Utopia!Originally Posted by thoughtomator
Reply With Quote
Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
Utopia!
Citizen of Arizona
@cleaner4d4
I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.
Hey, its a start. I really wish it could be quicker, though...
Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice. Spending will go up and up and up and then pop goes the USD.
That is a great quote. He was awesome. The Reason people and Gary Johnson acolytes need to understand this quote.
Last edited by Sola_Fide; 05-02-2015 at 12:40 PM.
OP,
What libertarianism is proposing is very simple - i.e. the government should do nothing other than protect life and property.
But you will not understand why this would be a good system without understanding economics.
To that end, I recommend reading "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlett - free PDF version.
Then read "Lessons for the Young Economist" by Robert Murphy - free PDF version.
If you digest both those works, you will already know more economics than 99% of the population (including quite a few professional economists), and you will understand why libertarianism is a good idea.
Libertarianism is most succinctly codified in Murray Rothbard's atrocious work "Ethics of Liberty" wherein he attempts to use the life-boat scenario of "self defense" to philosophically back the idea that imprisoning, enslaving, mutilating, and killing people is justified as restitution for wealth and life lost. He puts forward the idea that "proportional punishment" is the key for optimum health of such a system and strict adherence to this punishment is the most effective means to achieve liberty.
He goes on to say in the text that pacifism and other more "merciful" forms of rehabilitation, etc. are antithetical to liberty and that those who hold those more "forgiving" positions are actually anti-liberty.
Rothbard would hate more than half the people in this movement, and yet those ideas (that no one reads obviously around here) are what all of you go around spouting when you parrot this "Non-aggression principle" garbage. Rothbard was all about violence. He believed in merciless excution of judgement in direct proportion to crime was the most efficient way to achieve liberty.
He explicitly says he not only supports eye for an eye, but says TWO EYES FOR AN EYE, because eye for an eye doesn't teach the criminal a lesson.
You can't follow Rothbardian libertarianism and Jesus. Rothbard says this explicitly in the book too when he says "Only the Tolstoyan can disagree with my position". The Tolstoyan position is the Christian position on government. Rothbard knew more about Christian form of government than probably any of you do, and he rejected it, explicitly.
So not only is Rothbard anti-Christian, but he goes out of his way to point out that Christians are anti-liberty. Untrue of course, but the devil often employs lying God-haters.
The water was poisoned before this movement ever started.
When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6
@wizardwatson
1. Rothbard believed that criminals should have to compensate their victims (as opposed to the current system, which emphasizes punishment rather than compensation). He sets "two teeth for a tooth" as the upper limit to what the victim may justly extract from the criminal (whether in the form of money or corporeal punishment); but the victim always has the option to reduce the penalty, or let the criminal off with no penalty at all, if he pleases. Mercy is not excluded. Now, what exactly is your objection to that? What do you think should happen to criminals?
2. Rothbard was not anti-Christian. He was not himself a Christian, of course, but he had many kind words for Christianity - some forms of it anyway. He loathed low-church pietist denominations, he liked high-church liturgical denominations: not for theological reasons but because of their effects on society. The former was associated with communism and American progressivism, while the latter tended in a more libertarian direction. Without getting into all that, my point is simply that he did not dismiss Christianity as bad or unimportant, nor did he hate Christians, nor did he think Christianity and libertarianism were incompatible. Your perception that libertarians hate Christianity sounds like projection (you are evidently some kind of Christian who hates libertarians).
No mercy is not excluded, but Rothbard basically says in the book that those people who do show mercy aren't helping achieve liberty. The degree to which you show mercy is the degree to which you are anti-liberty according to his philosophy.
My position is the Tolstoyan position which he rejects and tries, quite badly, to refute in his little book.
As to what to do with criminals, well, no government of man is going to be perfect that's why the Tolstoyan position is optimal. But if you have to ask what to "do" about criminals and justice then you don't really understand what a true Christian believes.
Hint (as much as it pains me to quote Paul, I do like this quote): Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
There's this saying, "you know a tree by it's fruits". I've read a lot of Rothbard's words pandering to the religious position because, well, he was aware he wasn't going to stamp it out.
