A question for atheist libertarians.

ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
A question for atheist libertarians.

Why are there so few of you? It seems to me that among those who espouse an ideology of small government and individualism cave into Christian authoritarianism. In place of government, they crave the blind servitude of religion. It seems as though individualism results in a a power vacuum that is absorbed by the conservative Christian Right. And I'd venture a guess that such power would eventually become consolidated among Dominionists whose only goal is the development of a totalitarian fascist theocracy ie. the anti-thesis of individualism.

Atheism is certainly not bound to any ideology but I don't find a lot of atheists who are right of center. And I find those who are fiscally conservative and advocate total reliance on the free market often want to replace politicians with the clergy (or even unite the two). And in the end these foks demonize atheists. It's really, really sad that an atheist like Penn Jillette (to whom I have a great deal of respect) likes to cavort with Glenn Beck because of their shared "libertarian" ideals. These rightwing religious nuts are just waiting for the time when they can suit up and boot up with their black and brownshirts with "Gott Mit Uns" on their belt buckles. These folks are "waiting to turn on the showers and fire the ovens" and atheists like Penn Jillette would be among the first to be slaughtered.

I'd truly like to see a rational atheist libertarian blueprint as an antidote to the hegemony of religious libertarians. As a start, it would be nice if websites like Reason became overtly atheist and overshadowed the National Review or Weekly Standard. The face of libertarianism should be Michael Shermer and not idiots like Dinesh D'Souza.

Let's face the facts. The United States will never become a secular social democracy like it's norther neighbor. It will forever be ultra-capitalist whether folks like me like it or not (and I'm left of center). Yet in our era of globalization with rapidly advancing free market scientifically literate economies in southeast Asia, do we really want our society to be governed by religious capitalists who think Obama is the anti-Christ? With economic chaos under such leaders who believe in a talking snake, a prosperous free-market democracy will not emerge. Instead it will be fascism wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5526
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I don't know why there are

 I don't know why there are so few of us. I am often frustrated finding a side in American politics because I have those who want to control my money on one side and those who desire to control my morality on the other side. It doesn't make sense to me that the intelligent liberal can argue coherently about the importance of individual freedom for free speech, drug use, gay marriage etc. but dismiss those same arguments out of hand when made about economics. It doesn't make sense that the intelligent conservative can argue for the importance of economic freedom but belligerently ignore the same arguments when they are made for social freedoms. 

 

I believe the central problem is that people like myself who have a desire to be left alone but no desire to control others are rarely politically active. People who run for office want to "fix" things. We don't want to "fix" things, rather we just want government to keep out of the way and allow individuals to figure things out for themselves.  

 

Historically I have sided with those who will leave my money alone on the theory that with enough money I can break whatever laws I find overly oppressive. However, after GW I promised myself to never again compromise in my voting. Now I only vote third party. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I wrote three different

I wrote three different things, then deleted them. I don't know, it is a tough question.

 

It could be that the populist libertarian message isn't compatible with many atheists.

It could be the existing cultural bias in the libertarian movement pushes atheists away.

It could that libertarianism is a largely rural movement, and that environment of lower income/education doesn't create as many open atheists.

It could be something else?

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: I

Beyond Saving wrote:

 I don't know why there are so few of us. I am often frustrated finding a side in American politics because I have those who want to control my money on one side and those who desire to control my morality on the other side. It doesn't make sense to me that the intelligent liberal can argue coherently about the importance of individual freedom for free speech, drug use, gay marriage etc. but dismiss those same arguments out of hand when made about economics. It doesn't make sense that the intelligent conservative can argue for the importance of economic freedom but belligerently ignore the same arguments when they are made for social freedoms. 

I believe the central problem is that people like myself who have a desire to be left alone but no desire to control others are rarely politically active. People who run for office want to "fix" things. We don't want to "fix" things, rather we just want government to keep out of the way and allow individuals to figure things out for themselves.  

 

Historically I have sided with those who will leave my money alone on the theory that with enough money I can break whatever laws I find overly oppressive. However, after GW I promised myself to never again compromise in my voting. Now I only vote third party. 

Beyond Saving summed up my feelings on the matter exactly.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4130
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
My take on it is that most

My take on it is that most people that call themselves libertarian are hypocrites. They are in favor of government power when it benefits them, when it doesn't they are against it.

Many 'libertarians' will claim people have no right to welfare, health-care, education, etc... But then they have rights to own land, mining rights, water rights, hunting rights, fishing rights, etc... They're in favor a big powerful government when it comes to keeping trespassers off 'their land'. So they support a big bureaucracy when it come to police and military.

What there are actually very few of are rational people that believe we have no so called rights. That we don't need a sugar daddy in the sky or in Washington to look after us. The best humanity could do is have a set of rational rules to share the planets resources and limit population growth, and have social contracts where all parties are required to give in order to receive.

But most people, theist and atheist, believe they have rights to get something for nothing just for being born and there should be no limits on the number of people born. This irrational belief system is the source of political conflict. But people like to believe they deserve something for nothing that is why we have religion and political conflict.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Atheist libertarian here, too.

 

Probably qualify as a pragmatic libertarian. Voted green last election in Australia but the Labour Party policies mirrored my feelings around 60 per cent. I've always identified with the libertarian message but as I've got older wondered whether or not in modern democracy libertarianism should simply be a strong undercurrent in the dominant parties rather than the dominant force. I think there are significant libertarian elements to most modern democratic forms of government.

Further, I tend to think libertarianism represents a position that applies historically - something you could dream of during a process of exploration. Once enough people have crammed into a place, I'm not sure libertarianism has the brute force to manage them. You can't control hundreds of millions of people if all you want is to be left alone. You need a frame work of some kind which provides a muscular guarantee of civil rights. These days libertarianism is an idealistic position, perhaps even a green position. I think it was more prevalent here in the 1980s. Not so much now. 

On the topic of the free market, I think as you get older and you have more invested in the free market there's an increasingly unwillingness to upset the apple cart. Having said this, I'm not sure how the free market and religion are tied together as suggested by the OP. Maybe that's just the country I'm in. Business is the great satan down under. 

There's a sense inside me that you can be libertarian in the west if you want to. But as some one said upthread, that is going to involve living in a rural, village, town setting and choosing the things you do to reflect what you believe. Of course, you are still going to surrounded by numbats and religious control freaks and as Brian37 often says, you have to put up with it because their freedom is intrinsically yours. 

 

Ed: Rag's point about the U.S. never becoming a secular democracy like Canada has vibrations. America was the original secular democracy. What the hell went wrong?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
I'm a little bit along the

I'm a little bit along the lines of AE (although I'm not a Libertarian).  I think you need an undercurrent of Libertarianism, or at least the populist message of it, just to have a force for individual rights (even if it is wrong, we need dissenting voices).  At the same time there isn't any evidence that "Real" Libertarianism is practical or even servicable at anything above small group sizes.  I'm not even sure if there is evidence it works with small groups.  Most of the arguments I hear about Libertarianism are 'common sense' stuff, but we don't trust those for individual claims, much less things that would direct the course of nuclear super-powers.

Like EXC said though, most people don't even know what Libertarianism is or what it means, he summed up the general outlook succinctly.  If most 'Libertarians' realized what it meant they wouldn't be Libertarians anymore.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I pretty much 100% with

I pretty much 100% with mellestad.

I remember listening to a podcast where Michael Shermer was speaking at some convention or other, and he asked the question of the audience (of sceptics/atheists), how many were libertarians, and was clearly surprised/disappointed at what was apparently a very small number of hands raised.

I seems to me, at least as commonly expressed in the USA, to over-emphasise the individuals 'rights' and not adequately acknowlege how interdependent we all are in modern society, and how many convenient things we take for granted in advance countries are dependent on a structure of regulation and common utilities.

'Rights' are meaningless without a framework of 'law and order' and someone to 'enforce' them - police, lawyers, courts, committees to frame the laws and update them, etc, and a 'social contract' of some kind to tie it all together. Individual desires are going to run into conflict at some point, and in anything beyond very small groups, left to themselves, are likely to 'blow up' into outright conflict.

Of course we need to have mechanisms to stop these regulatory mechanisms getting too intrusive. Its called 'checks ad balances'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:I'm

Atheistextremist wrote:
I'm not sure how the free market and religion are tied together as suggested by the OP. Maybe that's just the country I'm in. Business is the great satan down under.

In the US (Where rag and I live) conservative christianity is almost inseparable from free market ideals, because of it's connection with politics.  For some odd reason, it also desires a stern limitation on social rights (although this has eased up in recent years) - probably because of the Right-wing's connections with religion and its politics.

Quote:
Ed: Rag's point about the U.S. never becoming a secular democracy like Canada has vibrations. America was the original secular democracy. What the hell went wrong?

