Why I am not a libertarian

[rat-man]

I always took man's seeking of happiness as his highest ideal as a given, not a prerequisite to Libertarian philosophy, as the author misunderstands. Resurrection or an afterlife are nothing if not promises of unfathomable eternal happiness.

I get this all the time from some of my "Libertarian" friends who don't understand where I could gather any morals without religion being part of my life.

 

[indiucky]

I can not see how libertarianism and religion can't square with each other.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, That all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..."

They actually seem to go together like biscuits and gravy...It's kind of hard to argue for "Man" given rights...If our rights come from Man (or Government) then surely they could be taken from us by Man (or Government)as well...

I consider Libertarians to be the most religous of the three parties...Even their Atheists are much more vocal in their zeal for their Faith and will use any opportunity to remind folks of what they don't believe.

 

[Fletch]

The author errs in implicitly asserting that Mises intended, as Rand did, to produce a whole philosophy. Mises clearly did not, and says as much in Human Action, within the first chapter or so.

Mises' aim was not to provide philosophy but to untangle and establish the rules of economics, to refute the empiricist schools of economic thought, and to reason from logical principles the economic effects of given policy.

Praxeology takes human action as a given -- man acts to achieve something. That something is assumed to address the acting man's greatest source of discomfort. Mises states that economics is not a science of telling men what they should aim at -- economics doesn't even get involved until after their decision has been made and acted upon. Mises also goes to great lengths -- within the very book the article's author claims to have read -- to talk about the importance of religion, philosophy, psychology, etc. in forming and informing the individual's goals, and states that all such things are beyond the scope of economics.

So essentially, the nitwit in question has picked up a physics textbook and is complaining because it doesn't tell him anything about Jesus.

 

[M1 carbine dad]

Thanks for that synopsis Fletch.

I wonder what religious affiliation the author subscribes too? Or what Political affiliation...

 

[indiucky]

The author errs in implicitly asserting that Mises intended, as Rand did, to produce a whole philosophy. Mises clearly did not, and says as much in Human Action, within the first chapter or so.

Mises' aim was not to provide philosophy but to untangle and establish the rules of economics, to refute the empiricist schools of economic thought, and to reason from logical principles the economic effects of given policy.

Praxeology takes human action as a given -- man acts to achieve something. That something is assumed to address the acting man's greatest source of discomfort. Mises states that economics is not a science of telling men what they should aim at -- economics doesn't even get involved until after their decision has been made and acted upon. Mises also goes to great lengths -- within the very book the article's author claims to have read -- to talk about the importance of religion, philosophy, psychology, etc. in forming and informing the individual's goals, and states that all such things are beyond the scope of economics.

So essentially, the nitwit in question has picked up a physics textbook and is complaining because it doesn't tell him anything about Jesus.

This man has the best vocabulary on INGO. Agree or disagree, Fletch is a wordsmith. Now excuse me while I look up "Praxeology".

 

[hornadylnl]

I have zero problems squaring libertarianism with Christianity.

I can rule my daughter with the strictest moral code and an iron fist. I can force her to verbalize prayers, go to church once on Wednesdays and twice on Sundays. I can make her attend every youth group function within a 50 mile radius. What I cannot do is make her a Christian.

I as the king of Hornistan, a land of a million people, can declare my kingdom a Christian nation. I can execute those who refuse to submit. But I cannot make them Christians.

Christianity is about a personal free choice between an individual and God. I, as an individual can share my beliefs with others and encourage them to adopt them. If they choose not to accept, using the force of government through laws and regulations will have no more power over the hearts and minds of the individuals than my example to others.

My moral code trumps my sinful desires when it comes to choosing to spend my $100. I may not give it to Mother Theresa but I'm not going to spend it on hookers, booze and blow. My moral code is not separated from what makes me happy.

 

[hornadylnl]

Thanks for that synopsis Fletch.

I wonder what religious affiliation the author subscribes too? Or what Political affiliation...

If I had to guess, I'd say the Theocratical Republicans.

 

[Fletch]

Not from Human Action, but summarizes what he explains exhaustively there:

It is true that utilitarianism and liberalism postulate the attainment of the greatest possible productivity of labor as the first and most important goal of policy. But they in no way do this out of misunderstanding of the fact that human existence does not exhaust itself in material pleasures. . . . Not out of irreligiosity do they demand religious freedom but out of deepest intimacy of religious feeling, which wants to make inner experience free from every raw influence of outward power.

-- Nation, State, and Economy

 

[hacksawfg]

I have zero problems squaring libertarianism with Christianity.

I can rule my daughter with the strictest moral code and an iron fist. I can force her to verbalize prayers, go to church once on Wednesdays and twice on Sundays. I can make her attend every youth group function within a 50 mile radius. What I cannot do is make her a Christian.

I as the king of Hornistan, a land of a million people, can declare my kingdom a Christian nation. I can execute those who refuse to submit. But I cannot make them Christians.

Christianity is about a personal free choice between an individual and God. I, as an individual can share my beliefs with others and encourage them to adopt them. If they choose not to accept, using the force of government through laws and regulations will have no more power over the hearts and minds of the individuals than my example to others.