LRC does a good job of pandering here:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/03/...with-religion/
But your social posts to build your army of groupies are irrelevant to me. Ethics of Liberty is his masterpiece. That is the "fruit" of his thinking. That's where he says what he really thinks. And in that work he attacks the Christian position on government.
His official position is this according to above article:
So like so many of you, Rothbard thinks God and Christ's commands are irrelevant to the question of using violence in defense of property. In other words, Rothbard "gets" that most religious people are milquetoast and don't take their faith into the public sphere and require a government ruled by Christ's message of compassion and mercy. Me and Tolstoy do. (Sorry/Not sorry) To a real Christian EVERYTHING YOU DO WITH YOUR LIFE INCLUDING HOW YOU SEE GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONING IS RELEVANT TO CHRIST'S COMMANDS. So it is most definitely not "irrelevant" to libertarianism as Rothbard quips.Libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. . . . Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism.
The big LIE Rothbard tells in that quote is that his book is "political theory" when it's not. The TITLE is "Ethics". This is subjective moral judgement. He claims that it's MORAL to use violence to achieve liberty, plain and simple. He says, quite correctly, that most of the world agrees with this, but, showing some honesty (admirable) he admits that the Tolstoyan's don't agree with that. (which includes me)
Now, have you actually dug into understanding Rothbard's philosophy on liberty or are you just part of the mob around here? I mean I dug into Ron Paul, that's why I like him. I dug into Rothbard, that's why I don't like his ideas.
Methinks you are a "group thinker". Why else lay the charge on me that I "hate libertarians". We're discussing ideas. I don't think Rothbard hates Christians, I think he hates Christian IDEA of government. And I hate Rothbard's SATANIC IDEA of government.
How could I hate "libertarians" around here when half of them are far more Tolstoyan/Christian than they are Rothbard/libertarian by Rothbards own standards. People around here adorn themselves with labels they don't even understand the origin of.
When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6
No one should listen to a damn thing you have to say. You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.
“the libertarian movement, and the Libertarian Party, will get nowhere in America – or throughout the world – so long as it is perceived, as it generally is, as a movement dedicated to atheism.” “Nock, Morley, Chodorov, Flynn et al. were not atheists,” he continued, “but for various accidental reasons of history, the libertarian movement after the 1950’s consisted almost exclusively of atheists.” “There is nothing inherently of wrong with this,” explained Rothbard, “except that many libertarians have habitually and wrongly acted as if religious people in general and Christians in particular are pariahs and equivalent to statists.” Just a few months before this, Rothbard had lamented that he was “getting tired of the offhanded smearing of religion that has long been endemic to the libertarian movement.” “Religion,” he said “is generally dismissed as imbecilic at best, inherently evil at worst.”“the greatest and most creative minds in the history of mankind have been deeply and profoundly religious, most of them Christian.” - Rothbard
================
Open Borders: A Libertarian Reappraisal or why only dumbasses and cultural marxists are for it.
Cultural Marxism: The Corruption of America
The Property Basis of Rights
IN THE BOOK. He attacks Christians in the philosophy he presents, goes against Christian philosophy. He attacks Tolstoy who put forth a Christian philosophy of government and who was a Christian, in the book.
And what did you post?
The philosophical ROOT of Rothbard's philosophy is anti-Christian.“the libertarian movement, and the Libertarian Party, will get nowhere in America – or throughout the world – so long as it is PERCEIVED, as it generally is, as a movement dedicated to atheism.” “Nock, Morley, Chodorov, Flynn et al. were not atheists,”
I give two $#@!s if the Pope and St. Francis of Assisi were libertarians. That's what this whole world is about. "We can't get anywhere unless what change the PERCEPTION."
Why don't you change the INCORRECT UNDERLYING PREMISE?
Libertarianism isn't un-Christian because some libertarian writers were atheist or Christian. It's un-Christian because it violates Christ's commands in the way that Rothbard presents his argument in his book
Great philosophy, I suppose Nazism is also not anti-Christian:
Those are a couple of many.“I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty
Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord’s work.”
[Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]
“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest
not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian
and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord
at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the
Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight
against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with
deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact
that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As
a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have
the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is
anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is
the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty
to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and
work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only
for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning
and see these men standing in their queues and look into their
pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very
devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two
thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people
are plundered and exposed.”