Easy; Cold War. We've only been 20 years out of it (roughly), and the adoptive mentality of Cold War is slow to disappear, at least from the voting population -namely, the mothers and fathers of the Baby Boomer generation. (Insert nasty remark about stubborn old people, here.) Because, after all, being secularist/atheist makes one more like the communists, so the only way to fight communists is to become as nonsecular as possible.

The phrase "One nation under god" was added to all government-related pledges of allegiance in the 1950s.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Visual_Paradox
atheistRational VIP!Special Agent
Visual_Paradox's picture
Posts: 481
Joined: 2007-04-07
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:It

Beyond Saving wrote:
It doesn't make sense to me that the intelligent liberal can argue coherently about the importance of individual freedom for free speech, drug use, gay marriage etc. but dismiss those same arguments out of hand when made about economics.


From the liberal viewpoint, taxes are not so much for the funding of future projects. Instead, they are for paying off the debts that came from the projects of the previous generation to lay the groundwork that enabled you to make wealth in the first place: the roads, the schools, the fighting of crime, and so on. The indiscriminate lowering of taxes is seen as being akin to eating at a restaurant and then refusing to pay for the meal. Economic freedom is great, but it does not include the ability to skip the bill.

Also, from the liberal viewpoint again, the law of supply and demand only dictates prices and production reliable in the context of rational operators enjoying the bilateral and transparent exchange of information. This poses a problem because unregulated markets lead to the opposite of transparency and human biology leads to the opposite of rational operators. When irrational operators and unregulated markets come together, information disparities arise, then the law of supply and demand no longer dictates prices or production reliably, then bubbles form, then bubbles pop and bring about chaos. The free market needs government regulation to create and maintain the conditions needed for the free market to exist and function properly, because it would only destroy itself otherwise.

Stultior stulto fuisti, qui tabellis crederes!


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 4130
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:'Rights'

BobSpence1 wrote:

'Rights' are meaningless without a framework of 'law and order' and someone to 'enforce' them - police, lawyers, courts, committees to frame the laws and update them, etc, and a 'social contract' of some kind to tie it all together. Individual desires are going to run into conflict at some point, and in anything beyond very small groups, left to themselves, are likely to 'blow up' into outright conflict.

How true. The only problem is you'd never get elected with this platform. You have to promise the people something for nothing. The people are going to vote for the politicians that take their side in the 'conflict'.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:BobSpence1

EXC wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

'Rights' are meaningless without a framework of 'law and order' and someone to 'enforce' them - police, lawyers, courts, committees to frame the laws and update them, etc, and a 'social contract' of some kind to tie it all together. Individual desires are going to run into conflict at some point, and in anything beyond very small groups, left to themselves, are likely to 'blow up' into outright conflict.

How true. The only problem is you'd never get elected with this platform. You have to promise the people something for nothing. The people are going to vote for the politicians that take their side in the 'conflict'.

I don't think so, that's the platform of most social/socialist democracy parties, so it isn't exactly rare or novel.

 

Now it might not work in the U.S. but...

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5526
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Visual_Paradox wrote:From

Visual_Paradox wrote:


From the liberal viewpoint, taxes are not so much for the funding of future projects. Instead, they are for paying off the debts that came from the projects of the previous generation to lay the groundwork that enabled you to make wealth in the first place: the roads, the schools, the fighting of crime, and so on. The indiscriminate lowering of taxes is seen as being akin to eating at a restaurant and then refusing to pay for the meal.

Seriously? You want to go there? That is about as much BS as you can fit in one sentence. If we were simply paying off our debt your argument would have some credibility. As it is, we are borrowing substantial amounts of money to pay for new programs and our debt load has increased dramatically and is approaching a point where it will no longer be solely a political problem. (Note: Schools, and fighting crime for the most part, is NOT paid for by the Federal government)

 

Visual_Paradox wrote:

Economic freedom is great, but it does not include the ability to skip the bill.

I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise. Most libertarians I know say pay off the debt and don't borrow again, not default on the debt. 

 

Visual_Paradox wrote:

Also, from the liberal viewpoint again, the law of supply and demand only dictates prices and production reliable in the context of rational operators enjoying the bilateral and transparent exchange of information. This poses a problem because unregulated markets lead to the opposite of transparency and human biology leads to the opposite of rational operators. When irrational operators and unregulated markets come together, information disparities arise, then the law of supply and demand no longer dictates prices or production reliably, then bubbles form, then bubbles pop and bring about chaos. The free market needs government regulation to create and maintain the conditions needed for the free market to exist and function properly, because it would only destroy itself otherwise.

What form of economics avoids bubbles while still providing wealth to its citizens? Yes, there are bubbles in a free market and they are supposed to pop. The only way to avoid bubbles is to have supply and demand meet completely. You can do that either through controlling demand, ie forcing everyone to have amounts of goods assigned by a government, or by attempting to control supply. I don't care to live in the former. The problem with the latter is that perfectly predicting demand is impossible. If you have people in control who are really good, they might get away with it for awhile. However, the people in control, being human, have a tendency to worry more about their personal enrichment than the betterment of the economy. As we have seen with the housing market collapse, government intervention has a tendency to simply prolong bubbles and make them worse in the long run by artificially changing the market.

 

The internet is probably the best example of a relatively unregulated free market. Is there chaos? Sure. However, rather than a lack of transparency you have a wealth of information and competition. You still have irrational operators, but I fully support the peoples right to be irrational. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
We had to go shit on the

We had to go shit on the thread, didn't we.  This is why we can't have nice things.

 

 

As a side note, calling the Internet a free market is a bad idea, because it isn't.  Every player in the market, from the consumers to the producers to the infrastructure and everything in between is highly regulated.  I'm not saying those are good or bad, just that it isn't free and more than the highway system is a free market.

It *is* a free market in that if someone does some particular action, "The Internet" isn't going to enforce regulations, but whatever government holds sway over that entity certainly will.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Now that I think of it,

Now that I think of it, couldn't you make the case that the Internet is a good case study against the free market because the largest suppliers of content and goods quickly became institutions residing in highly regulated states?  Sort of an argument from reality?

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5526
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Now that I

mellestad wrote:

Now that I think of it, couldn't you make the case that the Internet is a good case study against the free market because the largest suppliers of content and goods quickly became institutions residing in highly regulated states?  Sort of an argument from reality?

 

Actually, the largest suppliers of content and goods as far as quantity are probably mostly illegal if you added up the number. Ans what legitimate institution isn't highly regulated? My point is that the Internet has resisted government attempts to regulate it. The ease with which transactions can be completed in any part of the world with any other allows you to avoid many regulations and taxes. While such transactions are often illegal, government attempts to regulate it has been futile. For example, look at file sharing, movie sites, porn and internet gambling. All of which are illegal in the US. The government has attempted to crack down but another operation pops up as quickly as they shut one down. So while it isn't a perfectly free market because the government can restrict access to an extent, it is far more free than say your local strip mall.

 

From an economics point of view, the Internet allows people to have access to large markets that are relatively unregulated or self-regulated such as E-bay, Craigslist or self made websites. Which has had a dramatic effect on how goods are sold and the prices they are sold for. Some items have greatly increased in price, such as many concert tickets, others have dramatically decreased in price such as many antiques.

 

Often, with an Internet transaction, you have no legal recourse if you get screwed. For example, if Sapient was using the money I am sending him every month to go to the movies, I couldn't sue him. If someone through E-bay or Amazon sent me faulty merchandise and refused to offer a refund I would have a really hard time pressing a lawsuit. So in that respect you also have a free market that is mostly regulated by peer review rather than some government inspection agency.

 

So while I agree with your point that the Internet is not a perfectly free market, I believe it is the closest to a truly free market in reality. And as such, I would argue it has been a huge success.     

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
I'd consider myself to be a

I'd consider myself to be a Liberterian politically. I tend to piss off the right wing (although I think I'm right of center) and the left wing too....

Libertarians place a high value on freedom in all aspects and thus the reason for the name. But individualism that collapses into Christain authoritarianism would be antithetical to Liberterian though. Atheism's compatibility with Liberterianism is what is touted as the hallmark of atheism, namely the freedom of thought. Should one want to believe or not believe in a god, it is his or her freedom to do so for whatever reason or lack of reason he or she may have.

I don't know that I'd call the religious capitalist society "fascism". In the United States, such a system would have to abolish all opposition and rewrite the American constitution to set up a state strong enough to support a fascist mentality. Even the religious not jobs decry such persecution.

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

mellestad wrote:

Now that I think of it, couldn't you make the case that the Internet is a good case study against the free market because the largest suppliers of content and goods quickly became institutions residing in highly regulated states?  Sort of an argument from reality?

