😂 classical liberals (i.e., libertarians) really do **not** have a 'home' in either major political party in the U.S., do we? It's farcical 😂
Discussion
christians cant be libertarians
Of course they can. Libertarianism is the only political ideology that aligns with true Christianity.
Exactly.
"Love your neighbor" means, among other important things, 'don't outsource the State to steal from your neighbor to support things to which they are morally opposed.'
Christ never forced anyone to do anything, and neither does libertarianism.
Yeah.... Libertarians get cucked with their non-agression policy
Libetarian doesn't mean be non-aggressive. Everyone has the unalienable right to defend themselves from tyrannical governments and criminals using whatever tech it takes. We're the reason anyone has private guns.
libertarianism can't stop degeneracy, usury, and , and mass immigration to their own land....
Cucked ideology
Is it the purpose of politics to promote virtue or to protect liberty?
The moral issues are addressed by the faithful preaching of the gospel. Otherwise, you're talking about morality-at-the-point-of-a-sword (theocracy).
The others are addressed with robust private property laws and the right of self-defense.
We all support morality at the point of a sword to one extent or another. All OT civil laws were exactly that. The question is how much of the moral law ought to be codified into civil law for the restraint of sin that the gospel may go forth?
It's much less than most "conservatives" would have us believe, IMO.
Unless you are a full anarcho-capitalist that wants the state abolished entirely, then you are theonomic to some extent. It's merely a question of where you draw the line.
this is a little dense, your brain is overheating.
every law is moral. including zoning laws.
It’s to stack fiat
“Politics is war without bloodshed, and war is politics with bloodshed”
Mao Tse Tung
No.
the civil magistrate is to REWARD the good as well as punish evil
what do you think that means? doesn't sound like protecting much of anything.
No ideology can stop those things by fiat. That's why I am a libertarian. I understand the futility of politics to do any good. Limitations on power, free speech, private property, and hard money allow people the freedom to flourish. Then the best cultures will be able to win.
If you value those things you are concerned about, you can pursue them. Hans-Hermann Hoppe answers the question of immigration of people who you, and others in your group with which you would freely associate, would prefer to keep out. It's called physical removal. Entire fliurishing counties and other areas on which you associate could be free from them, and you can prevent them from aggressing against you via means described by many an Austrian or Chicago school economist. It is practical because it doesn't pretend to have all the answers through government policy.
“Politics is war without bloodshed, and war is politics with bloodshed”
Mao Tse Tung
💯 self-defense is part of the 6th commandmant--'thou shalt not murder.'
I don't think you understand what aggression is. Self defense is not aggression. Influence is not aggression. Owning land and telling people to fuck off and not enter it is not aggression. You should rethink how it works.
Lol agression is anything i don't like
No, it's not. At its core is harm to your person or property.
Allowing degeneracy into the culture and having foreign powers control and influence my nation is allowed under libertarianism
Eventually it reaches your doorstep and then its too late
Abdicating hierarchy just means you get another, worse hierarchy.
Libertarianism is a delusional, suicidal position. Not serious people.
It's not about eliminating hierarchy. That's "libertarian socialism" that claims that bullshit.
You all want to weaken the hierarchy which poses the same problem.
I love hierarchy, idk what you're talking about, fuckface. Depending on the hierarchy I guess. Idk, I'm not obsessed with it like you are. My obsession is true power, the power that comes from being true to the principles of nature and not making blind assumptions all day long. Methinks you project your own foolishness on everyone else. I crave the power to be at peace, to be free from the stupidity, the fighting for scraps, and the pitifulness of living subservient to fallacy and the whims of other people. The power to create. That power comes from nonaggression. That power comes from intellectual curiosity. That power comes from humility. You stand no chance against this universe, yet you continue to assume. Every assumption is a denial of reality, and in this case, the reality of the utter futility of your own errant cause. You try to isolate yourself from it by projecting it onto other people. You have a lot to learn about how the market functions. Open a book.
Everyone knows how the market works and anyone can point out to you how the NAP is a hollowing of organic hierarchy.
You believe the libsocs? Sad. How very sad. You're just as gullible as them.
I believe in putting libertarians in camps
Again, thank you for the compliment. I didn't know I was that much of a threat to you, fucktard.
Hierarchy of authority over a person's property is the only hierarchy we want to flatten. Everything else is fair game and will step in to assure stability. Hierarchy in general is fine and is not at all eliminated by free markets in any all-encompassing way. But I appreciate the comment that you think we're that much of a danger to you.
