• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Ye Olde Libertarian Pub

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nilloc

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2007
4,155
886
✟43,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Thus far I haven't found scriptural evidence for Christian forcing socialism on non-Christians. I ask it over and over again, and every time they point to Romans 13 and Matthew 21:21. Yes, that's an argument for paying taxes. Since we live in representative democracies that doesn't mean you should vote to force it on other people.
I agree. I only mentioned it because Wright is, as I said, probably a little socialist and the fact that I don't remember him ever using the Caesar passage (it's actually Matt. 22, not 21) to say it's morally wrong for Christians to not pay taxes. He does interpret it as Jesus telling the Jews to do it, but he says nothing of Christians. I imagine he would use Rom. 13 for paying taxes (can't remember), but not socialism.

As for myself, I currently don't pay income taxes because I work odd jobs for family members and am paid under the table. I don't feel the slightest twinge of guilt over it, nor do I when I speed (which isn't very often) or watch copyrighted material online (take that SOPA!).
 
Upvote 0

Gath

Newbie
Jan 20, 2012
159
6
United States
✟22,838.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Ok, I have a question for all fellow libertarians here:

What's your opinion on the idea that "You can't be free if you're dead" in order to justify government programs that provide necessities? (Food, water, healthcare (if you consider that a necessity)) Is it possible for such programs, assuming that their sole purpose is for the survival of all citizens, to be compatible with libertarianism?
 
Upvote 0

SmellsLikeCurlyFries

Social Capitalist
Jan 22, 2012
4,727
76
34
Chattanooga, Tennessee
✟5,424.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Democrat
Is it possible for such programs, assuming that their sole purpose is for the survival of all citizens, to be compatible with libertarianism?

I think so, but I've been told that's one area where I break company with my fellow libertarians. *shrug*
 
Upvote 0

MacFall

Agorist
Nov 24, 2007
12,726
1,171
Western Pennsylvania, USA
✟40,698.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It rests on a false assumption that government actually provides those things in a better manner than they would be otherwise provided in the absence of government. Volumes of consequentialist libertarian scholarship shows that this isn't the case: that in fact, the government providing those things through coercive means that are politically motivated and managed only ensures that resources that would, in a free society, produce more food, healthcare, and infrastructure only get consumed parasitically.

And also, I value freedom as a moral concept. I'm not going to dump my moral principles just because someone thinks they can show me that people's material well-being would be enhanced through means I see as being immoral. Although I know that's not very convincing to most people, so I have no problem with addressing the argument from effect.
 
Upvote 0

Nilloc

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2007
4,155
886
✟43,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Ok, I have a question for all fellow libertarians here:

What's your opinion on the idea that "You can't be free if you're dead" in order to justify government programs that provide necessities? (Food, water, healthcare (if you consider that a necessity)) Is it possible for such programs, assuming that their sole purpose is for the survival of all citizens, to be compatible with libertarianism?
The problem is that the way the government would get the money to fund such things. It would do so through taxation, which is theft. Theft is in oppostion to freedom. To say it's okay for the government to feed you to preserve freedom is itself a violation of freedom.
 
Upvote 0

MacFall

Agorist
Nov 24, 2007
12,726
1,171
Western Pennsylvania, USA
✟40,698.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I suppose that's a more direct answer to the question. Yeah, like NILLOC said it isn't strictly compatible with libertarianism, because libertarian ethics are methodologically individualist. There is no "greater good" that can excuse the violation of individual rights. One may come up with lots of reasons for such violations, but not one of them would make it excusable within the libertarian ethical paradigm.
 
Upvote 0

Gath

Newbie
Jan 20, 2012
159
6
United States
✟22,838.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
The problem is that the way the government would get the money to fund such things. It would do so through taxation, which is theft. Theft is in oppostion to freedom. To say it's okay for the government to feed you to preserve freedom is itself a violation of freedom.

That's true, but you're looking at two opposing rights here.

The right to live vs. the right to keep what you earned.

So (in my view at least) it seems that you must choose one of the two-I choose the first.

However, this also assumes that you view life as a positive right, meaning that society is obliged to let you live, against the idea of life as a negative right, meaning that others can't take it from you.

I view life as a positive right because I'd say it's wrong to let someone die simply because they're poor. That seems to lead to a 'you work or you die' mentality, which I associate with the Soviet Union under Stalin, not modern-day America.

Thoughts?
 
Upvote 0

Nilloc

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2007
4,155
886
✟43,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
So (in my view at least) it seems that you must choose one of the two-I choose the first.
I choose both. If right to life means you're allowed to force others to feed you, do property rights mean you can take others property? You have a right to life in that no one can take it from you (kill you). The only obligation that creates for others is to not kill you(if you can really call that an obligation). If they have to pay for your stuff, that creates an obligation on them to pay you, for no fault of their own.
I view life as a positive right because I'd say it's wrong to let someone die simply because they're poor.
That's assuming they would die if the state didn't steal for them.
That seems to lead to a 'you work or you die' mentality, which I associate with the Soviet Union under Stalin, not modern-day America.
So you prefer the 'pay us or die' mentality of the state?
 
Upvote 0

MacFall

Agorist
Nov 24, 2007
12,726
1,171
Western Pennsylvania, USA
✟40,698.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The right to life IS a property right, as it is an expression of the fact of self-ownership. You - your body, will, and faculties altogether - are your first and primary property. All other rights devolve from the fact of self-ownership, and if they conflict with it then they aren't really rights at all. By taking another's property by force in order to sustain your life, you are acting in violation of their self-ownership, which is a partial abridgement of THEIR right to life. This is impossible to justify, because your right to life cannot be superior to that of another human being.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zoink
Upvote 0

SmellsLikeCurlyFries

Social Capitalist
Jan 22, 2012
4,727
76
34
Chattanooga, Tennessee
✟5,424.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Democrat
It would do so through taxation, which is theft. Theft is in oppostion to freedom.