 

Actually, the largest suppliers of content and goods as far as quantity are probably mostly illegal if you added up the number. Ans what legitimate institution isn't highly regulated? My point is that the Internet has resisted government attempts to regulate it. The ease with which transactions can be completed in any part of the world with any other allows you to avoid many regulations and taxes. While such transactions are often illegal, government attempts to regulate it has been futile. For example, look at file sharing, movie sites, porn and internet gambling. All of which are illegal in the US. The government has attempted to crack down but another operation pops up as quickly as they shut one down. So while it isn't a perfectly free market because the government can restrict access to an extent, it is far more free than say your local strip mall.

 

From an economics point of view, the Internet allows people to have access to large markets that are relatively unregulated or self-regulated such as E-bay, Craigslist or self made websites. Which has had a dramatic effect on how goods are sold and the prices they are sold for. Some items have greatly increased in price, such as many concert tickets, others have dramatically decreased in price such as many antiques.

 

Often, with an Internet transaction, you have no legal recourse if you get screwed. For example, if Sapient was using the money I am sending him every month to go to the movies, I couldn't sue him. If someone through E-bay or Amazon sent me faulty merchandise and refused to offer a refund I would have a really hard time pressing a lawsuit. So in that respect you also have a free market that is mostly regulated by peer review rather than some government inspection agency.

 

So while I agree with your point that the Internet is not a perfectly free market, I believe it is the closest to a truly free market in reality. And as such, I would argue it has been a huge success.     

OK, if you want to define a free market as a market where all players are strictly regulated, the infrastructure controlled by governments, all technology is controlled by patents and communications are all monitored by governments, then it is a free market.

-------------------------

On the general point, can Libertarian nations support the kinds of education systems and societal structure that seems to correlate with atheism?  Honestly?  I don't think it is shocking that social democracies have high levels of atheism.  I'd go so far as to say you could graph an inverse correlation, but there probably aren't enough working examples of Libertarianism to make a useful data set.  The types of nations that seem the most atheistic are those farthest from Libertarianism (without invoking the complications of China/Russia or other forced secular states).

 

I'm sure it is complex though, the factors are no doubt highly varied by society.  This is why I stopped studying politics, it is too muddy and you can't do useful testing for most things.  Even at high levels it is he said, she said.

 

Until we can point to actual examples of Libertarianism bringing about better and healthier societies and individuals I'm not sure how I could be convinced, not when I can see so many examples of flourishing non-Libertarian societies.  Every time I get into these debates it comes down to the *ideal* of personal liberty, but I've yet to have anyone show me any evidence that using that as the bedrock of society actually makes things *better* compared to other systems that put less weight on it.  It seems to be an idea that gains traction based on the cultural  idealization of a history that never existed and ideas that have never born real fruit.

 

Edit: As I've said before, I'd love to be proven wrong, because the basic ideal has great cultural resonance with me too.  It would be very gratifying to have evidence that it actually worked and confirmed my familial inspired bias.  As it stands I find myself supporting things because they are shown to work, not because they feel right.  Unifying those would simplify my political thought process a great deal.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
The most famous

The most famous Atheist/Libertarian is probably Penn Jillette...

 

I refer to myself as a Libertarian, but in reality I am independant as it pertains to any specific issue, and my sensibilities often lead me to agree with the Libertarian platform, moreso than the others... But I am hardly a "hardline" Libertarian....

 

Part of the problem is that the Tea Party are reffering to themselves as Libertarians, when in actuality, most are nothing more than flannel wearing, factually challenged, historically inaccurate, fundamentalist chistian dullards in dire needs of dental work... I think we have Glenn beck to thank for that... so an otherwise viable party platform is being hijacked by the lunatic fringe from the right, and their sensibly susceptible constituents.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5526
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:On the

mellestad wrote:

On the general point, can Libertarian nations support the kinds of education systems and societal structure that seems to correlate with atheism?  Honestly?  I don't think it is shocking that social democracies have high levels of atheism.  I'd go so far as to say you could graph an inverse correlation, but there probably aren't enough working examples of Libertarianism to make a useful data set.  The types of nations that seem the most atheistic are those farthest from Libertarianism (without invoking the complications of China/Russia or other forced secular states).

 

I'm sure it is complex though, the factors are no doubt highly varied by society.  This is why I stopped studying politics, it is too muddy and you can't do useful testing for most things.  Even at high levels it is he said, she said.

 

Until we can point to actual examples of Libertarianism bringing about better and healthier societies and individuals I'm not sure how I could be convinced, not when I can see so many examples of flourishing non-Libertarian societies.  Every time I get into these debates it comes down to the *ideal* of personal liberty, but I've yet to have anyone show me any evidence that using that as the bedrock of society actually makes things *better* compared to other systems that put less weight on it.  It seems to be an idea that gains traction based on the cultural  idealization of a history that never existed and ideas that have never born real fruit.

 

Edit: As I've said before, I'd love to be proven wrong, because the basic ideal has great cultural resonance with me too.  It would be very gratifying to have evidence that it actually worked and confirmed my familial inspired bias.  As it stands I find myself supporting things because they are shown to work, not because they feel right.  Unifying those would simplify my political thought process a great deal.

The only libertarian country in recent history is the United States. I would argue that we started out fairly libertarian and have been slowly moving towards a more centrally controlled and larger government. No other country has been founded on the concepts of individual freedom in modern times. I believe that is why the US has been so slow to adopt measures like a universal healthcare system when pretty much every other western democracy has adopted some type of government healthcare system. I don't think it is an accident that the US has been a catalyst for most of the technological and economic growth over the last two hundred years. And now we appear to be slowing down to the point that other countries are going to start to pass us up in economic areas we have traditionally dominated in. It is because we have historically had an economic system that greatly rewards innovation. A system that we are slowly converting to look more like Europe and now seems to reward political connections more than innovation.

 

As for supporting things because they have been shown to "work" you are making the mistake in assuming that there is a limited number of things that work. Slavery worked great, imperialism worked great, the Roman Empire worked great, feudalism worked, fascism worked. Right now, China arguably has one of the most efficient economic systems on the planet. I don't want to live in that system. Even if it does work better which I think is debatable. If your sole goal is for a country to create the most wealth with no concern for the distribution of it to the citizens a benevolent dictatorship being ran by someone astute in business that treated citizens like employees would probably be the best system. I don't think that is a good thing or a healthy goal.

 

I am libertarian first and foremost because I value individual freedom above all other ideals. The happy coincidence that increased economic freedom also correlates with increased innovation is simply icing on the cake to me. I would rather be free in a poorer country than controlled in a wealthier country. The US is proof that you can have your cake and eat it too in this case.  

 

As for the correlation of atheism with social democracy I think you are right. There does seem to be a correlation that indicates more personal freedom leads to more religion. Even inside the US, states with minimal government regulations also seem to have lower rates of atheism. I think this has more to do with the human psyche than anything. The bottom line is that many people do not want freedom. Freedom can be scary because all the responsibility is thrown onto your shoulders. They want someone to tell them what to do. If the government isn't telling them what to do, religion is a natural thing to turn to. Which I don't have a problem with as long as they don't decide to start trying to tell me what to do.

 

As for social democracies "working", well not in their current form. It might be theoretically possible, but what we are doing right now is clearly not working. We are running a trillion dollar deficit a year with massive amounts of government promises coming due in the future. We simply do not have the money. Either we will need to raise taxes to such a confiscatory level that it will kill the economy, print the money and devalue our currency to the point it is worthless or we will default on our promises. I think it is far more cruel to promise someone "free" benefits when you know you can't afford it than it is to tell them up front they won't get it and should plan for themselves.

 

Right now we are doing the equivalent of running up the credit cards. Sooner or later you have to pay the bill and when you do you can't continue running them up. It has taken 100 years, but the system is not sustainable. Anyone who takes an honest look at the numbers has to come to the same conclusion. European democracies have started drastically cutting benefits. We will have to do the same thing in the US too. The sad part is that many of the poor people that social democracies are so obsessed with helping are the ones who are going to find themselves down the creek without a paddle because they have gotten used to getting benefits and don't know how to live without them.    

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Failure to allow for the

Failure to allow for the nature of human psychology is one of the basic problems with ideologies of extreme left or right. It was the biggest problem with Marx, he meant well, but he had a too optimistic view of the human 'psyche'.

More 'social democratic' societies do seem to be working relatively well - the US is not remotely such a society, except in some states, which is probably why it is not working so well.

My country, Australia, having now been run mostly by nominally left-wing parties for a while now, at both State and Federal level, is being regarded somewhat enviously in having got thru the GFC better than most, for whatever reason. Maybe what China is paying us for our mineral resources has helped significantly, so we are not so much into the 'credit cards'.

Authoritarian capitalism seems to working for well for China, at least for the moment, so simplistic economic/political models are way past their use-by date. Don't think I'd want to live there, but maybe if I was dedicated to running a small business selling crap to the US it wouldn't be so bad. Maybe better than being a 'free' but unemployed resident of the US in many cases.

