Ye Olde Libertarian Pub

[Sean611]

Hello friends! Card-carrying Libertarian here and Christian in the Anglican tradition.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

My usual reply to that comment is to thank them for conceding that the Keynesian economic model is immoral.

That's the only argument one need make, really. Thou Shall Not Steal is a Sine Qua Non of any society. It is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the existence of that society.

i know of no society that continued to exist after stealing from it's citizens. It appears that the government of Zimbabwe will soon deteriorate, and that's the only example i can think of at the moment.

I agree that it's immoral... but that won't get you very far in peer-reviewed journals of economics.

 

[Nilloc]

Hello friends! Card-carrying Libertarian here and Christian in the Anglican tradition.

Welcome!

I very much admire the Anglican tradition. My favorite modern scholar and theologian is N.T. Wright.

 

[Nilloc]

That's the only argument one need make, really. Thou Shall Not Steal is a Sine Qua Non of any society. It is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the existence of that society.

Unfortunately, I don't think that will convince most people, since the most famous book that contains that command also has Matt. 22:21 and Rom. 13. Not that I think that justifies Keynesianism, but many people think those verses do.

 

[Sean611]

Unfortunately, I don't think that will convince most people, since the most famous book that contains that command also has Matt. 22:21 and Rom. 13. Not that I think that justifies Keynesianism, but many people think those verses do.

Indeed, many people think that this justifies Keynesianism. I don't think that it does and many libertarian Christians have done a good job shedding light on those passages.

However, Jesus or any other New Testament writer never said how much should be taxed or who should pay these taxes. Libertarians follow the law and pay their taxes, however, we also advocate that most taxation is theft. For example, I don't see how something like the "Fair tax" violates Biblical standards?

Also, I just don't see how me being forced to pay high taxes for wars, failed social programs, and other wasteful spending is Christian "charity." Jesus never said that paying your taxes or redistributing wealth is Christian charity either. Jesus also never said that the government should be in charge of providing these programs and "charity" to those that truly need it.

Libertarians tend to be a very giving group of people and most are involved in various private and church based charities. To me, the type of charity Jesus and Paul talks about is freely giving your time and money to those who are disadvantaged. As libertarians, most of us are irrate at the tax code and how our tax money is being spent.

 

[Nilloc]

Libertarians follow the law and pay their taxes, however, we also advocate that most taxation is theft. For example, I don't see how something like the "Fair tax" violates Biblical standards?

I view all taxation, even the Fair tax, as theft. This however doesn't violate any specific biblical standard, as my view is a philosophical conclusion based on reason, rather than a theological one based on scripture.

 

[Sean611]

I view all taxation, even the Fair tax, as theft. This however doesn't violate any specific biblical standard, as my view is a philosophical conclusion based on reason, rather than a theological one based on scripture.

I'm with you all the way on taxation being theft. What i'm trying to say is that libertarians pay their taxes and follow the law.The Bible never says that government has to tax its citizens. Therefore, if there were no taxes, this would not be violating any biblical standards that I know of. Some Christians believe that paying your taxes is somehow tied to charity and fulfilling one's duties of providing assistance to the poor.

 

[drjean]

Even things that aren't presented as a tax, but used as a tax, are theft imo. (I.E. health care individual mandate.)

I went to vote today... early... no way! Line was 200 people long. This is my last election I'm voting in as one of the parties. In FL if you are registered as an Independent or anything other than Dem or Rep, you don't get to vote in the primaries. I'm willing to give that up after this.

 

[Nilloc]

I'm with you all the way on taxation being theft. What i'm trying to say is that libertarians pay their taxes and follow the law. The Bible never says that government has to tax its citizens. Therefore, if there were no taxes, this would not be violating any biblical standards that I know of.

I'm sure there are libertarians that practice civil disobedience and don't pay taxes, such as Peter Schiff's father. There are also agorists who avoid paying taxes when they can. MacFall is an agorist. Since I'm currently unemployed and work odd jobs where I'm paid under the table, I guess I inadvertently practice agorism. I don't take what Paul says in Rom. 13 as being an absolute commandment, nor do I think he'd care if Christians avoided taxes if they could get away with it. His concern is preventing rebellion that would undoubtedly lead to the end of the church by the empire. Going beyond that to say I'm sinning if I don't report I got paid to clean someone's house is not in view, IMO.

 

[Sean611]

I don't take what Paul says in Rom. 13 as being an absolute commandment, nor do I think he'd care if Christians avoided taxes if they could get away with it. His concern is preventing rebellion that would undoubtedly lead to the end of the church by the empire. Going beyond that to say I'm sinning if I don't report I got paid to clean someone's house is not in view, IMO.

Well said and I agree with your interpretation of Romans 13.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

I agree that it's immoral... but that won't get you very far in peer-reviewed journals of economics.

That's as may be. However, being that i'm an engineer, and not an economist, that would probably be a good decision on that reason alone.

However, i seem to recall praise for aspects of Marxist systems in such journals, as well as rejection of von Mises' thinking, so i'm in good company.

Fortunately, due to the work that i perform, i have to deal with the real world, where the solutions are not subject to one's political opinions. Mathematics, physics and electronics really don't care about your political opinions. Unfortunately for lots of peer reviewed economists, the real world doesn't care about their theories either, and i predict a rude awakening on the horizon. The situation in Iceland comes to mind...

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Unfortunately, I don't think that will convince most people, since the most famous book that contains that command also has Matt. 22:21 and Rom. 13. Not that I think that justifies Keynesianism, but many people think those verses do.