No, it only allows it if you allow it. But you don't get to control other people's property. Culture is mediated by the marketplace. If you don't like it, don't buy it. But you don't get to control other people's purchases, either. If you don't like what someone else is doing with or on thier property (or buying), you're limited to persuasion.
Lol
Naive to the evils of the world
The Divine Lawgiver was not.
Compatibility Issues:
https://credomag.com/2021/05/the-concept-of-libertarian-free-will-why-christians-must-reject-it/
You're making a category mistake. The word 'libertarian' in 'libertarian free will' in the context of theology has almost nothing to do with the political philosophy known (now) as 'libertarianism.' I'm aware of Credo Mag, and am reading a book even now by its Editor-in-Chief, Matthew Barrett. Terms in one discipline rarely translate to others. I thoroughly reject, in theological terms, 'libertarian free will.' But that's not what we're talking about.
1. Christians are pilgrims, not ground-conquerors in the geopolitical sense. At least, _not yet_. This is the historic amillennial position.
2. The (institutional) church is not to grasp after the sword. The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but spiritual. We win the world by our _words_ (namely, the gospel).
3. Christians _as Christians_ are free to take up political office, but are not permitted to use it as an instrument of conversion or even extension of the church proper, but to uphold just and wholesome laws.
4. The libertarian political philosophy is little more than the '2nd table' of the 10 commandments: don't hurt people (6th), don't take their stuff (8th), and honor your contracts (7th and 9th). These are applied in the civil realm--on the 'horizontal' level, so to speak--between man and men. The explicitly religious commandments (they're all religious, but follow me for a moment), the so-called '1st table', which are 'vertical'--between man and God directly, are not (or, at least, should never) the jurisdiction of the State. At least not until the King returns. Then, we have theocracy again.
I am well aware that atrocities have happened, and will continue, until the Lord returns. That does not mean we interpret Scripture according to our own worldly wisdom. Christ rebuked his disciples for that kind of thinking. When he said, 'not yet'--he meant it. We would do well to believe (and obey) him.
You're naive to your own evils as well as to the functioning of a marketplace. Even if you're unable to fully control anyone else, you can establish or choose to live in private communities that exclude "degenerate behavior." If your way of living is actually sustainable, and I presume you think it is, then it will succeed and flourish and be protected from all the stuff you don't like. You're shooting yourself in the foot. You are extremely unlikely to succeed in the political marketplace, but as an individual associating with other losers like yourself, provided you don't harm anyone, you can exclude whoever the fuck you want. Read Hoppe.
I say this for the same reasons that I say Bitcoin and nostr are for everyone and try to show them why it would help them. I may disagree with you, but BOTH of us end up happier when we embrace it, and when we live in a world that operates by it. Your actions, utilizing the technology that enables a greater degree of free association AND physical removal, support my theory.
Also, your assumption that there would be culture creep without forcibly stopping it through aggression betrays how weak you feel your own culture is. If it really is so pathetic as to need daddy government, isn't it a "cuck ideology?"
By this alone we can conclude that either your culture sucks, your measuring stick of being a "cuck" sucks, or your assumption that government style aggression is required to enforce it is wrong. You have to believe at least one of these alternatives to be consistent.
Wrong. He drove the money changers out of the temple, with a whip he made himself.
given that the word translated "carpenter" is really "construction manager" and included masonry at that place and time, the Christ was likely no puny fag
Jesus literally said to kill bankers.
LOL this has to be a troll. Amazing. No, he didn't.
Jesus is also the same God of the Old Testament, who said to kill fags and Canaanites (niggers)
Wow. You have no idea what you're talking about. _Those_ laws were for the ancient (and theocratic) State of Israel, which has long since expired. They were not for any other nation, place, or time.
Read Romans and Galatians if you want to understand. Then read the Westminster Confession of Faith. Until then, you're swinging at strawmen.