[Adolf Hitler, speech in Munich on April 12, 1922, countering a
political opponent, Count Lerchenfeld, who opposed antisemitism on
his personal Christian feelings. Published in “My New Order”, quoted
in Freethought Today April 1990]
Great to know that the Nazi holocaust had such Christian support.
Such fundamental errors abound still with you long-time supporters. Not all who say "Lord, Lord, Christ, Christ". But THOSE WHO FOLLOW MY COMMANDS. Rothbard's libertarianism violates these commands, therefore HIS PHILOSOPHY OF LIBERTY as he presents it is anti-Christian.
Last edited by wizardwatson; 05-02-2015 at 04:20 PM.
When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6
Where? Where does Rothbard say anything like that? Show me the quote.
That does not answer the question. I have no idea what you think should be done about criminals.My position is the Tolstoyan position which he rejects and tries, quite badly, to refute in his little book.
As to what to do with criminals, well, no government of man is going to be perfect that's why the Tolstoyan position is optimal. But if you have to ask what to "do" about criminals and justice then you don't really understand what a true Christian believes.
Hint (as much as it pains me to quote Paul, I do like this quote): Galatians 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
Do you think they should make no compensation? Face no punishment? Just be sent on their merry way? Or what?
The fact that you quote me scripture, rather than giving a clear answer, tells me you don't have clear thinking on the subject.
Quote me the passage which makes you think Rothbard wanted to stamp out Christianity.There's this saying, "you know a tree by it's fruits". I've read a lot of Rothbard's words pandering to the religious position because, well, he was aware he wasn't going to stamp it out.
That is indeed the libertarian position, and it is in no way anti-Christian.Ethics of Liberty is his masterpiece. That is the "fruit" of his thinking. That's where he says what he really thinks. And in that work he attacks the Christian position on government.
His official position is this according to above article:
"Libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. . . . Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism."
It is simply not pro-Christian. It has nothing to say about Christianity one way or another.
Physics doesn't mention Christianity either. Does that mean physics is anti-Christian?So like so many of you, Rothbard thinks God and Christ's commands are irrelevant to the question of using violence in defense of property. In other words, Rothbard "gets" that most religious people are milquetoast and don't take their faith into the public sphere and require a government ruled by Christ's message of compassion and mercy. Me and Tolstoy do. (Sorry/Not sorry) To a real Christian EVERYTHING YOU DO WITH YOUR LIFE INCLUDING HOW YOU SEE GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONING IS RELEVANT TO CHRIST'S COMMANDS. So it is most definitely not "irrelevant" to libertarianism as Rothbard quips.
So you're a pacifist? Is that it?The big LIE Rothbard tells in that quote is that his book is "political theory" when it's not. The TITLE is "Ethics". This is subjective moral judgement. He claims that it's MORAL to use violence to achieve liberty, plain and simple. He says, quite correctly, that most of the world agrees with this, but, showing some honesty (admirable) he admits that the Tolstoyan's don't agree with that. (which includes me)
You don't believe in violence under any circumstances (including to defend one's person or property)?
okie dokeNow, have you actually dug into understanding Rothbard's philosophy on liberty or are you just part of the mob around here? I mean I dug into Ron Paul, that's why I like him. I dug into Rothbard, that's why I don't like his ideas.
Methinks you are a "group thinker". Why else lay the charge on me that I "hate libertarians". We're discussing ideas. I don't think Rothbard hates Christians, I think he hates Christian IDEA of government. And I hate Rothbard's SATANIC IDEA of government.
How could I hate "libertarians" around here when half of them are far more Tolstoyan/Christian than they are Rothbard/libertarian by Rothbards own standards. People around here adorn themselves with labels they don't even understand the origin of.
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 05-02-2015 at 04:30 PM.
You tldr me and you want me to go online and dig through Ethics of Liberty, which you obviously haven't read, to appease you? I've read it. I summarized it. You want to defend Rothbard, you read Ethics of Liberty and deny my assertions.
But yes, Rothbard's libertarianism violates Christ's commands in its implementation therefore it is bad.
EDIT: I would however be glad to assist in communicating Christ's commands which it violates. Primarily:
Do not resist evil. - Jesus
Last edited by wizardwatson; 05-02-2015 at 04:32 PM.
When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6
Gotcha, you cannot provide any quotes to support your claims that Rothbard was hostile to Christianity (because, of course, no such quotes exist).
As for whether libertarianism contradicts (your interpretation of) Christian doctrine, I have no interest in that question.
Of course you have no interest. You support two eyes for an eye by your own admission above. Jesus specifically commanded us NOT to do that which any Sunday-Schooler knows. So you don't even have a Sunday School child's understanding of Christ's commands, how would you have an understanding of the writings of Tolstoy wherein he applies Christ's principles to government?
As for quotes, I can't help it if you don't want to google and blindly assert that I don't know what I'm talking about because somehow the burden of proof falls on me when you don't actually have a position other than "I've been following it blindly all these years, say it ain't so!!!". But since I'm feeling merciful:
https://mises.org/library/crusoe-social-philosophy
There, happy, Mr. Lazy. I got you started. That's not Ethics of Liberty but he talks about the Tolstoyan position. Ethics used to be on Mises, but it's back in print so now they want to sell it to you. Not worth buying for $18. You can get and King James Bible from Barnes and Noble for $13, much better deal.
When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6
To substantiate your own claim? Um, yes, it does. That's how a debate works.
My position is that I've read lots of Rothbard and I've never come across any of these anti-Christian statements which you claim exist (yet now refuse to provide).when you don't actually have a position other than "I've been following it blindly all these years, say it ain't so!!!".
That is not a quote. That is a link to a very long essay (which I've read - and I don't recall any anti-Christian remarks).But since I'm feeling merciful:
https://mises.org/library/crusoe-social-philosophy
There, happy, Mr. Lazy. I got you started. That's not Ethics of Liberty but he talks about the Tolstoyan position. Ethics used to be on Mises, but it's back in print so now they want to sell it to you. Not worth buying for $18. You can get and King James Bible from Barnes and Noble for $13, much better deal.
Try again.
BTW, here's a copy of EoL for ya, so you can find me that much anticipated quote.
http://anarcho-capitalist.org/wp-con...%20Liberty.pdf
Well, we've already established that you are clueless about Christ's commands, or at least not at Sunday-Schooler level. So the fact that you would not recognize anti-Christian sentiment in the garbage you read is not surprising. I don't write typically for the person I'm responding to as much as the readers as a whole. Try to take that into account.
You see, you've definitely read "some stuff", that much is clear. But Ethics of Liberty is not "some stuff". It is the most succinct definition and exposition of the ethical basis of libertarian property rights that I have ever read.
You know "property rights", that whole thing that everyone rants about as being the philosophical basis of limited government? So to someone like me, hearing that you read "lots of Rothbard" but not Ethics of Liberty, is like saying, "well I've read the bible I just haven't gotten around to reading about the Jesus guy and those four gospels."
Here's the main quote for whoever might be reading, not sure you're going to give it much attention.
You see when a well-read person reads those sentences he sees "Christian" in the place of "Tolstoyan". But why wouldn't Rothbard just say Christian? Simple. Rothbard was highly intelligent and well read. He knows like most legitimately well read people that most "Christians" do not in fact follow the commands of Christ and are in fact false Christians. But he has read Tolstoy. Therefore, he knows that Tolstoy was a strict literalist when it comes to interpreting Christ's commands.Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 9, Page 53
The point here is that only Tolstoyans are entitled to object to the violent overthrow of an entrenched criminal group; for everyone who is not a Tolstoyan favors the use of force and violence to defend against and punish criminal aggression. He must therefore favor the morality, if not the wisdom, of using force to overthrow entrenched criminality.
Why else would Rothbard give such singular room for objection to this guy? Tolstoy's position is strictly gospel based. If Jesus forbid it, it's forbidden. Rothbard might think Tolstoy was a fanatic but he admits here that Tolstoy is consistent. So even though I rebuke Rothbard because he is intellectually WRONG, he is-unlike most of the people who claim to believe in his ideas-at least not intellectually dishonest.
And what does Rothbard say about everyone who is not a strict follower of Christ's commands?