My moral code trumps my sinful desires when it comes to choosing to spend my $100. I may not give it to Mother Theresa but I'm not going to spend it on hookers, booze and blow. My moral code is not separated from what makes me happy.

(would rep you hornady, but apparently I'm not spreading it around enough. On the minus side, I'm now back to zero days on General Political Discussion Posters Anonymous)

 

[edporch]

Being a Libertarian has to be taken in context that it is only one political party.

Having some Libertarians in the mix of the House and Senate would slow the erosion of our freedoms.

 

[Prometheus]

Yes, because governing based on emotion has worked terribly well so far. Let's not govern based on logic. What a silly notion.

Exactly.

The author of that basically says 'logic sucks' 'reality sucks'.

Lets go on emotions!!! Wheeeee!

Where have we heard that before?

What a simpleton.

There is nothing that precludes someone from being a Christian, first and foremost and also ascribing to a libertarian form of government.

 

[mrjarrell]

Guess he never read Rothbard.

Six Myths About Libertarianism

 

[rat-man]

If the context is of the Libertarian party, and not just libertarian philosophy. There are many who subscribe to libertarian philosophies who don't consider themselves "Libertarians."

Having a MAJORITY of Libertarians in congress would probably STOP and likely REVERSE freedom erosion!

Being a Libertarian has to be taken in context that it is only one political party.

Having some Libertarians in the mix of the House and Senate would slow the erosion of our freedoms.

 

[jamil]

Mises says that man will act in their own self interest. He doesn't dictate what that self interest is, only that man will act on it. He doesn't say that that interest is pleasure for everyone. For some, it may be. But others, it may be doing charity for others. And yet others, it may be accumulating wealth.

I'm not the most charitable person in the world but I do get a sense of satisfaction when I'm able to help others. When it comes time to act on a decision, I will balance what is most important to me. For this $100 bill, I may get the greatest sense of satisfaction out of giving that money to a bum, a church or other organization. Or for that same $100 bill, I may get the most satisfaction by buying a trinket, a hooker, blow, or booze.

To describe Mises' philosophy as hedonism is pure bunk. I'm hoping Fletch will see this and post his thoughts. He's far more versed on Mises than I am.

In that case, can I have it? That $100 would go a long way towards paying my ammo bill. I'm sure it would provide hours of satisfaction for you knowing that it went to a great cause. I'll tell you what. I'll even share the ammo with you.

Eh, seriously I can't find much to disagree with here.

 

[hornadylnl]

In that case, can I have it? That $100 would go a long way towards paying my ammo bill. I'm sure it would provide hours of satisfaction for you knowing that it went to a great cause. I'll tell you what. I'll even share the ammo with you.

Eh, seriously I can't find much to disagree with here.

And that just may be a cause that motivates some to give to others. Just not me.

 

[jamil]

I have zero problems squaring libertarianism with Christianity.

I can rule my daughter with the strictest moral code and an iron fist. I can force her to verbalize prayers, go to church once on Wednesdays and twice on Sundays. I can make her attend every youth group function within a 50 mile radius. What I cannot do is make her a Christian.

I as the king of Hornistan, a land of a million people, can declare my kingdom a Christian nation. I can execute those who refuse to submit. But I cannot make them Christians.

Christianity is about a personal free choice between an individual and God. I, as an individual can share my beliefs with others and encourage them to adopt them. If they choose not to accept, using the force of government through laws and regulations will have no more power over the hearts and minds of the individuals than my example to others.

My moral code trumps my sinful desires when it comes to choosing to spend my $100. I may not give it to Mother Theresa but I'm not going to spend it on hookers, booze and blow. My moral code is not separated from what makes me happy.

Your point makes me wonder if Christians who have the biggest problem with Libertarianism are of predestination theology rather than free-will.

 

[hornadylnl]

Your point makes me wonder if Christians who have the biggest problem with Libertarianism are of predestination theology rather than free-will.

I believe in both to differing degrees. But I ultimately believe that it's an individual choice. I personally believe those who long for a theocracy have never heard of the Holy Spirit and think they have to do his job for Him.

 

[TheRude1]

I think it just shows how wide the range of libertarianism goes. I align most closely to Libertarian thinking with belief in small government and civil liberties. I am however dedicated to personal responsibity and am anything but hedonistic. Libertarians range from that to anarchists who pretty much believe they should be able to do whatever they want; anyone else be damned. I think this is largely why they can't play on the national stage except as spoilers. A lot of conservatives who aren't thrilled with the GOP won't make the leap because they know a libertarian who is a wack job. And don't know any "normal" ones because the normal ones tend to fly under the radar.

 

[Fletch]

I believe in both to differing degrees. But I ultimately believe that it's an individual choice. I personally believe those who long for a theocracy have never heard of the Holy Spirit and think they have to do his job for Him.

I've been trying to rep you all day, but now I've GOT to find a way to get it done. This is not just a good statement on religion as regards libertarianism. This is a profound identification of what is wrong with Christianity today.

 

[jamil]

I've been trying to rep you all day, but now I've GOT to find a way to get it done. This is not just a good statement on religion as regards libertarianism. This is a profound identification of what is wrong with Christianity today.

I got it for you.