Teaching the NAP... Religiously?

[Kludge]

Has there been any discussion on teaching the NAP as a religion?

Seems to me that it's the most important fundamental of living an "ethical" life and of libertarianism. With all the atheists, where are people to learn to become "civilized" with no Commandments directing their actions?

If people were converted to believe in the NAP, why... There'd be a reduction in crime, more politeness/respect among Man, and more libertarians to elect like-minded individuals!


Better still, being a religion gives us all the great benefits bestowed by our Great Nation of Religious Subsidization! If the "Religious Right" can preach (neo)conservatism through Christianity, why shouldn't libertarians preach libertarianism through the NAP? We could call it something like the Church of Spiritual Pacifism -- the media would eat that shit up!

[Kludge]

Bump.

Praise Epicurus!

[tggroo7]

Care to say what NAP is for people like me who have absolutely no idea?

New American People?
No Asking Policy?
Nude Armenian Pornography?

[Kludge]

Care to say what NAP is for people like me who have absolutely no idea?

New American People?
No Asking Policy?
Nude Armenian Pornography?

Non-Aggression Principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

If we had a NAP religion, questions like that would be non-existent!

Glory to Epicurus!

[inibo]

Care to say what NAP is for people like me who have absolutely no idea?

New American People?
No Asking Policy?
Nude Armenian Pornography?

Non-Aggression Principle. Also called ZAP, Zero Aggression Principle.

L. Neil Smith sums it up as follows:


Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap")
"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."

[Conza88]

Non-Aggression Principle. Also called ZAP, Zero Aggression Principle.

Also known as the Non Aggression Axiom... :)

The Ethics of Liberty - Murray Rothbard, can be the "bible" ? :D

[Kludge]

The Ethics of Liberty - Murray Rothbard, can be the "bible" ?

So long as I'm "His Supreme Earthly Authority".

Anyone know how we could go about founding a religion recognized by the gov't?

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

I think you'll find this already recurring in eastern philosophy and religion of various kinds. Isn't that where libertarianism's oldest roots lie?

The Quakers, as well, have evolved into an all encompassing pacifist umbrella, even as far as accepting non-believers.

But religion? Too closely linked to unquestioning subservience to be applied to individualism. One should always strive to question their philosophical leanings, especially when you consider what a philosophical nightmare the non-aggression axiom is. For example, could it be considered abusive to videotape a woman who's suffered sexual abuse in a pornographic act? Or is that a matter of personal choice and responsibility? Is it ethical to take bets from a man with a known gambling problem? Is abortion an act of aggression upon a fetus, or the choice of the mother? Etc.

[Kludge]

I think you'll find this already recurring in eastern philosophy and religion of various kinds. Isn't that where libertarianism's oldest roots lie?

The Quakers, as well, have evolved into an all encompassing pacifist umbrella, even as far as accepting non-believers.

I fear that trying to "hijack" an established religion would merely cause tears and be ineffective in general. (Actually, I wasn't aware any Quakers were still around!)

What if we had loud leadership, expanding membership as quickly as possible. Atheism is one of the fastest growing faiths out there -- why not round them up and give them absolute morals. They could have the feeling of knowing convictions absolutely as do many true Christians while still rejecting God (god/gods). If the church could become involved in many charities as well, it would counterpunch the stereotyping of atheists and libertarians alike as stingy and miserly people rebelling against the world.

[Kludge]

But religion? Too closely linked to unquestioning subservience to be applied to individualism. One should always strive to question their philosophical leanings, especially when you consider what a philosophical nightmare the non-aggression axiom is. For example, could it be considered abusive to videotape a woman who's suffered sexual abuse in a pornographic act? Or is that a matter of personal choice and responsibility? Is it ethical to take bets from a man with a known gambling problem? Is abortion an act of aggression upon a fetus, or the choice of the mother? Etc.

It would be unquestioning servitude, no doubt, but I don't believe that to be necessarily bad. I imagine it as a cult at best, but a darn effective one. We may not be able to give people fundamental beliefs, but we can at least give the one solid conviction of believing in the NAP. If they evolve to the point of questioning our leadership, we could either politely cast them out of the cult and congratulate them or promote them to a leadership role.

As for variations due to the ambiguity of the NAP, that could be resolved with denominations if necessary.

[Roxi]

COUNT ME IN!! finally i found religion!

[Kludge]

And LORD Epicurus set forth and returned with the PRIME DIRECTIVE. With his disciples, the LORD shared this directive, directing them never to do harm unto another unless harm hath already been done unto your self by that person.


(Any input on how offensive this is/would be to Christian/Jew/Muslim/Buddhist/Atheist libertarians?)