Is Libertarianism Secular To The Core?

[prisonchaplain]

This will mainly be for Frank and Sixpack--but all are welcome to the table. I dabbled in Libertarianism in my youth (did that just drip with condecension-- ). I still have a philosophical attraction to it. I loved Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Further, I sat under the tutelage of the Acton Institute (classic liberal, more than strictly Libertarian). Doug Bandow (sp?) was an evangelical, as well as a fellow at the Cato Institute, so I know that it is possible to be both.

And yet...as Doug admitted, it's not common. Rand, in particular, despised religion. Her novels exalt secular humanism. In the end, I abandon Libertarianism as philosophically flawed--seeing that it denied the fallen nature of humanity.

Even Adam Smith's "invisible hand," seems to err on this point. Government is a necessary evil. In an ideal world, perhaps classic liberalism, with limited government, would work so well. And yes, in a fallen world, Acton was right--power corrupts.

Neverthless, Romans 13 tells me that God has chosen to use government to restrain a fallen and corrupt humanity.

[boyando]

When I think about libertarianism, I think of it fondly. I understand the desire for freedom, that it offers.

But in my mind, it's weakness is that it can never be achieved. I am not the expert, but most libertarians, tell me the concept is simple. Your rights given to you, in the constitution, say that you can do any thing you want, as long as it doesn't step on my rights. And vice a versa.

If I physically, beat my children, do I step on your rights? Most likely no, but I have stepped on the rights of the child. And if we can believe statistics, there is a good chance that I have created a monster or two, who will be stepping on the writes of others. I can say from personal experience, that not every child who is beaten, will turn out to be a drain on society.

Secularisms basic concept, is to take morality away from religion and place it in the hands of the government. Both secularism and libertarianism, both say you can practice any religion any way you want. But only secularism, adds, what the government sees, as moral, over rides what you may see as moral. I.E., currently, abortion is not only legal but it is deemed moral, by our government, there for, we as tax payers, pay for abortions, regardless of our personal feelings, about it. The basic concept of libertarianism, is you have a right to an abortion, but the state can not make me pay for it.

Given the chioce between, only the two, I would choose libertarianism (even if it is harder to spell), but I msut also point out, as a group we have let the government make some of our moral decisions for us, and our children, because they have never had to think about those morality, are unequipped to make those decisions.

There is always a point were I should just shut up. I think that was about two paragraphs ago.

allmosthumble

[Moksha]

I am uncertain whether in needs to be secular. For instance, the followers of Ayn Rand seem a bit cult-like.

[prisonchaplain]

personality cults can be secular...no?

[sgallan]

Yeah...... the personality cults of Communism were almost entirely secular.

[prisonchaplain]

Communists...the same folks who said religion was an opiate of the masses.

[sgallan]

Another note on the topic.... I have often noticed that those who proclaim to be Libertarian, are only Libertarian on the conservative end of the spectrum. But when it comes to the other end of Libertariasm.... the legal drugs, the abortion part of the debate, the military only to protect our borders.... this support of Libertariasm breaks down. They very much like the non-governmental part when it comes to land rights, taxes, local rule, welfare, and so forth. But when the other issues I mentioned above are also part of the package everything changes.

[prisonchaplain]

I believe the one or two Libertarians on this board are consistent.

[sgallan]

Communists...the same folks who said religion was an opiate of the masses.

I am a non-believer. But I am not stupid. Both secular and religious have done a LOT of atrocities. I just figure it is bad (but talented) people, getting total power, doing what bad people do. It doesn't matter whether they believe in a God, a number of Gods, or no God at all. It is just part of what humanity is.

It coincides with my basic dogma of: "Why would I join any religion, or be part of any religious belief? What additional value would such beliefs bring to my life that I don't already do? Other than protection from a scary hereafter, why would I bother? I am not looking for converts, if it works for you then keep it. Nurture it. Live it. But I am not you. I will hold my lifes activities against most and come out just fine. You (in a collective sense) cannot prove your God (any version) anymore than I can disprove any God. Unless you can show me some additional value in worshipping any posited God, I just do not see the point."

I believe the one or two Libertarians on this board are consistent.

I wasn't naming names. Like you I dabbled in the party for awhile. Registered in it. Went to fundraisers. Dinners. Even registered in it. I just made the observation because there has been many times I have found so-called Libertarians who had no clue as to what is deemed as "radical left", as well as "radical right".

[prisonchaplain]

Ultimately, a religion is only valuable if it is true. Yes, some will argue the psychological and healing benefits of faith itself. Yet, I agree with the Apostle Paul. IF Jesus did not raise from the dead, we are the worst of fools. So, Christianity is only valuable if it is true. I believe it is, but doubt anyone can "prove" it.

[sixpacktr]

I became more Libertarian as a result of listening to the talkmaster Neal Boortz out of WSB-AM in Atlanta GA for 6 years. The more he talked, the more I realized I agreed with what the Libertarians said and promoted. That does not mean I agree with everything. I don't agree with the stand on drugs or abortion (in this Sgallan is correct). I think that governments have to take moral stands (and stop with the 'who decides what is moral?' argument, I've already heard it, and I'm simply stating what I believe). The founders of the country spoke of a moral basis of conduct, or else a democratic republic cannot stand, and I believe that as well.

