[quote]apbt55 wrote:
Seriously why focus on individual liberty at a time when it is being trounced on, that is basically what you just said.
[/quote]
Not what I just said no.
Well here’s where you show your ignorance. The founding fathers were NOT libertarians - they were NOT utopianists - they were conservatives of the classical liberal school. They utterly rejected utopianism.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This country was founded on what amounted to Christian libertarianism.
[/quote]
Christianity/classical liberalism. Not libertarianism.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Well here’s where you show your ignorance. The founding fathers were NOT libertarians - they were NOT utopianists - they were conservatives of the classical liberal school. They utterly rejected utopianism.[/quote]
Your point?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This country was founded on what amounted to Christian libertarianism.
[/quote]
Christianity/classical liberalism. Not libertarianism.
[/quote]
The difference being what?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This country was founded on what amounted to Christian libertarianism.
[/quote]
Christianity/classical liberalism. Not libertarianism.
[/quote]
The difference being what?[/quote]
Classical liberalism = small government
Libertarianism = no government utopianism.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This country was founded on what amounted to Christian libertarianism.
[/quote]
Christianity/classical liberalism. Not libertarianism.
[/quote]
The difference being what?[/quote]
Classical liberalism = small government
Libertarianism = no government utopianism.[/quote]
Your terms are confused.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This country was founded on what amounted to Christian libertarianism.
[/quote]
Christianity/classical liberalism. Not libertarianism.
[/quote]
The difference being what?[/quote]
Classical liberalism = small government
Libertarianism = no government utopianism.[/quote]
So on a practical level no difference at all?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This country was founded on what amounted to Christian libertarianism.
[/quote]
Christianity/classical liberalism. Not libertarianism.
[/quote]
The difference being what?[/quote]
Classical liberalism = small government
Libertarianism = no government utopianism.[/quote]
So on a practical level no difference at all?[/quote]
What planet are you on today orion? It’s all the difference in the world. The difference between having a small government that protects life, property and liberty and having NO government based on bullshit utopianism. The founding fathers were NOT anarchists. Libertarianism is not compatible with the constitution, the articles or any of the state constitutions.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
He may have had a religious upbringing, but it sure wasn’t Christian if this is the result. Christians are commanded to voluntarily and privately give to the poor and needy. Themselves and THROUGH THE CHURCH AS THE CHURCH sees fit in the community. Nowhere EVER even once is it suggested that the saints are to send money to Rome to care for the poor. Finances to the body of Christ are a sacred blessing to be used in service to God in accordance with His Word. Not at the behest of God hating pagan politicians.
In the OT the state was the church in Israel. A theocratic arrangement no longer existing. Jesus Himself told Pilate under interrogation that His kingdom was not of this world.[/quote]
It not only admonishes one to be generous with those not as fortunate it also says give unto Cesar what is his. No where does it say to piss and moan about it or to demagogue the situation[/quote]I will correct you when I get a chance.
Fair enough to sexmachine. The point is, big freedom possible because of big private convictions shared in the society on the whole. Yes
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
epistemology is the ground upon which all other discussion must take place.
[/quote]
So then I ask you: how do you know?
Is it even scientifically or logically verifiable?[/quote]Epistemology by definition is non verifiable and EVREEBUDDY has one of two. I have been over this one thousand times Lifty, but for you? I will do it again, but not in this thread. Look at my posts (re-posts actually even there) here. http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/we_need_another_christianity_thread?id=4946977&pageNo=6 You will instantly disagree which is fine. You are one guy I would love to have this dialog with. Not because I think you’re a bonehead that I would push around nor because I think you’re an especially evil guy. Not at all, but because you’re … well… Lifty. =]
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
This country was founded on what amounted to Christian libertarianism.
[/quote]
Christianity/classical liberalism. Not libertarianism.
[/quote]
The difference being what?[/quote]
Classical liberalism = small government
Libertarianism = no government utopianism.[/quote]
So on a practical level no difference at all?[/quote]
What planet are you on today orion? It’s all the difference in the world. The difference between having a small government that protects life, property and liberty and having NO government based on bullshit utopianism. The founding fathers were NOT anarchists. Libertarianism is not compatible with the constitution, the articles or any of the state constitutions.[/quote]
First of all, there is a difference between anarchists and libertarians, hence the two different designations and second, you stated quite clearly that libertarianism= no government utopianism.
[quote]orion wrote:
First of all, there is a difference between anarchists and libertarians, hence the two different designations and second, you stated quite clearly that libertarianism= no government utopianism.[/quote]
There are differences between people who call themselves libertarians also. Not all libertarians advocate the destruction of the state - but then that goes back to my original question of how it differs from classical liberalism in terms of liberty.
