A question for atheist libertarians.
Offline 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.
- Login to post comments
Everyone in line for a methadone clinic? People attending Narcotics Anonymous of their own free will? People, who had jobs and spouses before starting, but don't any longer?
I said no such thing, merely that I disagree with most self-described libertarians that I've known, that advocate 'universal legalization'.
“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)
Simple prohibition of substances, and aggressive punishment, has been shown over and over again to NOT work, either in terms of preventing substance abuse or minimizing the harm from abuse, when that substance has strong addictive properties. It also tends to provide an environment for an entire criminal culture dedicated to extorting money from those who do develop a craving for these things.
Reasonable responses include education about the real dangers of starting to use these substances, not exaggerated scare claims, which just destroy the credibility of those making the claims. Maybe an appropriate level of taxation, if it can be shown to actually serve some useful disincentive to people starting to use, although it is unlikely to have any effect on someone addicted.
If the substance can be shown to cause mental problems that might increase the probability of the person harming others, such as degrading their ability to drive safely, or maybe making them more likely to go on a killing spree, then more regulation is justified - individual responsibility cannot address that sort of thing.
Then there should be harm mitigation measures such as setting up safe injecting rooms, where the addicted can avoid the criminal element, be more confident of uncontaminated substance, not be exposed to pressure to take up more harmful and expensive substances. In such centers, approaches to try and get them off their dependence can be tried.
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
I have negative IQ. Your post doesn't make a damn bit of sense to me...
edit; Aside from the usual snarkiness, I thought I might add that I'm under no false impression that prison terms are going to help these people.
“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)
And since you don't agree there should be legalization that means you believe it should be illegal. Or do you think that it should be legal only for people who pass a test to prove they know it is bad for them? Maybe some kind of crack license?
My question was, that since you apparently believe some drugs should be illegal, why?
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
To keep the junkies away from me, out of my neighborhood, out-of-fucking-town for that matter.
I wouldn't object if a drug's legality is decided on a state-by-state basis, though. That's kinda what state's rights are for.
“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)
How do you know I prescribe something as being immoral? The assumption that any curtailing of freedom is immoral is yours, not mine.
In a hypothetical case of mugging, it would depend on how much it hurt the one you mugged versus what you did with the mugging proceeds, compared to what your other options where. If your victim was barely inconvenienced and you used the proceeds to save the life of a child and you had no other option, then I would not consider that an immoral act on your part. That doesn't mean a healthy society wouldn't punish you to keep similar acts from happening (the cost benefit ratio of letting you go free might be bad), it just means the moral calculus would be in your favor for that particular action.
If you mugged them and it caused a great deal of financial, physical and emotional duress and used the proceeds to watch the new Harry Potter movie, that would be a moral negative.
If you had an alternate choice to accomplish your goal, like, getting a job, then it wouldn't matter what the cost/benefit of the mugging was because any pain caused in the mugging would be unjustifiable.
Cases where the immediate cost is closer to even would likely fall under negative because of the overall long term damage of the act, which is why you would have laws with blanket prohibitions against it.
I'm genuinely sorry you feel like you're being mugged every paycheck though, that must be an unhappy way to go through life. If it were within my power to let you exile yourself from society and our social contract and thereby be happier, I'd be glad to do so.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Bryan CaplanDavid FriedmanWalter BlockStefan MolyneuxMurray RothbardPenn JulletteJoseph SalernoAyne RandLew Rockwell
They're all atheist libertarians. You may be communicating with conservative libertarians and Ron Paul libertarians, who have a stronger tendency to believe in a God. I think that when you look at all libertarians, there's a stronger correlation between them and atheism than the average person.