I don't believe that schools should promote a certain religion, and I don't think they do. I believe that a lot of whiney pants have taken it to the other extreme where now Christian beliefs are openly mocked and denigrated and those of other religions are promoted. My eye opener came when we lived in a little town in Iowa and they refused to allow the kids to sing Silent Night or Joy to the World at the Christmas concert (it promotes Christianity...) and yet had a day of singing praises to Martin Luther King Jr. I have nothing against the man, but the focus clearly was worship MLK Jr but not Christ. Anyway, the home is where kids should be taught, not the gov't schools, not anywhere else.

And before some call me a hypocrite, I can't abide the Dems, who I see as openly hostile to the US, and I can't abide the Repubs, who I believe are just as liberal for the most part and spineless wussies besides. The Libertarians speak most to my beliefs, but not all.

[sgallan]

I am not saying this is wrong.... and it is not meant as a criticism..... but in reality you are not a true Libertarian. You pick and choose the conservative part of the agena, but ignore the rest. That is not Libertarism, as you are only on board about 50%.

There is a Party (if it still exists) that fits your beliefs better. It is called the Constitutionalist Party. Look it up. I suspect it is a better fit for your actual beliefs.

[prisonchaplain]

Anyway, the home is where kids should be taught, not the gov't schools, not anywhere else.

Am I understanding correctly that you are opposed to public schools???

[sgallan]

Am I understanding correctly that you are opposed to public schools???

In general that is a Libertarian position.

[Aelswyth]

This will mainly be for Frank and Sixpack--but all are welcome to the table. I dabbled in Libertarianism in my youth (did that just drip with condecension-- ). I still have a philosophical attraction to it. I loved Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Further, I sat under the tutelage of the Acton Institute (classic liberal, more than strictly Libertarian). Doug Bandow (sp?) was an evangelical, as well as a fellow at the Cato Institute, so I know that it is possible to be both.

And yet...as Doug admitted, it's not common. Rand, in particular, despised religion. Her novels exalt secular humanism. In the end, I abandon Libertarianism as philosophically flawed--seeing that it denied the fallen nature of humanity.

Even Adam Smith's "invisible hand," seems to err on this point. Government is a necessary evil. In an ideal world, perhaps classic liberalism, with limited government, would work so well. And yes, in a fallen world, Acton was right--power corrupts.

Neverthless, Romans 13 tells me that God has chosen to use government to restrain a fallen and corrupt humanity.

As a libertarian, I believe in limited government, existing mostly to defend and preserve the freedoms of the people it serves. However, in a departure from most libertarians, I also believe in certain elements of democratic socialism and am a firm supporter of socialized health care.

I don't believe our fallen nature is denied in libertarian philosophy; quite the contrary, libertarianism is all about exercising our free agency, to choose for ourselves the good or the evil as long as we don't infringe upon the rights of anyone else. It is this "knowledge of good and evil", and our ability to distinguish between them, that is the lasting legacy of the fall. I see the tenets of the LDS Church as being fundamentally libertarian in nature. Libertarianism may not embrace religion (or rather, any specific religion), but I certainly believe the true gospel embraces a kind of libertarian-socialist hybrid philosophy with the greatest of ease.

And if to your eyes libertarianism lacks religion, why not bring religion to it? :)

[prisonchaplain]

To answer the last question (why not bring religion to Libertarianism), imho, it, like Communism on a different political wing, is difficult to mesh with Christian faith. The two philosophies are both utopian, and both rely on the inherent goodness of humanity to work. Even in Atlas Shrugged, we find that Libertarianism (or Objectivism, to be more accurate) fails for most, because people are not good, and they ultimately envy and subdue to radically independent and talented individual.

The current free enterprise/government regulatory/hodge podge social services network that is the United States, works. Taxes are substantial, but bareable. Social services are significant, but not comfortable.

[Aelswyth]

To answer the last question (why not bring religion to Libertarianism), imho, it, like Communism on a different political wing, is difficult to mesh with Christian faith. The two philosophies are both utopian, and both rely on the inherent goodness of humanity to work. Even in Atlas Shrugged, we find that Libertarianism (or Objectivism, to be more accurate) fails for most, because people are not good, and they ultimately envy and subdue to radically independent and talented individual.

The current free enterprise/government regulatory/hodge podge social services network that is the United States, works. Taxes are substantial, but bareable. Social services are significant, but not comfortable.

Maybe. But I have to say that though our social services may be "significant", they are concentrating in the wrong areas. We have the worst health care of any of the developed nations. Our infant mortality rate is second only to Latvia; we are on the same rung as Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia, at the bottom of the industrialized nations. Guess which nations have the best rankings in every aspect of health care? The ones with socialized health care systems.

I would venture to say that in your personal system of belief, you can combine your spiritual and political beliefs in any way you see fit, providing you can reconcile them without too much cognitive dissonance.

I think in some ways you might be confusing libertarianism with anarchism. I would consider anarchism and communism to be two extremes of political thought, both incompatible with Christian doctrine, as you pointed out. But libertarianism is really not an extreme position but rather a middle-of-the-road one, which accepts the need for government but limits its functions to those ensuring, as our constitution states, the rights of the people to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". But, maybe I'm more of a centrist libertarian rather than a right or left extremist. I believe I did score somewhere around there on a political quiz one time! :)

[a-train]

Our infant mortality rate is second only to Latvia; we are on the same rung as Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia, at the bottom of the industrialized nations. Guess which nations have the best rankings in every aspect of health care? The ones with socialized health care systems.

I'm sorry, this is completely incorrect. The US IMR is 40th in the world. Among the hundreds of nations that are worse are some of the wealthiest countries per capita on the planet, countries that HAVE socialized healthcare. The winner on the IMR rate is Singapore which has a privatized mandated system.

Regardless, I am not in love with America because of its healthcare. I am in love with liberty.

'I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.' - Ronald Reagan

I would legalize narcotics in a heartbeat. The war on drugs is a fantastic failure and a tremendous blow to real liberty. It has created a gigantic amount of wealth for murderous criminals while locking up thousands of American youth unnecessarily and costing tax payers billions.

I think almost everyone is libertarian about themselves, but many want to be fascists toward others.

I'll be honest, I don't know any athiest libertarians, but I am sure there could be many. It is difficult for LDS people NOT to be libertarian. Joseph Smith was very libertarian. Heck, he had a bar in the Nauvoo Mansion.

He was abolitionist, he wanted smaller government, his foreign policy was non-interventionist policy, he was a strict constitutionalist who spoke often of the freedoms thereof, he called for pay decreases in the Congress and shorter sessions, he advocated prison or death only for murderers, he wanted to see public service replace most prison sentences, he did advocate a national bank system but one not allowed to engage in fractional reserve banking, he liked states rights. His only departure from modern libertarianism was his protectionist view on tariffs which was also held by many Framers.

Further, the Book of Mormon and the D&C have some very heavy libertarian teaching, we also learn from the Book of Mormon that the revolution and subsequent independence was the work of God, and the LORD claimed authorship for the Constitution in the D&C. Does that bring any religion to libertarianism? It is difficult therefore for a Mormon to not have some feeling for classical liberalism.

Unfortunately, the LDS people have followed national trends. They have often felt tempted to follow mainstream Christian political movements such as the Prohibition. They have found it necessary to attempt at making laws enforcing their religious values on others. It is understandable for those over seas with little understanding of early U.S. liberalism, but for us Americans, we should know better.

On the Abortion issue, a great many libertarians are pro-life. Not because they have sold out on the protection of the liberty of the mother, but because they view the child as having the right to life to be protected by law.

Also, no right or left extremist is a libertarian. This is impossible. Libertarians are often mislabeled for being right or left, but this is simply incorrect, they are up.

I advocate no direct individual taxes, hard money, free trade (real free trade, not 'free trade' agreements), complete personal and religious freedom, total freedom of speech (I would abolish the FCC), an untouched economy, and a non-interventionist (call me isolationist) foreign policy.

While libertarianism has been painted as athiest, that's not what the Book for Mormon says.

-a-train

[Aelswyth]

A-train, may I ask where you obtained your statistics on global rankings for infant mortality?

As for the rest of your post, AMEN!

[a-train]

A-train, may I ask where you obtained your statistics on global rankings for infant mortality?

As for the rest of your post, AMEN!

The CIA:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html

-a-train

[LegendadryPerc]

I'm a Christian, communist, anarchist. Christian is my religion, communism is my economic belief, and anarchist is my govt. beleif. I did the "libertarian thing" for a while, and still vote that more often than not simply because in the current state of our govt. it will take a good long time for it to get even close to having some of the problems I see with libertarianism (like no public access to education). I guess if you seperate economic from political as I have done, libertarianism is good.

The US has a horrible neonatal death rate for being such a rich industrialized country with state of the art medicine available. I have always blamed this on the oposite of libertarianism. I have researched birth statistics and come to the conclusion that it is because the US is currently so far from libertarianism, that the govt. tells people how they can and can't give birth. Many of these birth practices are actually dangerous. Some save in some instances and kill in others (C-sec.) Currently, half of all C-sec. are responsible for more deaths than they prevent. If a doctor "determines" a woman "needs" a C-sec., he can call a judge and have an emergency court order and literally force her to have a C-sec. Curiously, about half the women that have been in this situation, have escaped and given birth just fine in at home or in another hosp. One hid in the bathroom at the hosp. and gave birth by herself while her relatives literally warded off those who would physically have forced her to give birth their way. All these babies were just fine. Once a woman refused a C-sec. and the doctor didn't get an emergency court order, and the baby died. The woman was charged with murder.

Anyway, sorry to go off topic so much, but forced unproved medical practices, or even practices that have been proven hurtfull, are imo the cause for the high neonatal death rate. Universal health care economically only, would be nice, but not if it increased the monarchy western medicine currently holds over us.