He says that they all "favor the morality, if not the wisdom" of using force to overthrow criminals and punish them. And he is 100% correct in that statement. People who do not follow Christ's commands think they are acting morally by punishing criminals and revolting against unjust authority, things Christ forbid.
So, friend, don't go whining that I'm "objecting". Rothbard says I'm ENTITLED to do it in the book he wrote explaining property rights that 99% of you pseudo-intellectual bubblegummers haven't even read.
So you see, Rothbard in his own book sets his entire philosophy as anti-Tolstoyan, which is to say anti-Christian.
HIS OWN WORDS AGAIN:
1. only Tostoyans are entitled to object
2. for everyone who is not a Tolstoyan favors the use of force and violence to defend against and punish criminal aggression
#1 refers to the strict gospel interpretation of Christ's commands as evidenced by Leo Tolstoy's work concerning how men should govern themselves laid out in "The Kingdom of God is Within You" by Leo Tolstoy (free online http://www.gutenberg.org/files/43302...-h/43302-h.htm )
#2 Rothbard says everyone who is not in that first group favors punishment and violence to eradicate evil, which is what his philosophy of liberty is based on.
Did I "try better" that time? To get to the truth you must pay attention to contradictions. Rothbard admits quite honestly that his philosophy is contradicted by the Tolstoyan/Christian gospel form of government. Maybe you all would do well to find out what that position is instead of letting Rothbard make that decision for you.
P.S. We aren't debating. If there's anything I've learned in all these years online it's that people who try to say we're "debating" are usually inept at such a thing. If this were a standard debate as taught in high school and scored appropriately I would have crushed you. Social networks are more akin to graffiti. Intellectual "selfies" if you will.
When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6
I kinda doubt that Murray ever wrote anything succinct.
Libertarianism in one sentence. "Other people are not your property."
Well I qualified with "most". When reading the idols of mankind, you have to lower your standards for such things.I kinda doubt that Murray ever wrote anything succinct.
Well, remember, it's not non-aggression, it's non-initiator.
Once a group of "security" people decide you are the aggressor you become property of the security force. Where they can then begin killing, imprisoning, enslaving and chopping off limbs according to Ethics of Liberty.
What is also cool is, no "official spokespersons" nor shepherds. Not even Murray.
Right, Rothbard is not a pacifist. We've established that already.
Is that the extent of his alleged anti-Christian writings?
If so, I think you just conceded the debate.
No, a well-read person thinks of the pacifist political philosophy of Leo Tolstoy. For anyone unfamiliar, here's a lecture on the topic. Only a member of the miniscule fraction of self-ascribed Christians who align themselves with Tolstoy would read "Tolstoyan" as "Christian." What you've demonstrated here is that Rothbard is opposed to your own fringe interpretation of Christianity - not to the other 99.99% of Christians. In which case, who cares? My only purpose here was to make clear to any Christian reading this (that would be of the non-Tolstoyan variety) that, contrary to the implication of your charge, Rothbard is not opposed to them.You see when a well-read person reads those sentences he sees "Christian" in the place of "Tolstoyan".
That's he alienated you and the other two dozen Tolstoyan Christians on the planet doesn't bother me in the least.
Who needs ya?
/debate
FWIW, I like Rothbard but LeFevre was my original mentor and is still my favorite.
The Illegality, Immorality, and Violence of All Political Action
Yes, THANK YOU for clarifying!!!
Rothbard is only against the fringe Christians who align with Tolstoy. Precisely. The other 99.9% of Christians would definitely be in line with Rothbard. How true. So you are right to console the 99% non-Tolstoyan false Christians who think violent punishment of criminals is ok even though Jesus explicitly said otherwise. Because 99% of Christians deny Christ in words and deeds.
I'm not defending or speaking for the 99% of what this world calls Christians.
Jesus is not a peace-maker he is a sword. So thank you for helping me divide those who chant "Jesus" but subscribe to Rothbard's violent ideas of government from those like Tolstoy who actually follow him.
Jesus was "fringe". Always was. Still is.
When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6
Libertarianism (capital 'L') refers to the Libertarian Party (oxymoron) members who are actually mostly limited government conservatives in a GOP- lite statist political party.
live and let live.
Posting Permissions
Connect With Us