Ye Olde Libertarian Pub

[Motor City Christian]

For me, it all depends on the issue, which is why I don't define myself as a libertarian or Constitution party member. I guess I would describe myself as a "center-right libertarian", but I would never directly align with the Libertarian Party(a little too liberal on average for me) or the Constitution Party(part of it embraces theocracy). I vote purely based on the candidates, although I vote third party usually with the exception of local races.

 

[FreedByte]

Voluntaryism is a nice philosophy, but it seems idyllic and unrealistic. I spoke to a former friend who has had correspondence with the father of the doctrine; it was a very interesting debate. Another friend is a diehard voluntarism.

Living a Christian life means avoiding all sin, but this in itself is idealism, as it is impossible for sinful humankind. If Christian living includes idealism, why shouldn't Christian political views include idealism?

Being an independent, it all seems as if one can toss up whatever from the Bible they like so as to prop up their ideology. I trust no party, but the conservative branches of libertarian politic look to be promising.

I think there are only two legitimate political views that can be derived from the Bible: support for a monolithic superstate or opposition to government altogether. If you view the Bible as pro-state and advocating enforcing God's law through government, then you hold the view that government should be massive and intrusive in both personal and economic spheres. Any Christian who supports government involvement in one sphere but not the other (i.e. left-wing vs right-wing) is inconsistently enforcing God's law through government. If you don't view the Bible as pro-state, then you are some form of voluntaryist.

The original basis for my leanings were that there is not a political party found in he Bible, and not a party today which follows true with Christianity, and there were no parties intended by our founders, Washington most notably.

I strongly agree with this, as someone who is not a member of a political party.

 

[Cachook]

Living a Christian life means avoiding all sin, but this in itself is idealism, as it is impossible for sinful humankind. If Christian living includes idealism, why shouldn't Christian political views include idealism? You are in effect saying the Bible is errant and so is God, so why try to live for God by the exclusive faith in Christ and what He did at Calvary? You are literally defeating the point of salvation if you think that way.



I think there are only two legitimate political views that can be derived from the Bible: support for a monolithic superstate or opposition to government altogether. If you view the Bible as pro-state and advocating enforcing God's law through government, then you hold the view that government should be massive and intrusive in both personal and economic spheres. Any Christian who supports government involvement in one sphere but not the other (i.e. left-wing vs right-wing) is inconsistently enforcing God's law through government. If you don't view the Bible as prostate, then you are some form of voluntaryist. How do you explain God founding the nation of Israel, and allowing and controlling the whole earth, and all its nations?
Your statement is misleading, as the law is dead to those under the "Spirit of life through Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit", as Romans 8 says. We are under grace by faith, as Ephesians 2 explains. Your argument is flawed as it only considers one aspect, and is based from assumptions. This is not meant as a harsh rebuke, but a simple critique.



I strongly agree with this, as someone who is not a member of a political party.

Some thoughts are that your view is based and limited. The nation of Israel were never possessors or victims of a dual-party system; the idea is not recorded in the holy scriptures. The idea of a dualist system is not biblical, as it literally, one might say, forces one to choose between the lesser of two evils.

 

[FreedByte]

You are in effect saying the Bible is errant and so is God, so why try to live for God by the exclusive faith in Christ and what He did at Calvary? You are literally defeating the point of salvation if you think that way.

The Bible is not errant and neither is God. When did I ever say that?

What I said was that the goal of a Christian's life should be sinlessness, living for God by the exclusive faith in Christ, the opposite of what you just claimed that I said.

How do you explain God founding the nation of Israel, and allowing and controlling the whole earth, and all its nations?

God directly ruled the nation of Israel; He is not giving commands to our secular governments, so it is not the same.

Your statement is misleading, as the law is dead to those under the "Spirit of life through Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit", as Romans 8 says. We are under grace by faith, as Ephesians 2 explains. Your argument is flawed as it only considers one aspect, and is based from assumptions. This is not meant as a harsh rebuke, but a simple critique.

I honestly have no idea what point of mine you are countering here, sorry

Some thoughts are that your view is based and limited. The nation of Israel were never possessors or victims of a dual-party system; the idea is not recorded in the holy scriptures. The idea of a dualist system is not biblical, as it literally, one might say, forces one to choose between the lesser of two evils.

Sorry, you misunderstood me. I was not clear enough. I was not advocating a dualist system, I was simply saying that any Christian who advocates for something other than those two views is being inconsistent because they are advocating enforcement of only some of God's law through government, rather than all or none of it.

 

[Cachook]

Some thoughts are that your view is based and limited. The nation of Israel were never possessors or victims of a dual-party system; the idea is not recorded in the holy scriptures. The idea of a dualist system is not biblical, as it literally, one might say, forces one to choose between the lesser of two evils.

Sorry, you misunderstood me. I was not clear enough. I was not advocating a dualist system, I was simply saying that any Christian who advocates for something other than those two views is being inconsistent because they are advocating enforcement of only some of God's law through government, rather than all or none of it.

You misunderstand me. I never said you advocate a dualist system. God endowed unto man His statues, and government is a tool He uses, but is not the final author and word or enforcer of said statues, but pointed out major flaws in your arguments and views.