It will matter when those people are called to account for their theft by the people they've exploited.

Let us hope that more mercy is shown this time than is typical of such situations.

 

[MacFall]

It will matter when those people are called to account for their theft by the people they've exploited.

Let us hope that more mercy is shown this time than is typical of such situations.

Amen to that. Let's not continue the cycle of slaves taking the places of masters. Let's have an end to slavery altogether.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Even things that aren't presented as a tax, but used as a tax, are theft imo. (I.E. health care individual mandate.)

I went to vote today... early... no way! Line was 200 people long. This is my last election I'm voting in as one of the parties. In FL if you are registered as an Independent or anything other than Dem or Rep, you don't get to vote in the primaries. I'm willing to give that up after this.

That process, particularly on the Republican Party side this year was more than a bit "instructive". It certainly demonstrated to me that i was correct in becoming a Libertarian almost 30 years ago. Any organisation that violates it's own rules to achieve the will of the party elite is something that needs to go the way of the Whig party.

i was expecting several state organisations who had their delegates removed at the Republican National Convention --for no good reason that anyone can determine-- to pull that party's candidate off the ballot in their states. Perhaps it didn't occur to them.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

Amen to that. Let's not continue the cycle of slaves taking the places of masters. Let's have an end to slavery altogether.

Much as i liked The Who song We Don't Get Fooled Again, the concept of both:

1. They decide and the shotgun sings the song.
2. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Are rather disturbing to me.

 

[zoink]

I'm curious about something my fine libertarian compadres. Can you convey your understanding of terms like "justice" and "reasonableness"?

Hint: I believe it to be a trick question.

I ask because one of my interlocutors claims that the things I advocate for (E.G. Polycentric law) are not just. They won't tell me how to determine when something is reasonable or just and when something is not.

And also if you want something to listen I think lengthyounarther consistently makes great points. (warning he might curse)

Is your Bosss Coercing You? - YouTube

It was rather amusing seeing the democrat sticky get locked.

 

[MacFall]

I agree with Voltaire that "justice consists entirely in the payment of debts", at least so far as secular political ethics is concerned. But that does not answer the question of how debts are obtained. There is logic in the opposition to unchosen positive obligation, of which most libertarians are certainly aware, but that won't help a libertarian in dealing with someone who considers justice a priori to entail an egalitarian or particular moral outcome. Once someone has embraced either the Utopia of egalitarianism or the illogic of considering justice and morality to be equal to each other (rather than justice being a category of morality), logic isn't going to convince them.

To me, "reasonableness" is mostly about reciprocity. A reasonable person does not ask for anything that he would not be willing to provide himself for another, nor does he make demands for the sake of his own goals (whether they be economic, social, moral, or personal) that would inhibit the fulfillment of the goals of others.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

That's as may be. However, being that i'm an engineer, and not an economist, that would probably be a good decision on that reason alone.

However, i seem to recall praise for aspects of Marxist systems in such journals, as well as rejection of von Mises' thinking, so i'm in good company.

Fortunately, due to the work that i perform, i have to deal with the real world, where the solutions are not subject to one's political opinions. Mathematics, physics and electronics really don't care about your political opinions. Unfortunately for lots of peer reviewed economists, the real world doesn't care about their theories either, and i predict a rude awakening on the horizon. The situation in Iceland comes to mind...

As I've already posted, there's a pretty long list of free market Nobel laureates. Because not all of academia in "the dismal science" is controlled by the lefties, though you're right that large sections of it are.

The reason why focusing on morality in economics won't get you far isn't politics. It's because it's philosophy, not economics. And if, as an economist, you devote too much attention to it, the capitalist-loving economists would jump on you just as hard as the socialists... and rightly so, for doing philosophy instead of economics.

 

[zoink]

I agree with Voltaire that "justice consists entirely in the payment of debts", at least so far as secular political ethics is concerned. But that does not answer the question of how debts are obtained. There is logic in the opposition to unchosen positive obligation, of which most libertarians are certainly aware, but that won't help a libertarian in dealing with someone who considers justice a priori to entail an egalitarian or particular moral outcome. Once someone has embraced either the Utopia of egalitarianism or the illogic of considering justice and morality to be equal to each other (rather than justice being a category of morality), logic isn't going to convince them.

To me, "reasonableness" is mostly about reciprocity. A reasonable person does not ask for anything that he would not be willing to provide himself for another, nor does he make demands for the sake of his own goals (whether they be economic, social, moral, or personal) that would inhibit the fulfillment of the goals of others.

I was unaware of that sentiment from Voltaire. That makes a lot of sense, and would work quite well in the majority of cases. Simply restore physical damage. How ell do you think that works though with the subjectivity of value?

My main thought on subjects like justice or reasonableness is that there are extremely different understandings depending on the person. I think this renders the terms practically useless in a discussion unless they are thoroughly defined. I have yet to encounter a statist that can do it.

The subjectivity of such terms is why I advocate polycentric law. At the same time I think the NAP is the most objective, consistent, and predictable basis for political philosophy I have come across.

 

[MacFall]

How ell do you think that works though with the subjectivity of value?

Not very well, which is the point of third-party adjudication. Once damage has occurred, there's never going to be total satisfaction on the part of either party; so the subjective value appraisal of someone who isn't involved in the dispute is substituted in an attempt to provide something like a zero-sum outcome. Of course, that third party isn't literally saying "this is what I think it's worth to you, the victim"; he's saying "this is what I am willing to enforce on your behalf".

The subjectivity of such terms is why I advocate polycentric law.

It's certainly one reason why I do, as well.