Another thing I noticed is that throughout the coverage of the floods here, very few politicians made even incidental reference to God, which is very encouraging. Instead, the population got together in massive numbers to help each other get away from the worst of the floods and now start cleaning up. None of the hyper individualism, just a much more cooperative tradition, summed up in our ideal of 'mateship', no obsession with either 'freedom' or 'socialism'.

You seem to have a 'self-fulfilling prophecy' situation - you don't really believe government can be remotely competent, so you get incompetent governments.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
@Beyond: I'm honestly a

@Beyond: I'm honestly a little shocked that you're willing to put an ideal against empirical results.  To me, that's a bad thing.

As for most of your other points, you've picked a single issue and is shapes your entire political view.  Like all you have is a hammer so all you see are nails, you know?

Social democracies *do* work.  Like you said, we're probably one of the most Libertarian nations around and we've got one of the worst income to debt ratios on the planet.  I could say, "More freedom equal more debt" but that is simplifying a complex system to an absurd degree.  Other nations have more socialism than we do, with better credit scores.  It obviously isn't impossible.  Only idiots think government services are free and no-one here is an idiot.  Just because the U.S. is fucked up doesn't mean the idea is unsound, it means the U.S. is full of idiots who spend more than they make, full stop.

 

As for the correlation, that is totally not what I said and you know it.  I would say that increased public education and services makes people less miserable and being less miserable and more highly educated leads to less religion.  Although you are right, less government seems to lead to less security, lower wellbeing and more misery which leads to more religion at some point.

 

EU democracies are drastically cutting benefits because of the financial crash which lowered tax revenue, which was most certainly not caused by socialism.  The fact that all those socialist nations are cutting back and the U.S. keeps trucking ahead without making any large cuts just goes to illustrate my point, it isn't about mixed socialism vs free market capitalism, it is about stupid near sighted people versus those who are not.  Greece didn't cut back in time and it could be we won't either.

Profit isn't about how much you spend, it is about how much you make versus how much you spend.

 

If your base metric is freedom, that's great, but I'll gladly pick the nations highest on the human development index over a lawless wasteland, free or not.  My goal in life isn't to die free, it is to die *happy*.

-----------------------

Christ, I'm rambling aren't I?

 

Summary:  Social Democracies work as long as you pay your debts.  I can give you plenty of case studies to prove this.  Libertarianism as a political system is un-tested adn the closest thing to it is early America, and I don't want to live in early America, it was shitty, my life is better.  I'm moved by the emotional appeal to freedom as an ideal, but if I let that rule my life I'd still be an evangelical Christian.  That just isn't how I've chosen to make decisions.  I need evidence and I need metrics.  Until someone can show that Libertarianism leads to better, healthier societies and individuals I'm not going to swallow it.  To me, freedom is not a metric, it is a potential input into the system that may or may not result in happiness and wellbeing.  I *like* paying taxes so I can live in a modern society.

------------------------

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5526
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:@Beyond: I'm

mellestad wrote:

@Beyond: I'm honestly a little shocked that you're willing to put an ideal against empirical results.  To me, that's a bad thing.

As for most of your other points, you've picked a single issue and is shapes your entire political view.  Like all you have is a hammer so all you see are nails, you know?

No, what I am saying is that freedom is my goal that I set above other goals. As I observed and Bob as well, if your sole goal is economic growth the Chinese model would be something worth considering. Since economic growth is not what I believe the main goal should be I am against adopting the Chinese system. Freedom ought to be the goal. If we can't agree on what the goal of government should be then it is unlikely that we will ever agree on what a "better" government system is. Different systems will achieve different goals. If your goal is to provide a safety net for the largest number of people than a well run social democracy might work fine. If your goal is to allow people the maximum freedom than clearly it is not. I would rather be free and unemployed in the US than a worker in China. 

 

mellestad wrote:
 

EU democracies are drastically cutting benefits because of the financial crash which lowered tax revenue, which was most certainly not caused by socialism.  The fact that all those socialist nations are cutting back and the U.S. keeps trucking ahead without making any large cuts just goes to illustrate my point, it isn't about mixed socialism vs free market capitalism, it is about stupid near sighted people versus those who are not.  Greece didn't cut back in time and it could be we won't either.

Which was predictable and directly caused by government overspending and incompetent government manipulation of the market place but we could get into a long technical argument about that, I'll try to stick to broader theory in this thread. I do think there is a fundamental flaw in social democracies in that politicians are rewarded for running up debt in the short term. There is no long term incentive to control the government budget either through keeping taxes high enough to pay for it or keeping spending low. When human nature enters the equation I don't see how it can be sustained, unless the voting population is intelligent enough not to support politicians who run up debt. Politicians throughout Europe have been cutting the budgets because they absolutely had to. In the US we haven't reached that point yet because we are so ridiculously big that we can run a much higher debt and the strength of our dollar has allowed us to get away with printing money, however, that also gives us a much farther fall. Maybe it is possible for a social democracy to keep its promises long term in some cases. Sweden, Canada and Australia have been doing ok. However, in the long run, as long as politicians have more to gain through irresponsible spending than through fiscal responsibility, I don't see it being sustainable.

 

mellestad wrote:
 

Summary:  Social Democracies work as long as you pay your debts.  I can give you plenty of case studies to prove this.  Libertarianism as a political system is un-tested adn the closest thing to it is early America, and I don't want to live in early America, it was shitty, my life is better.  I'm moved by the emotional appeal to freedom as an ideal, but if I let that rule my life I'd still be an evangelical Christian.  That just isn't how I've chosen to make decisions.  I need evidence and I need metrics.  Until someone can show that Libertarianism leads to better, healthier societies and individuals I'm not going to swallow it.  To me, freedom is not a metric, it is a potential input into the system that may or may not result in happiness and wellbeing.  I *like* paying taxes so I can live in a modern society.

 Moving back to libertarianism does not mean getting rid of modern technology. We became the largest world power through a (mostly) libertarian government. We led the world in inventing new technology and new businesses through a libertarian system. But if you insist on it, and want your social security, welfare, universal healthcare etc. I only want one thing- the choice to opt out of it. I won't pay into it, and I won't get any of the benefits. I understand that not everyone wants to take care of themselves, that is fine with me. Just don't put a gun to my head and say you have to participate too or go to jail. If the system works so great you shouldn't have problems getting enough people to opt in. Why do you insist that I must as well? Is there any reason that social security, medicare and universal healthcare can't be optional? 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
The problem is most people

The problem is most people would want services when they needed them.  If you could create a system where opting out meant people were willing to suffer and die, then sure, I guess, although I'd be against letting people make that choice before they reached the age of majority.

 

I see your overall complaint against irresponsible spending, not against socialism.  That has more to do with education than anything else, to make sure people are taught that long term thinking is a good thing.

 

I think calling our historical government largely Libertarian is like calling the Internet a free market.  You dilute the term.  The U.S. was never Libertarian while it was a world power, we've not been even close to Libertarian since...what, before the civil war?  Shit, half our grand technology came from WW2 and the cold war and most of that was driven by government spending.  The infastructure to accomplish this stuff all came from government spending.  But once you get into that the Libertarians can't agree on how Libertarian to be.  Sure, they don't like taxes but most of them like Interstate and Dams and the Internet and having a phone in their house and.... Whatever.

 

And again, you're simplifying.  The rise of the U.S. during and after the world wars can't be simplified to, "because we had more Libertarian principles."  Even if it was true that we were Libertarian during that time, and I think that's a hard argument to make, the geopolitical, cultural and local political influences to that were vast and complex.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
So, why is, "Freedom" such a

So, why is, "Freedom" such a powerful concept to you?  What is the thought process that makes you arrive at that decision?  Why select that as your objective metric to gauge progress?

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:If your base

mellestad wrote:

If your base metric is freedom, that's great, but I'll gladly pick the nations highest on the human development index over a lawless wasteland, free or not.  My goal in life isn't to die free, it is to die *happy*.

So you're content to live in Iceland? Switzerland? How about Australia?

Somehow, I think your current situation betrays your actual intent...

Quote:
Until someone can show that Libertarianism leads to better, healthier societies and individuals I'm not going to swallow it.

I think that is perhaps *THE* most practical statement anyone has yet to make in this thread. Unfortunately, 'better', 'healthier' living locale doesn't appear to be your goal, judging by your actions.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5526
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:The problem

mellestad wrote:

The problem is most people would want services when they needed them.  If you could create a system where opting out meant people were willing to suffer and die, then sure, I guess, although I'd be against letting people make that choice before they reached the age of majority.

 

I see your overall complaint against irresponsible spending, not against socialism.  That has more to do with education than anything else, to make sure people are taught that long term thinking is a good thing.