I think I understand a lot better than a bunch of subversive libtards from Scotland and Geneva (who literally engineered mass warfare in Europe because they hated White civilization, by the way. Ironic)
would it also allow them to continue performing abortions or serving children pornography on devices, that is, if the christians were unable to "persuade" them?
and what about when the devil siezes power and begins torturing christians, lets say forcing them to perform the Eucharist with their own bodily wastes, as the communist antichrists did in Pitesti prison?
limited to persuasion?
btw, this has all been thoroughly DEBUNKED and proven infantile and self-indulgent by folks who ACTUALLY went through the fire of unchecked human depravity:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43696339-on-resistance-to-evil-by-force
No one is arguing for "unchecked human depravity." That's what self-defense is for; that's what just laws are for. The punishment of wrongdoers. The divinely ordained rule of the land, in this time between the times, is the lex talionis. I am not arguing to rid ourselves of the lex talionis (the law of retribution). I am not arguing for 'lawlessness.'
yet thats exactly what classical liberalism has manifest... lawlessness - as it is rooted in the "enlightenment", itself rooted in "rationalism" and its spiritually-bereft and Mystery-denying bastard child, pragmatism...
hence, the modern condition.
https://counter-currents.com/2010/11/liberalism/
Have you read Guenon's Crisis of the Modern World yet?
The political principles we know as classical liberalism were largely formulated 200 years prior to the Enlightenment by the later Reformers and their intellectual progeny. The Enlightenment thinkers wanted their conclusions but without the religious underpinnings--especially the doctrine of total depravity.
Today's lawlessness arose _despite_ these principles--not _because_ of them. The principles are derived, after all, from the divine / natural law.
See the work of John Witte, Jr., who has written prolifically on this.
Also the excellent work of Ralph Raico.
whats your position on evolution?
and you didnt answer my question as to whether you have yet read Crisis of thr Modern World...
I am a Christian, so I am a creationist. Microevolution (adaptations within a species) but not macroevolution (one specie begets an advenced specie through random beneficial genetic mutation).
I have not read--and am not likely to read--Guenon.
ok wait a minute here... lets go back a few steps to your OP:
"😂 classical liberals (i.e., libertarians) really do **not** have a 'home' in either major political party in the U.S., do we? It's farcical 😂"
it appears here that you are saying that today's "libertarians" are really the classical liberals of yesteryear... can you elaborate on that a bit, including what era "classical liberal" you are referring to and maybe addressing a bit the confusion that might arise when viewing libertarianisms "anarchic/socialist/communist" origins relative to both Christianity and "classical liberalism" ?
Yes, some confusion is probable, since there are, within 'libertarianism' today, many flavors of 'libertarian' who would point to different origins/sources when deriving their first principles. I would refer to myself as a 'Natural Law Libertarian," I suppose. 1) there is an external natural moral order to which we must confirm; 2) it is known in the hearts of men (though frequently repressed); 3) to go beyond the natural law is unjust at best and tyrannical at worst. So 'my people' are those at, say, the Mises Institute. The form of 'classical liberalism' I mean would be from Locke, from Mises (See his book, _Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition_). For some background on how these movements have morphed and been re-named (the term 'liberal' having been stolen by the progressives a hundred years ago), you might look at Justin Raimondo, _Recovering the American Right_, or Rothbard, _The Betrayal of the Right_, among plenty others. I know--it's rich for me ask you to read these books after I said I am not likely to read the one you suggested--granted. Time is short, and I have 100+ books already on my list, most already within my own tradition, and I probably won't get to them all before I die. Point is that after years of study and thinking, I've "found my people" both theologically and politically, and now I wish to spend my time going deeper into them. As a classical liberal I am opposed both practically and morally to any forms of involuntary collectivism (socialism, communism). I think anarchism gets a bad rap and, though I'm not quite willing to wear that patch, I am certainly drawn to it--by necessity of logic. This 'brand' of anarchism only means no overarching MAN as ruler--it does not preclude all authority whatsoever. "Sphere sovereignty" comes pretty close.
Even Murray Rothbard, who was at least an agnostic, realized and promoted the idea that without some transcendent lawgiver we have no ground for our first principles. See his 'Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought' -- though he gets some basic details wrong in what we Reformed/Protestant believe, he's "directionally correct." I'm sure you've read MLK Jr's. "Letter from Birmingham Jail" that touches on some of the high points in Western history related to just vs unjust laws, and their sources.
I hope that at least approaches the question you're asking.
if you wouldn't mind, could you extract the principle from which you have arrived at rejecting evolution as they call it, and explain it to me like i am five and i have asked you "why don't you believe in evolution?"
