimonist

    Eudaimonist I believe in life before death!

    +2,503
    Atheist
    Private
    US-Libertarian
    Yes, I'm a well-considered minarchist. My political ideal is something close to a nightwatchman state.

    I had considered the market anarchy option for many years, and I was largely sympathetic to the idea, though I was never 100% convinced that it would work as advertised. Still, I would not object to market anarchists attempting their own social experiment in the Pacific Ocean somewhere, perhaps on a floating island.

    I'm a minarchist because:

    1) I never agreed with the anarchistic contention that the non-aggression principle means that government's "monopoly" on law is automatically an aggression on others, instead of a defensive use of force. IMV, this arguments rests on the fuzziness of the NAP when taken out of a deeper philosophical context.
    2) An entrepreneurial legal system is a constant threat to libertarian legal arrangements. Centers of law in a polycentric system do not act in isolation from one another. There are going to be demands for compromises from other centers of law that won't be libertarian.
    3) Government territories tend to minimize border contact with other government territories. A market anarchy could lead to an unsupportable amount of border contact (your neighbors could belong to several others legal service providers), leading to greater problems. Yes, the market might lead towards larger intentional communities to limit the problem, but then why not have governments?
    4) David Friedman admits that a market anarchy won't necessarily be libertarian. He only suggests that economic incentives might work in a libertarian direction better than government. Still, given how force is involved, it is not entirely clear that it would work as he imagines.
    5) While one might argue, Bruce Benson style, that private security agencies provide the "product" of safety, they rely on physical force and legal arrangements to accomplish this. One should be careful not to confuse a product produced in a free market (e.g., "widgets") with a legal service backed by force.

    I personally believe that a "monopoly" on law is a valuable thing. It allows for a consistent set of procedures in investigating crimes and safeguards for victims and the accused. It places the focus on a widely known and understood Constitution that spells out a theory of individual rights. It also has historical experience and backing -- despite the Icelandic Commonwealth (which I personally wouldn't want to live in anyway), there is very little we can learn from history about the workability of a modern market anarchy.

    I recommend the book Total Freedom by Chris Sciabarra for an interesting look at Rothbard and market anarchy from a philosophical perspective. He raises many interesting questions and issues.


    eudaimonia,

    Mark
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2015
Loading...