 

[FreedByte]

You misunderstand me. I never said you advocate a dualist system. God endowed unto man His statues, and government is a tool He uses, but is not the final author and word or enforcer of said statues, but pointed out major flaws in your arguments and views.

Then why were you criticizing a dualist system if I wasn't advocating for it?

Also, check the edit to my post. I initially didn't see that you accidentally quoted part of your response, but then I did and I edited my post to respond to your other points.

 

[Cachook]

The Bible is not errant and neither is God. When did I ever say that? Check your first post on this post.

What I said was that the goal of a Christian's life should be sinlessness, living for God by the exclusive faith in Christ, the opposite of what you just claimed that I said. See above



God directly ruled the nation of Israel; He is not giving commands to our secular governments, so it is not the same.
If you read this nation's founder's statements, it was not established secularly, but with the idea of a mechanism to keep the church from state affairs while keeping the state from making the church bend and play God.


I honestly have no idea what point of mine you are countering here, sorry



Sorry, you misunderstood me. I was not clear enough. I was not advocating a dualist system, I was simply saying that any Christian who advocates for something other than those two views is being inconsistent because they are advocating enforcement of only some of God's law through government, rather than all or none of it.

Now confused in the slight bit, but perhaps this addresses your questions.

 

[FreedByte]

Check your first post on this post.

My point was that I don't know what part of my post to "check", can you quote it please?

If you read this nation's founder's statements, it was not established secularly, but with the idea of a mechanism to keep the church from state affairs while keeping the state from making the church bend and play God.

Regardless, God is not giving commandments to our modern governments like He did to Israel.

Now confused in the slight bit, but perhaps this addresses your questions.

I think we successfully confused each other

 

[Cachook]

My point was that I don't know what part of my post to "check", can you quote it please?



Regardless, God is not giving commandments to our modern governments like He did to Israel.



I think we successfully confused each other

Well, that's all, folks!
We could try again, but let's move to PM so as not to clutter the thread.

 

[FreedByte]

Well, that's all, folks!
We could try again, but let's move to PM so as not to clutter the thread.

If you want to try again in PM, that's fine by me!

I'm glad we can laugh and joke around even if we have disagreements; sometimes disagreements can really separate people.

 

[Cachook]

If you want to try again in PM, that's fine by me!

I'm glad we can laugh and joke around even if we have disagreements; sometimes disagreements can really separate people.

Fire away.

 

[Nilloc]

This is one of my favorite libertarian sources ever—I highly recommend it. Like Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand, Roderick Long develops libertarian natural rights from the praxeological foundations of Aristotelian eudaimonistic virtue ethics, as opposed to deontology (e.g. Hans-Herman Hoppe and Stefan Molyneux) or utilitarianism (e.g. Ludwig von Mises or Frederich Hayek).

The audio files:

Foundations of Libertarian Ethics - Mises Audio/Video

Or the YouTube videos:

Foundations of Libertarian Ethics, Lecture 1: Objective and Subjective Value | Roderick T. Long - YouTube

And here’s a helpful handout that outlines the series:

Accompanying handouts

 

[Cachook]

Miltion Freeman and Sowell are great, but it does raise a question: what are the libertarian schools of thought on economics?

 

[FreedByte]

Miltion Freeman and Sowell are great, but it does raise a question: what are the libertarian schools of thought on economics?

Austrian School and Chicago School are the two primary schools, I believe.

 

[Nilloc]

Austrian School and Chicago School are the two primary schools, I believe.

Yep. This is a great resource (full of free materials) for learning about Austrian economics: Learn Austrian Economics | Liberty Classroom

 

[FreedByte]

Yep. This is a great resource (full of free materials) for learning about Austrian economics: Learn Austrian Economics | Liberty Classroom

 

[Cachook]

I wish we could have an election with no parties, as we did in the first term of Washington.

 

[Calvinist Dark Lord]

I wish we could have an election with no parties, as we did in the first term of Washington.

i really don't want to see an election without parties --at least for the moment.

Don't get me wrong, i despise the so-called majour parties. (Or more accurately, the two wings of the same party). Still, i don't have to do much research to find out what a candidate will do if say the 'GOP Elite' support him or her. i already know what that person will do.

Until the electorate becomes better informed, political parties will serve a useful purpose.

 

[Motor City Christian]

I want to see an election without parties; maybe then people would finally do their homework instead of blindly voting for donkeys and elephants! Seriously, every voter should spend an hour not watching debates or listening to soundbites but look at where these candidates get their money. Where do they stand on YOUR important issues? What is their voting record? These are not hard, but it's easier to turn on the TV and let FoxNews and MSNBC tell you what THEY think is important.

 

[childofGod1]

I want to see an election without parties; maybe then people would finally do their homework instead of blindly voting for donkeys and elephants! Seriously, every voter should spend an hour not watching debates or listening to soundbites but look at where these candidates get their money. Where do they stand on YOUR important issues? What is their voting record? These are not hard, but it's easier to turn on the TV and let FoxNews and MSNBC tell you what THEY think is important.

It can be hard to find that information... one of the most frustrating things I have ever dealt with politically is trying to get straight answers from ANYONE...