DNA only begets DNA. This is observable in the lab. It also aligns with "fruits bearing their own seeds within them" of Scripture. Like begets like. The Biblical Adam was not merely a legendary figure, he was also purely historical. Macro evolution has never been observed in a laboratory, and there are no 'transitional forms' in the fossil record. It also defies mathematics and probability. Darwin himself said that if any organ or system or system of systems could be shown that could not have their complexity reduced "my entire system breaks down." The human eye does this, as does the requirement for all human systems (circulatory, lymphatic, musculoskeltal, cardiovascular, etc.0 to be developed to the same point, at the same time, and in the same place, in a male AND a female, such that they can actually reproduce. But mostly? Scripture doesn't allow for it. Adam was a historical person whose actions changed the state of himself and his progency from 'blessedness' to 'curse' at a particular time and place in history. Hope that answers the question.
thats how you would describe the principle to a 5-year old?
poor kid!
here is how I would:
the greater can never come from the lesser.
evolution is just an inverted perversion of The Great Chain of Being.
That is one of the benefits of reading Guenon bro... Crisis of the Modern World is only 120 pages and every page offers an immense reward for the faithful, intellectual, seeker...
I think you should not skip over the Traditionalist school if you are pursuing Truth... Along with Guenon, there is his "successor" Frithjof Schuon, and also Ananda Coomaraswamy... their influence, Guenons in particular, in relation to EVERYTHING happening in the West as far as the pushback against unhinged liberalism, cannot be overstated...
Their perspectives are unique and invaluable to the western mind, offering profound Traditional wisdom and deep takes on, well, the crisis of modernity, relative to the Traditional world.
False. Constitutional monarchy is. libertarianism, like anarchy, divorces the individual from his horizontal obligations. individual liberty is not a biblical virtue.
I beg to differ, but 🤙
The only valid source/ground for the NAP is the moral law, specifically the 'second table.' Conversely, the only consistent political party for those who 'do not steal' is the anti-taxation libertarians. Among other reasons.
I am a Christian (of the old school sort), and I am a classical liberal (as a _consequence_ of my theological convictions). We're pilgrims. 'For here we have no continuing city.'
It's ok if we disagree though--that's the beauty of nostr--civility without ideological identity. 🤙
sorry i was being a bit of a troll and i shouldn't have
I said that to see what your argument would be.
You're arguing on the wrong premise.
One's political stance does not determine their world-model, rather, it reveals the consistency of their world-model 🤙
I see, no problem. 😏
My premise is that the moral law of God (i.e., the 10 comnandments) governs all men in all times in all places, and that for a human law to be just, it must conform to that higher law.
Then, this law gets conditioned for 'when' we are in redemptive history. Now is not for theocracy. To oversimplify: the 'vertical' aspects (1-4), are not to be enforced by the State; the 'horizontal' aspects (5-9) may be; and the 10th is spiritual and cannot be.
This is a very oversimplified explanation of the '2 Kingdoms' view which flows from classical Federal/Covenant Theology and its resulting amillennial eschatology. Back of each of those is a revelational epistemology.
What premise do you think I should be arguing from instead? 🤙
i said cxn cant be libertarian
the argument should be
cxn can have wrong ideas
and still be cxn
That's a great statement you have there. Maybe you could expound upon why you believe this to be so.
nostr:nprofile1qy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq3xamnwvaz7tmsw4e8qmr9wpskwtn9wvhszythwden5te0dehhxarj9emkjmn99uq3wamnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwdehhxarj9e3xzmny9uq3xamnwvaz7tm0venxx6rpd9hzuur4vghsz8nhwden5te0dehhxarj94c82c3wwajkcmr0wfjx2u3wdejhgtcpremhxue69uhkummnw3ez6er9wch8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet59uq3samnwvaz7tmjv4kxz7fwwpkx2cnnw3ezucm0d5hsqg8d49ktjwhvm4s6mcxpl8ftlhu45lnkeuw23xpqcw8xun822hqvq57mm6cz made a strong case for at least one aspect of Libertarian ideals based on the conviction that civil laws should be an expression of morality, and the only true morality is the one revealed by God in his Word, and therefore theft ought to be illegal, including the state-sanctioned expression of it via taxation, and I would add through monetary debasement, too.
However, I can definitely see how there may be strong arguments to be made against this view from a few different angles. I am interested to hear yours.
The two main political parties of the US are anti-liberty, so no, Libertarians do not have allies in those camps.
So true.
The warfare-welfare State has both sides captured--except for those anomalous few like Thomas Massie (R., KY).
Have to laugh.
No one has a home in politics.