 

I think calling our historical government largely Libertarian is like calling the Internet a free market.  You dilute the term.  The U.S. was never Libertarian while it was a world power, we've not been even close to Libertarian since...what, before the civil war?  Shit, half our grand technology came from WW2 and the cold war and most of that was driven by government spending.  The infastructure to accomplish this stuff all came from government spending.  But once you get into that the Libertarians can't agree on how Libertarian to be.  Sure, they don't like taxes but most of them like Interstate and Dams and the Internet and having a phone in their house and.... Whatever.

 

And again, you're simplifying.  The rise of the U.S. during and after the world wars can't be simplified to, "because we had more Libertarian principles."  Even if it was true that we were Libertarian during that time, and I think that's a hard argument to make, the geopolitical, cultural and local political influences to that were vast and complex.

 

Hey, if I can opt out I am willing to take the chance that I would suffer and die. I never have and never will expect another person to take care of my well being financially or otherwise. Anyone who wouldn't opt out of social security at a young age is someone who is obviously ignorant when it comes to finances. We already separate the taxes on social security and medicare so those programs would be exceptionally easy to allow opt outs. Same thing with the current health care plan. The problem is that all of those programs would go bankrupt that much faster if people were allowed to opt out because they are not financially solvent to begin with. 

 

As for your accusation that I am diluting the term libertarian, the first rule of politics is that you never get your way 100% unless you are a dictator. You seem to have some illusion that "libertarian" is far more radical than it actually is. Using your standards you also will not find a "pure" example of socialism, marxism, communism, fascism or any other kind of government. There is no such thing as a purely libertarian government and never will be. We live in a real world of political compromise and our Constitution was a piece of political compromise as much as any other legislation before or since. 

 

Simply put libertarianism is the idea of having a small government limited in power focused on preserving and protecting the liberty of individuals. That is what our country was founded on, and has been based on. Over the years, the political battle has been between a larger, more influential central government and a smaller less intrusive government. So of course our government isn't perfectly libertarian (and never has been) however, compared to every other country on the planet our government is more focused on protecting individual freedom. It isn't an all or nothing proposition.

 

As for your other question about why I want freedom. Because it makes me happy. Do I need a better reason than that? I'm going to do what I want regardless of the law, I prefer not to be in danger of going to jail for doing it. I don't particularly like working hard, so I don't want the government to take my money away without giving me something in return. Most of what I get for my money from the government is stuff I don't particularly want or need. I do like having a little bit of money so I put up with the current tax levels even though I cringe when it is wasted. Although should they reach points I consider extortionate I am prepared to quit working.

 

Now let me ask you this. Why is it ok for the government to use force to take money away from us to hand it to banks that were irresponsible? Why is it ok for them to raise a large military to conquer countries that pose no realistic threat to us? Why is it ok for the government to determine what food I can and cannot eat? What wage I can or cannot receive from an employer or pay to an employee? What health insurance I buy?  Where do you draw the line and say the government shouldn't have that much power? As for the social safety net programs, let me opt out and I'm happy, I don't care if the rest of you have them. Cut all that out of the government and it is suddenly looking a hell of a lot smaller.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:mellestad

Kapkao wrote:

mellestad wrote:

If your base metric is freedom, that's great, but I'll gladly pick the nations highest on the human development index over a lawless wasteland, free or not.  My goal in life isn't to die free, it is to die *happy*.

So you're content to live in Iceland? Switzerland? How about Australia?

Somehow, I think your current situation betrays your actual intent...

Quote:
Until someone can show that Libertarianism leads to better, healthier societies and individuals I'm not going to swallow it.

I think that is perhaps *THE* most practical statement anyone has yet to make in this thread. Unfortunately, 'better', 'healthier' living locale doesn't appear to be your goal, judging by your actions.

 

Not valid, Kap.  I'd cheerfully move to Canada, Iceland, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, France, .....

But they won't take me.  I'm too old and I'm too poor.  Let alone the problem with affording transportation to any of those places.  I might be able to afford the trip to Canada - I'm not that far away - but they would be happy for me to spend my money there, but not to have me move in.

Mellestad is right - show me one - just one - country that is libertarian.  The US wasn't a world leader in anything until after WWII.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Kapkao

cj wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

mellestad wrote:

If your base metric is freedom, that's great, but I'll gladly pick the nations highest on the human development index over a lawless wasteland, free or not.  My goal in life isn't to die free, it is to die *happy*.

So you're content to live in Iceland? Switzerland? How about Australia?

Somehow, I think your current situation betrays your actual intent...

Quote:
Until someone can show that Libertarianism leads to better, healthier societies and individuals I'm not going to swallow it.

I think that is perhaps *THE* most practical statement anyone has yet to make in this thread. Unfortunately, 'better', 'healthier' living locale doesn't appear to be your goal, judging by your actions.

 

Not valid, Kap.  I'd cheerfully move to Canada, Iceland, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, France, .....

But they won't take me.  I'm too old and I'm too poor.  Let alone the problem with affording transportation to any of those places.  I might be able to afford the trip to Canada - I'm not that far away - but they would be happy for me to spend my money there, but not to have me move in.

Mellestad is right - show me one - just one - country that is libertarian.  The US wasn't a world leader in anything until after WWII.

Doubly not valid. I wasn't talking about you, old fart.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
@Beyond: I would be OK with

@Beyond: I would be OK with opt-out, with the conditions that it be taken at adulthood.  You'd probably need to be physically separated though, otherwise you'd be inadvertently benefiting from a social contract you were not a part of.  But I've said that before, I'd love it if all the Libertarians could take over an island and show everyone else how great the system works, then I'd finally have an example to use in justifying my innate cultural bias.

 

I've never said there was a pure system for socialism or Libertarianism, so you're barking up the wrong tree for that argument.  If your argument is just that more freedom equals better then you need to define metrics for 'better' rather than say, 'more freedom equals better, because freedom is better than non-freedom'.  That is where you're at now.  What is better?  The idea of freedom makes you happy, but someone dying of a preventable disease because they failed to plan makes me sad.  So how do we resolve that?  We find a real metric, not a circular argument for a random trait being superior to all others.  Anything above anarchy is a reduction of freedom, so unless you want total anarchy you need to get some other metric to argue your case.

Right now you're saying you support freedom at any cost, up to pain of death.  I'm OK with that, but I'm not willing to let you impose that on me.  I'd be willing to let you impose it on yourself though, per the above.

 

I get that you idealize the concept of freedom, but again I'm not sure how you expect to convince anyone else of your argument if you can't define something objective, unless the idea is just to rely on the potential emotive impact.

Let's put it this way.  Since you've acknowledged that no system is truly Libertarian, then if two Libertarians are arguing over how Libertarian their Libertarian system should be, what metric would they use to decide between the two systems?  Or is the system with more freedom automatically correct?  If that is the case, why not pure anarchy?  Again, metrics.  Define a metric, then we'll see what system works best to accomplish that.

 

Re: Your question- There are two different complaints listed, really.  

One is, "Justify incorrect government actions." but why would I?  They are incorrect, I doubt I like them any more than you.  So what?  This is like your complaint about irresponsible spending...your solution is to say throw the whole thing out, damn the consequences, it will all work out somehow even though it never has before.  My response is to say, OK, let's fix those things, other nations have fixed those things, we can too.

Two is, "Justify making me do anything I don't explicitely agree to do." which is a non starter, because even the most bare bones Libertarian government already does that.  The very concepts of citizenship and social contract makes that a fact of life.  The only way to avoid it would be anarchy.  The only way to minimize it would be creating a dictatorship where the dictator only agreed to do certain things, and never budged.  Being part of a society in general will always make some people must conform to ideas they don't like.  What is the alternative?

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:mellestad

Kapkao wrote:

mellestad wrote:

If your base metric is freedom, that's great, but I'll gladly pick the nations highest on the human development index over a lawless wasteland, free or not.  My goal in life isn't to die free, it is to die *happy*.

So you're content to live in Iceland? Switzerland? How about Australia?

Somehow, I think your current situation betrays your actual intent...

Quote:
Until someone can show that Libertarianism leads to better, healthier societies and individuals I'm not going to swallow it.

I think that is perhaps *THE* most practical statement anyone has yet to make in this thread. Unfortunately, 'better', 'healthier' living locale doesn't appear to be your goal, judging by your actions.

 

Those are a lot of assumptions for such a short post.  America is a lawless wasteland?  I'm dying in misery?  I rate low in individual happiness and well-being?  I'd personally be happier somewhere else?

 

If I lived in Iceland, Switzerland, Australia, etc. I'd be about average by most metrics.  In the U.S. I'm well above the mean.  That's the point, not whether an individual case study is better or worse.