It is true however that most libertarians are ‘anarchists’ in the sense that they advocate the destruction of the state. The fact that they are also free market advocates and Austrian school economists doesn’t change that basic fact.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
First of all, there is a difference between anarchists and libertarians, hence the two different designations and second, you stated quite clearly that libertarianism= no government utopianism.[/quote]
There are differences between people who call themselves libertarians also. Not all libertarians advocate the destruction of the state - but then that goes back to my original question of how it differs from classical liberalism in terms of liberty.
It is true however that most libertarians are ‘anarchists’ in the sense that they advocate the destruction of the state. The fact that they are also free market advocates and Austrian school economists doesn’t change that basic fact.[/quote]
That is a “fact”?
I believe that term does not mean what you think it means…
Fact = something that is true. I say most libertarians advocate the destruction of the state - something completely incompatible with the founding fathers and constitutionalism for obvious reasons.
There are different types of Libertarianism.
Mises = “mini-anarchist” or classical liberal.
Rothbard = “anarcho-capitalist” ( no state )
It’s important to note that Rothbard adamantly denied anarcho-capitalism as being utopian. I suppose though that we would first need to define “utopian”.
Is a system “utopian” simple on the grounds that it has yet to actually exist and makes claim to better organization or is “utopian” defined as a system that promises to be “perfect” or at least near perfect? If the former than yes, Rothbard’s anarchism is utopian. If the latter then no, it’s not.
Rothbard never claimed that the problems of society would disappear or even near disappear, only that they would be minimized. Hence his work on private courts, police, etc.
Does it matter? A secular society of broken families, materialists, and anchorless pleasure seekers isn’t voluntarily turning to libertarianism of any form. Social liberalism? Sure. Economic liberalism? Hell no. “Someone has to pay for my diabetes.” “Someone needs to pay for my birth control/abortion.” Someone has to take take care of all those aging folks with little to no families of their own.
Really, who’d take care of the elderly? All those non-existent extended families? A smaller young workforce? You think they’ll elect to die without their insulin, chemo, and hip replacements? To go gracefully to oblivion without clawing for every last second they can get from the best medicine entitlements can buy? Hah! Bull.
And the younger ‘tax-producer?’ If they’re (the younger folk) not in jail or collecting food-stamps, they’re looking for a subsidized college education they probably won’t use. Well, maybe they’ll be able to figure out just how crushing their debt has become.
What about those children increasingly born to broken homes? Right, we all know they’ve born into the perfect structure with the socioeconomic correlations present to be good little self-governing libertarians.
Give me a break. The increasingly underrepresented young, socioeconomic set worker, taking care of his own parents, grandparents, and children (future worker/caretaker) has lost already.
I agree with you sloth. And that is another problem I have with libertarianism - but my purpose in discussing this is purely philosophical. I believe the study of society and political systems is one of the best ways to understand the nature of man. I’m amused that people seem to think that perfecting the institutions of government is the be all and end all. Government is a microcosm of society. The government is screwed up because society is screwed up(over-simplified of course.) People need to concentrate on the betterment of society as a whole if they want to improve government. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try limit government abuse - just that we need to understand the real causes and address those as well.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Fact = something that is true. I say most libertarians advocate the destruction of the state - something completely incompatible with the founding fathers and constitutionalism for obvious reasons.[/quote]
So…if a fact is something that is true, why are you using it to describe something that is a flat out lie or misrepresentation?
I have never met a single person who identifies as a libertarian; or seen an interview with anyone who identifies themselves as a libertarian; or written any literature by anyone who identifies themselves as a libertarian; who wants to see the destruction of the state. While there is small variations on individual issues, one area where every libertarian I have talked to agree on is that we want a small government that still has enough power and income to take care of things such as national defense. We just don’t want a nanny state.
Get your definitions straight.
@tmay - yes you are right. Von Mises was a miniarchist. I’m a Burkean conservative as were the founding fathers - or at the least classical liberalists.
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Fact = something that is true. I say most libertarians advocate the destruction of the state - something completely incompatible with the founding fathers and constitutionalism for obvious reasons.[/quote]
So…if a fact is something that is true, why are you using it to describe something that is a flat out lie or misrepresentation?
I have never met a single person who identifies as a libertarian; or seen an interview with anyone who identifies themselves as a libertarian; or written any literature by anyone who identifies themselves as a libertarian; who wants to see the destruction of the state.[/quote]
Really?
That looks like anarchism with a load of spin added as a footnote. Doesn’t it?