I kinda take a Thoreauian stance on taxes. I'll pay 'em, I don't like 'em, but if I find that my taxes are directly going to pay for something I don't support, I won't pay 'em.

Thoreau did that and survived.
 
Upvote 0

MacFall

Agorist
Nov 24, 2007
12,726
1,171
Western Pennsylvania, USA
✟40,698.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
True, but Thoreau lived in a day and age in which even the most ambitious politicians were only beginning to imagine a state having the scope and power of the one under which we live today. Successful tax resistance takes a lot more subterfuge than it used to. I mean, unless martyrdom falls within your definition of success.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SmellsLikeCurlyFries

Social Capitalist
Jan 22, 2012
4,727
76
34
Chattanooga, Tennessee
✟5,424.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Democrat
True, but Thoreau lived in a day and age in which even the most ambitious politicians were only beginning to imagine a state having the scope and power of the one under which we live today. Successful tax resistance takes a lot more subterfuge than it used to. I mean, unless you want to be a martyr.

Point well taken :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

Nilloc

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2007
4,155
886
✟43,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
The right to life IS a property right, as it is an expression of the fact of self-ownership. You - your body, will, and faculties altogether - are your first and primary property. All other rights devolve from the fact of self-ownership, and if they conflict with it then they aren't really rights at all. By taking another's property by force in order to sustain your life, you are acting in violation of their self-ownership, which is a partial abridgement of THEIR right to life. This is impossible to justify, because your right to life cannot be superior to that of another human being.
I think it was Rothbard in The Ethics of Liberty who said that we really only have one right--the right to property. Freedom then is doing whatever you like with your property without violent interference. I like the way Matthew 20:15 says it: "Is it not lawful for me to do what I wish with what is my own?"
 
Upvote 0

MacFall

Agorist
Nov 24, 2007
12,726
1,171
Western Pennsylvania, USA
✟40,698.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Yep. And I read something by a libertarian Christian early on in my conversion to the ideology that the non-aggression principle is just the universalization of that Biblical principle - the recognition that if you have the right to do what you want with what is yours, then everyone else has the right to do what they want with what is theirs. And if that includes not giving you any of it, then you can't justly take any of it.
 
Upvote 0

Gath

Newbie
Jan 20, 2012
159
6
United States
✟22,838.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I choose both. If right to life means you're allowed to force others to feed you, do property rights mean you can take others property? You have a right to life in that no one can take it from you (kill you). The only obligation that creates for others is to not kill you(if you can really call that an obligation). If they have to pay for your stuff, that creates an obligation on them to pay you, for no fault of their own.

Well, I'd liken in to the idea of national defense. Sure, it may require taxation in order for the US to defend itself (and I certainly don't think the military should be as large as it is now) but a military is necessary to protect the rights of the citizens. I'd say that providing food for those who would die without it is in the same category-bad, but necessary to protect the rights of citizens.

I also wouldn't say that taxation is necessarily theft-if you live in a society, you agree to play by the rules of that society. And if that society says that you're obliged to pay X% of your income a year...that's not theft, that's fulfilling a contractual obligation you made when you chose to live in that society.

That's assuming they would die if the state didn't steal for them.

Right, but that's what my situation assumed-any such programs would be in place to achieve one goal: The survival of the citizens. If they wouldn't die without government help, they don't get government help.

So you prefer the 'pay us or die' mentality of the state?

In situations where said payment is necessary to protect the rights of the citizens.
 
Upvote 0

MacFall

Agorist
Nov 24, 2007
12,726
1,171
Western Pennsylvania, USA
✟40,698.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The social contract argument doesn't hold a drop of water under a libertarian paradigm. But as this thread isn't really for debate, I'm not going to argue it here. I will, however, direct you to these resources which helped me reject the social contract chimera.

https://mises.org/journals/jls/1_3/1_3_3.pdf - A very well written critique of the Socratic origins of social contract theory as developed by Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and later by Rawls and Rand.

Anatomy of the State, by Murray N. Rothbard - Social contract theory is presented as a part of Rothbard's "anatomy of the state".

Also, reposting this since it hasn't been addressed yet:

The right to life IS a property right, as it is an expression of the fact of self-ownership. You - your body, will, and faculties altogether - are your first and primary property. All other rights devolve from the fact of self-ownership, and if they conflict with it then they aren't really rights at all. By taking another's property by force in order to sustain your life, you are acting in violation of their self-ownership, which is a partial abridgement of THEIR right to life. This is impossible to justify, because your right to life cannot be superior to that of another human being.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Nilloc

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2007
4,155
886
✟43,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Well, I'd liken in to the idea of national defense. Sure, it may require taxation in order for the US to defend itself (and I certainly don't think the military should be as large as it is now) but a military is necessary to protect the rights of the citizens. I'd say that providing food for those who would die without it is in the same category-bad, but necessary to protect the rights of citizens.
Forcing someone to pay for something against their will is a violation of their rights. And since the free market can easily provide protection and food, it's possible to protect the rights of people and feed and protect them at the same time.
I also wouldn't say that taxation is necessarily theft-if you live in a society, you agree to play by the rules of that society.
I never agreed to any of these rules. I'd rather be left alone.
And if that society says that you're obliged to pay X% of your income a year...that's not theft, that's fulfilling a contractual obligation you made when you chose to live in that society.
My property is my property, not society's. And society is all the individuals that make it up. The way you define society is whatever the 51% says, and as a member of the 49%, my rights are violated whenever the 51% decides something. So when the 51% said it was okay to enslave a black man, it was wrong. Just as it is when they tell me to pay for their crappy military service.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.