 

The fact is, I'm fortunate, more fortunate than most in America.  I don't have a reason to leave, but I do have a reason to work towards a system where others are likely to find the same level of happiness and well-being I currently have.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


ragdish
atheist
ragdish's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2007-12-31
User is offlineOffline
The thousand pound gorilla in the room

Except maybe Rich Woods, none of the libertarians thus far on this thread have really addressed the threat that theologically bound capitalism poses for any hopeful future in the United States. Sure, we can argue about the instability of social democracies and axing benefits or we can talk of the sequelae of conflicting self-interests of individualism with class warfare. These are age old arguments that probably date back to Adam Smith. Beyond Saving has no problems living among "libertarians" whose insecurity leads to blind religious faith as long as they don't infringe on his liberties. Well the fact of the matter is that whether we like it or not, each of us is not an island but in fact a social animal who has no choice but to be among the relgious retards. They will end up calling the shots and this will inevitably culminate in squashing any rational atheist libertarian. These folks are not Goldwater republicans nor are they really fans of Ayn Rand. In a heartbeat they'll burn and then ban all her works when confronted with her atheism. I certainly have no expertise on which economic model will charter the US towards being a successful democracy in the long run (and I wholeheartedly agree with the great track record). But a country run by people who believe the earth is only 6000 years old and a sizeable chunk of the populace (at least 20%) who believe that the sun revolves around the earth, such a society will spiral out of control until the Palinite dullards elect.................THESE GUYS:

It's happened before. Ihre papiere, bitte!!!!!!!!

 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:Except maybe

ragdish wrote:

Except maybe Rich Woods, none of the libertarians thus far on this thread have really addressed the threat that theologically bound capitalism poses for any hopeful future in the United States. Sure, we can argue about the instability of social democracies and axing benefits or we can talk of the sequelae of conflicting self-interests of individualism with class warfare. These are age old arguments that probably date back to Adam Smith. Beyond Saving has no problems living among "libertarians" whose insecurity leads to blind religious faith as long as they don't infringe on his liberties. Well the fact of the matter is that whether we like it or not, each of us is not an island but in fact a social animal who has no choice but to be among the relgious retards. They will end up calling the shots and this will inevitably culminate in squashing any rational atheist libertarian. These folks are not Goldwater republicans nor are they really fans of Ayn Rand. In a heartbeat they'll burn and then ban all her works when confronted with her atheism. I certainly have no expertise on which economic model will charter the US towards being a successful democracy in the long run (and I wholeheartedly agree with the great track record). But a country run by people who believe the earth is only 6000 years old and a sizeable chunk of the populace (at least 20%) who believe that the sun revolves around the earth, such a society will spiral out of control until the Palinite dullards elect.................THESE GUYS:

It's happened before. Ihre papiere, bitte!!!!!!!!

 

 

Well, that is certainly the most negative way to look at it, lol.

 

I think the reality of it is just another nail in the coffin against the modern Libertarian concept ever coming into real power.  The fact of it is, once the fundamentalist right latched onto the concept it doomed it to popular success.  It might influence the Republican party, but it won't ever run the country.

Granted, I'm not saying it can't do damage, but they were already a voting block in the Republican party before.  So now things are worse, but I'd say they are only a few percent worse rather than a total disaster.

 

Overall though I agree with you...that mindset of proud and willful ignorance is not suitable for governance in the modern world, and I agree that the fundamentalist theists will turn on the rest of the movement in a heartbeat....the two portions of the voting block don't actually have anything in common besides being anti-current-establishment.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Doubly not

Kapkao wrote:

Doubly not valid. I wasn't talking about you, old fart.

 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5526
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:@Beyond: I

mellestad wrote:

@Beyond: I would be OK with opt-out, with the conditions that it be taken at adulthood.  You'd probably need to be physically separated though, otherwise you'd be inadvertently benefiting from a social contract you were not a part of.  But I've said that before, I'd love it if all the Libertarians could take over an island and show everyone else how great the system works, then I'd finally have an example to use in justifying my innate cultural bias.

 

Well my most realistic dream for libertarianism is that the Federal government gives up most of its power and allows the states the autonomy that was granted to them in our Constitution. Giving states control over all of the social welfare programs to run as they see fit would create a wide variety in the US. Then I can just choose which state I want to live in. Unfortunately, everyone seems to think the Federal government has to be the solution to everything. Why? The state level government is much easier to change, far more adaptable and different states have different needs. A one size fits all approach isn't best. 

 

mellestad wrote:

I've never said there was a pure system for socialism or Libertarianism, so you're barking up the wrong tree for that argument.  If your argument is just that more freedom equals better then you need to define metrics for 'better' rather than say, 'more freedom equals better, because freedom is better than non-freedom'.  That is where you're at now.  What is better?  The idea of freedom makes you happy, but someone dying of a preventable disease because they failed to plan makes me sad.  So how do we resolve that?  We find a real metric, not a circular argument for a random trait being superior to all others.  Anything above anarchy is a reduction of freedom, so unless you want total anarchy you need to get some other metric to argue your case.

Let us take that example. Someone is grossly overweight and has severe heart issues. The Dr. says lose weight or you will die. The person doesn't lose weight and dies, sad. Is it your responsibility or societies responsibility to force that person into a healthier lifestyle? I don't want to live in a world where other people concern themselves with my weight. If I want to eat and get fat I will accept the consequences.

Drinking alcohol has absolutely no redeeming value to society and causes a lot of damage. Should we stop people from drinking? It is sad when someone drinks themselves to death or lose their job because of it. Even with people who only drink moderately, it certainly can affect their ability to produce economically. Working with a hangover is never as efficient as working without one. So if you want the most efficient economy banning alcohol should be near the top of your list. 

People do a million things that are bad ideas and might cause them to be less effective producers for society and lead to results that might make you sad. The fundamental question is should society have the right to impose restrictions on a person to prevent them from harming themselves. I say no. I want the freedom to make mistakes and will allow others the same. 

The difference between libertarianism and anarchy is that libertarians recognize that in an anarchy certain people are going to use force and violence to control others, it is human nature. So we agree that a minimal government is necessary to prevent such violence. I believe governments role should be as a referee. Obviously, freedom from government means nothing if your neighbor comes over with a gun and steals your money. So government needs to do what is necessary to prevent one person from using force to take away the freedom of another. Your freedom ends when you are taking away the freedom of another person. So I reject the idea that society has a right or a responsibility to stop people from harming themselves. It does have a responsibility to prevent people from harming others. 

 

mellestad wrote:

Right now you're saying you support freedom at any cost, up to pain of death.  I'm OK with that, but I'm not willing to let you impose that on me.  I'd be willing to let you impose it on yourself though, per the above.

 

I'm not imposing anything. If you want a universal healthcare system, set one up. If you want social security, set it up. If you want to be a slave go ahead. There is no reason all of the social welfare programs couldn't be set up as private charities. All I'm saying is don't come to me with a gun and say "pay for this program or else" because you think it might be a good idea. I'm not opposed to helping people, I'm opposed to people taking from me. If I see someone on the street who needs money I might toss them a 20, if that person attempts to mug me they aren't getting shit. There is a big difference between taking and giving. Taking is wrong, even if it is done with noble intentions. I see no fundamental difference if the group taking is one person, five people or a whole government. 

I get that you idealize the concept of freedom, but again I'm not sure how you expect to convince anyone else of your argument if you can't define something objective, unless the idea is just to rely on the potential emotive impact.

 

mellestad wrote:

Let's put it this way.  Since you've acknowledged that no system is truly Libertarian, then if two Libertarians are arguing over how Libertarian their Libertarian system should be, what metric would they use to decide between the two systems?  Or is the system with more freedom automatically correct?  If that is the case, why not pure anarchy?  Again, metrics.  Define a metric, then we'll see what system works best to accomplish that.

I would say that most libertarians would base it on which system allows individuals the most freedom to live their life. Most of the disagreements come in because peoples freedoms collide. We can pretty much all agree that you shouldn't have the freedom to murder your neighbor because by exercising that freedom you are destroying your neighbors freedom. It gets quite a bit more complex with other issues such as say speed limits. Some argue that speed limits are necessary because speeding puts other peoples lives at risk. Other libertarians might argue that the extra risk is negligible and a person should only face punishment if actual damage occurs. Property rights, free speech, gun rights (can you own a nuke? a large bomb? a grenade?) etc. are all issues libertarians might disagree over as far as where exactly the line should be drawn. 

 

mellestad wrote:

Two is, "Justify making me do anything I don't explicitely agree to do." which is a non starter, because even the most bare bones Libertarian government already does that.  The very concepts of citizenship and social contract makes that a fact of life.  The only way to avoid it would be anarchy.  The only way to minimize it would be creating a dictatorship where the dictator only agreed to do certain things, and never budged.  Being part of a society in general will always make some people must conform to ideas they don't like.  What is the alternative?

 


 

Yes, but the point of my questions is where do you draw the line? How much authoritarianism is too much and how do you determine it? My line is the government should only intervene when one persons freedoms are imposing on another persons freedom. We need to attempt to determine which parties freedom is being more imposed on. In a social democracy, that isn't the question. That is why I maintain that in many ways the US is still a society based on libertarian ideals because answering that question is mostly what the Supreme Court does and most Americans still have some feeling that individual freedoms ought to be protected. So that is my line and how I determine my side on pretty much every political issue. What is yours?

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5526
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ragdish wrote:Except maybe

ragdish wrote:

Except maybe Rich Woods, none of the libertarians thus far on this thread have really addressed the threat that theologically bound capitalism poses for any hopeful future in the United States. Sure, we can argue about the instability of social democracies and axing benefits or we can talk of the sequelae of conflicting self-interests of individualism with class warfare. These are age old arguments that probably date back to Adam Smith. Beyond Saving has no problems living among "libertarians" whose insecurity leads to blind religious faith as long as they don't infringe on his liberties. Well the fact of the matter is that whether we like it or not, each of us is not an island but in fact a social animal who has no choice but to be among the relgious retards. They will end up calling the shots and this will inevitably culminate in squashing any rational atheist libertarian. These folks are not Goldwater republicans nor are they really fans of Ayn Rand. In a heartbeat they'll burn and then ban all her works when confronted with her atheism. I certainly have no expertise on which economic model will charter the US towards being a successful democracy in the long run (and I wholeheartedly agree with the great track record). But a country run by people who believe the earth is only 6000 years old and a sizeable chunk of the populace (at least 20%) who believe that the sun revolves around the earth, such a society will spiral out of control until the Palinite dullards elect.................THESE GUYS:

It's happened before. Ihre papiere, bitte!!!!!!!!

 

 

Right now they are not in power and have no realistic ability to get in power in the near future. I maintain that by having a government that is small and limited you make it more difficult for any crazy group of people to exercise control. If the government is not powerful then it doesn't matter as much if they ever get control. Right now, with our government as powerful and influential as it is, it would be devastating if they gained control. If we had the small limited federal government our Constitution set up, GW would have caused a lot less damage. So if your concern is that some group that disagrees with you will someday be in power, you should be concerned about how much power the government has.

Which is why I find it morbidly amusing all the "conservatives" that have suddenly become upset over the powers in the Patriot Act because Obama is in power. What did you expect dumbasses? eventually the other guy is going to have that power, so if you don't want them to have it you shouldn't create it for yourselves. 
 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4149
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Me...formerly Christian

Me...formerly Christian political conservative, now I'm a politically conservative atheist.    

   I was actually a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party for quite a while.   As an conservative atheist my political views are no longer constrained by former theological perspectives.  I support gay marriage and total legal parity when compared to their heterosexual counterparts.  I support the legalization of certain currently prohibited drugs for personal use.  I agree that abortion should be legally available within established guidelines.  I agree with the concept of civilian gun ownership.....blah bla blah, you get it.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
@Beyond:  I don't have a

@Beyond:  I don't have a problem with states rights, there I agree with the basic Libertarian ideal.  Honestly though, any state could already do this...they just have to reject all Fed funding.  Funny how it doesn't happen even in the more Libertarian states like Montana.

 

About that specific issue:  I don't necessarily support explicit bans on things, but I do support regulations and education programs that help people make informed decisions.  As I don't believe in a soul or free will, I know that external influences can cause people to make bad decisions.  You can't rely on people making informed decisions unless you give them the education and knowledge to make informed decisions.  So, something has to balance the real power that food has on the brain, power to cause addiction and over-consumption which leads to damage that can impact the individual and the community.

So, with food examples, I wouldn't want bans on certain food items, but I would want mandated labeling at points of sale that acknowledge risk, and I would want education programs in place to teach children and adults about the situations.

Some things probably should be banned though.  I'm not sure how I feel about the legality of selling an addicting substance like Alcohol and Tobacco when you know, statistically, it will kill X% of the people who try it.  That is tough though, because usually those things do cause some measure of happiness to the individual, so you have to figure out the cost versus benefit, and the likelyhood of something like a ban even working or the damage a ban might cause: see, war on drugs.  Those are complicated issues.

If they are sold, they need to be heavily taxed to pay for the damage they do to society, since you can't rely on the user to pay the debt they will likely accrue.  Or you just let them die I guess, but that isn't a direction I'd like to go.  Balancing the good created by freedom of choice with the bad of the likely outcome of that choice is something that can be objectively measured.

------------

So, freedom is better because freedom is better.  OK, I guess we can agree to disagree there.  Figuring out, 'where to draw the line' is something we all do, so in reality that means we don't agree in principle, just in degree.

I know you say you don't, but when you answer questions like that your metric is actually, "what is best for society".  You just think freedom is best for society, but I'm asking you to justify that with evidence.

 

Where do I draw the line?  Theoretically, I'd like to draw the line at the point where damage to society occurs to a greater degree than benefit, if an alternative is available.  Complicated, but more realistic and objective than just assuming freedom is always better when evidence seems to show that is not true.

 

-------------

For example, by your metrics, we are still probably the most 'free' nation on Earth.  We should be the best, right?  Our people should be the healthiest and happiest?  Happiest?  Something-est?  And our society 150 years ago should have been even better, right?  But we aren't and it wasn't.  "Free-est" doesn't mean anything to me unless it is part of a larger metric.  To me, that is sort of case closed unless someone can shift the preponderance of evidence back the other way.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5526
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:@Beyond:  I

mellestad wrote:

@Beyond:  I don't have a problem with states rights, there I agree with the basic Libertarian ideal.  Honestly though, any state could already do this...they just have to reject all Fed funding.  Funny how it doesn't happen even in the more Libertarian states like Montana.

Even if a state were to do so, everyone in it would still have to pay the same in federal taxes. Several states have had movements to do just that, but the idea becomes unpopular because people figure, "Well I'm paying anyway, I might as well get something for it." Now if you could stop accepting government money and that would lead to a large reduction in your Federal taxes a state or two would probably do it. 

 

mellestad wrote:

So, freedom is better because freedom is better.  OK, I guess we can agree to disagree there.  Figuring out, 'where to draw the line' is something we all do, so in reality that means we don't agree in principle, just in degree.

I know you say you don't, but when you answer questions like that your metric is actually, "what is best for society".  You just think freedom is best for society, but I'm asking you to justify that with evidence.

 

Where do I draw the line?  Theoretically, I'd like to draw the line at the point where damage to society occurs to a greater degree than benefit, if an alternative is available.  Complicated, but more realistic and objective than just assuming freedom is always better when evidence seems to show that is not true.

 

-------------

For example, by your metrics, we are still probably the most 'free' nation on Earth.  We should be the best, right?  Our people should be the healthiest and happiest?  Happiest?  Something-est?  And our society 150 years ago should have been even better, right?  But we aren't and it wasn't.  "Free-est" doesn't mean anything to me unless it is part of a larger metric.  To me, that is sort of case closed unless someone can shift the preponderance of evidence back the other way.

 

That is where you and I disagree the most. I reject the idea of asking "What is best for society" I don't care what is best for society. I care about what is best for me. If society happens to benefit as well, that is a happy coincidence. In 60 years or less I will be worm food, why should I spend my life worrying about making society as a whole happy? It is hard enough making one person you live with happy to the extent it is possible to make anyone happy. 

Of the countries I have visited, the US is certainly the place I want to live above the others. I am happiest here because of the freedoms I enjoy that many Americans seem to take for granted. I worry about taking care of myself and don't want others trying to take care of me, so I don't try to take care of others. If someone comes up to me and says "I need your help" I will help as I can. If someone is destroying their life but doesn't want my help, that is their business.  

 

edit: Of course, I haven't traveled everywhere in the world yet, so maybe I will find a place I like better some time. At which point, I will simply move there. 


 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
@Beyond:  Well, that makes

@Beyond:  Well, that makes sense then, my morality dictates I have some concern for the wellbeing of society, and that will be good for me as well.  I'd like my children to be statistically more likely to be happy and healthy and it tickles my fancy to leave the world a better place than it was when I got here.  Statistically, Libertarianism is good for some, but it is not optimal for the majority.  Well run socialist democracies seem to be the best bet we have right now for the majority, based on the evidence available.  I don't see a way to resolve that quandary where our core beliefs part, unfortunately, since the goal is apparently dissimilar.

 

The only thing I would point out is the idea that it is possible for you to be some sort of island in the midst of a society seems naive.  I honestly think you have it backwards in regards to what enables your own happiness.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5526
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:@Beyond:

mellestad wrote:

@Beyond:  Well, that makes sense then, my morality dictates I have some concern for the wellbeing of society, and that will be good for me as well.  I'd like my children to be statistically more likely to be happy and healthy and it tickles my fancy to leave the world a better place than it was when I got here.  Statistically, Libertarianism is good for some, but it is not optimal for the majority.  Well run socialist democracies seem to be the best bet we have right now for the majority, based on the evidence available.  I don't see a way to resolve that quandary where our core beliefs part, unfortunately, since the goal is apparently dissimilar.

 

The only thing I would point out is the idea that it is possible for you to be some sort of island in the midst of a society seems naive.  I honestly think you have it backwards in regards to what enables your own happiness.

 

 

Let me ask you this then, do you have a utilitarian viewpoint where whatever is best for the most people in society is the best course of action? Say one government action would be better for 280 million people and the other would be better for only 50 million people, is the former necessarily better?  Or do you use your own morality or something else as a measure for any government action? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

mellestad wrote:

@Beyond:  Well, that makes sense then, my morality dictates I have some concern for the wellbeing of society, and that will be good for me as well.  I'd like my children to be statistically more likely to be happy and healthy and it tickles my fancy to leave the world a better place than it was when I got here.  Statistically, Libertarianism is good for some, but it is not optimal for the majority.  Well run socialist democracies seem to be the best bet we have right now for the majority, based on the evidence available.  I don't see a way to resolve that quandary where our core beliefs part, unfortunately, since the goal is apparently dissimilar.

 

The only thing I would point out is the idea that it is possible for you to be some sort of island in the midst of a society seems naive.  I honestly think you have it backwards in regards to what enables your own happiness.

 

 

Let me ask you this then, do you have a utilitarian viewpoint where whatever is best for the most people in society is the best course of action? Say one government action would be better for 280 million people and the other would be better for only 50 million people, is the former necessarily better?  Or do you use your own morality or something else as a measure for any government action? 

Depends on what the repercussions are of both the choices and the system that lets people make whatever judgement we are talking about, either way.

 

For example, it might be, "Best" to simply kill anyone who does a particular thing 49% of a society happens to disagree with, but it might be 'Worse' to have a society where such a thing is permissible in the first place.

 

So yes, my view is utilitarian, but it isn't simplistic...every action has potential for complex chain reactions.  My default position on an issue would be freedom over government intrusion for just this reason, however when we have clear evidence about efficacy then I would chose what works best over what is free...with the caveat that we're talking about a holistic approach, not just knee-jerk simplistic stuff.  Sometimes the best holistic approach is to leave people alone and simply accept the damage that causes, because it is cheaper overall than the alternatives...like the modern drug war.  If I could wave a magic wand and make substance abuse disappear forever, I'd probably do it.  But I'm out of magic wands, so right now I'd just like to legalize it, tax it and use the revenue for rehab clinics and education programs.

------------------------

So, shorter answer to your question:  All other things being equal, then yes, I would choose the option with greater positive benefit.  However, all other things are very often not equal between two choices which is why politics is hard.  I'd just like to see a more science-based approach to political issues where possible.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The

Beyond Saving wrote:

The difference between libertarianism and anarchy is that libertarians recognize that in an anarchy certain people are going to use force and violence to control others, it is human nature. 


Oh? I thought human nature wasn't a valid argument against the highly unrealistic anarchist utopias often promoted on RRS...

/sarcasm

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  I

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
  I support the legalization of certain currently prohibited drugs for personal use.

That includes opiate derivatives, crack/cocaine, and tranquilizers of various kinds, right? Maybe not?

The one thing I staunchly disagree with libertarians on, is the unwavering belief in COMPLETE legalization of *all* substances, all the way up to speedballs.

mellestad wrote:
@Beyond:  I don't have a problem with states rights, there I agree with the basic Libertarian ideal.  Honestly though, any state could already do this...they just have to reject all Fed funding.  Funny how it doesn't happen even in the more Libertarian states like Montana. 

Montana is libertarian?

You left out something else important: many states that take federal funding take more in than they pay out in taxes. However, even still, I'd demand that the feds drop quite a few of their taxes, including the Income Tax, before anyone gives up the federal funding tit.

There is little to no logic in having someone from... Oregon, pay for Earmarks/Congressional pet projects in Maine.

Quote:
And our society 150 years ago should have been even better, right?

In what manner? Just before the Civil War (or during it's pre-declaration stages, rather) states were rebelling not because of attempts at Abolition, but because the Nation was sliding towards despotism.  Only later on did Abe decide to make things about slavery and proclamation. This is the time period where the phrase "40 acres and a mule" comes from.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4149
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:ProzacDeathWish

Kapkao wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
  I support the legalization of certain currently prohibited drugs for personal use.

That includes opiate derivatives, crack/cocaine, and tranquilizers of various kinds, right? Maybe not?

The one thing I staunchly disagree with libertarians on, is the unwavering belief in COMPLETE legalization of *all* substances, all the way up to speedballs.

 

      Um, actually I was thinking more along the lines of marijuana, hash, ( mushrooms ? ) stuff  like that.   Others may in fact endorse the personal use of your laundry list of  drugs  but they don't speak for me and neither do you.  Libertarians, like atheists, frequently disagree on any nunber of things so don't lump us all together, m'kay ?


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
      Um, actually I was thinking more along the lines of marijuana, hash, stuff  like that.   Others may endorse the personal use of your laundry list of  drugs  but they don't speak for me and neither do you.  Libertarians, like atheists, frequently disagree on any nunber of things. 

I'm just trying to get my compass set for this "true libertarianism" rubbish... apparently I also forgot my sarcasm tags.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5526
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 If an adult decides to use

 If an adult decides to use hard drugs, fully knowing the dangers, what gives you the authority to stop them?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5526
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Depends on

mellestad wrote:

Depends on what the repercussions are of both the choices and the system that lets people make whatever judgement we are talking about, either way.

 

For example, it might be, "Best" to simply kill anyone who does a particular thing 49% of a society happens to disagree with, but it might be 'Worse' to have a society where such a thing is permissible in the first place.

 

So yes, my view is utilitarian, but it isn't simplistic...every action has potential for complex chain reactions.  My default position on an issue would be freedom over government intrusion for just this reason, however when we have clear evidence about efficacy then I would chose what works best over what is free...with the caveat that we're talking about a holistic approach, not just knee-jerk simplistic stuff.  Sometimes the best holistic approach is to leave people alone and simply accept the damage that causes, because it is cheaper overall than the alternatives...like the modern drug war.  If I could wave a magic wand and make substance abuse disappear forever, I'd probably do it.  But I'm out of magic wands, so right now I'd just like to legalize it, tax it and use the revenue for rehab clinics and education programs.

------------------------

So, shorter answer to your question:  All other things being equal, then yes, I would choose the option with greater positive benefit.  However, all other things are very often not equal between two choices which is why politics is hard.  I'd just like to see a more science-based approach to political issues where possible.

 

What I am interested in is your approach to politics seems to be based in your conception of morality, but you apparently have no problem with immoral actions by society as a whole if the result is what you conceive as "good". I assume you would agree that it would be immoral for me to go mug someone, even if I turned around and donated to a charitable cause. Yet you seem to have no problem with a majority of the population taking from a minority if the ends are good. Why is it moral for a group of people to do something that would be immoral for an individual? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: If an

Beyond Saving wrote:

 If an adult decides to use hard drugs, fully knowing the dangers, what gives you the authority to stop them?

(I hope to hell you aren't talking about my authority)

Where does most of my government's authority arise from? Constitution.... hmmm, doesn't look like it. People/popularity? Again, maybe initially, but sure as hell not in recent years. Big business... sometimes the business lobby gets it's way. Bullets? I'd wager yes.

Your question is open-ended with only a few parameters... and when has anyone used heroine fully knowing the dangers?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5526
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Beyond Saving

Kapkao wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 If an adult decides to use hard drugs, fully knowing the dangers, what gives you the authority to stop them?

(I hope to hell you aren't talking about my authority)

Where does most of my government's authority arise from? Constitution.... hmmm, doesn't look like it. People/popularity? Again, maybe initially, but sure as hell not in recent years. Big business... sometimes the business lobby gets it's way. Bullets? I'd wager yes.

Your question is open-ended with only a few parameters... and when has anyone used heroine fully knowing the dangers?

Of course it is open ended. It is a very simple and basic question. 

Yeah, government gets its power from bullets and force. And you are making the affirmative assertion that it SHOULD use that power to punish people who use drugs. I would submit that many people who use hard drugs know the dangers. They simply don't care. Either they are so miserable with their lives they don't care if they die, or they are convinced that the high is worth it. Really, is there anyone in the country who doesn't know that drugs can fuck you up? Those who use heroine probably know a lot better than anyone how much it can fuck you up because they tend to hang around other people who use heroine. So again I ask, what makes you think that you (using government as your tool) should attempt to make/keep it illegal? Why is that different than me deciding that whatever kind of self-destructive behavior you participate in should be illegal?

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:... and when

Kapkao wrote:

... and when has anyone used heroine fully knowing the dangers?

 

You mean has anyone used heroin knowing that according to Lancet medical journal it's less dangerous than alcohol? Only recently has that happened.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft