FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Christianity and Libertarianism?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(05-11-2014, 02:18 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]To me Libertarianism is the complete opposite of what we need. Liberty is the reason we are in this deplorable mess, if we allow any more liberty in the media....we might as well forgo any hope of reclaiming the secular world in time. The idea that all ideas should be free to be presented is the reason such trash is allowed on TV and consumers consume it en masse. Is it any wonder why pornography is so heavily consumed and is warping people's mindsets on beauty, love and sexuality....thus leading to a societal and demographic breakdown.

Put me on the opposite. I believe in a powerful state that protects her citizens from foreign invaders, as well as from herself. That does not mean that everyone's emails should be hacked and searched or we should have a camera up our rears, but if we think that Libertarianism, which is nothing more than anarchy-light is the solution to a immoral secular statist society, all I can say is be prepared for more statism, for anarchy leads to totalitarianism.

The problem being that if you are going to deny liberty you have to use coercion and coercion is force. It's you telling another individual that, even if the act they are committing in no way affects your right to life, liberty and property, that you are going to utilize the collective use of deadly force to coerce that individual to behave and act in a manner you believe is appropriate. That idea hardly strikes me as Christian.

As to wanting a more powerful state or even a monarch all of you are forgetting some important facts. This is still planet Earth. People are still people. There are a couple of things you can always count on. People will act in their self interest and when given power tend to be corrupted by it. History is crystal clear on this. The only solution is to pit our leaders self interest against one another in such a way that they restrain each other.
(05-12-2014, 06:19 PM)Silouan Wrote: [ -> ]The problem being that if you are going to deny liberty you have to use coercion and coercion is force.

Of course, but coercion is a little harsh. A society is formed through written and unwritten social contracts. These contracts are enforced by the rule of law and the state.

Quote:It's you telling another individual that, even if the act they are committing in no way affects your right to life, liberty and property, that you are going to utilize the collective use of deadly force to coerce that individual to behave and act in a manner you believe is appropriate. That idea hardly strikes me as Christian.

That's pretty absurd. Fines, penalties and jail sentences are not "deadly" but you cannot claim that a man who views pornography is not affecting my life and liberty. If someone who purveys pornography and becomes a rapist as a result of it (has happened), then it does affect other people's liberties.

Freedom of Religion is another example that affects liberties of others, only one has to look at the Black Mass Haaaaavard is hosting. Let's assume (and hope) the host isn't consecrated, it is theft for it was never intended to be abused.

I can go on and on, but this idea that maximum personal liberty is moral and affects no one but the individual is a farce.


Quote:As to wanting a more powerful state or even a monarch all of you are forgetting some important facts. This is still planet Earth. People are still people. There are a couple of things you can always count on. People will act in their self interest and when given power tend to be corrupted by it. History is crystal clear on this. The only solution is to pit our leaders self interest against one another in such a way that they restrain each other.

Kinda like now where nothing is done in the US Congress, while the proletariat suffers abuse in the workforce, declining wages, rising costs...and the bourgeoisie become wealthier and wealthier by robbing pension funds, cutting people's jobs and shipping them overseas.

If what you stated is true, it's the solution currently in effect in the United States.

Quote:Quote from: Silouan

The problem being that if you are going to deny liberty you have to use coercion and coercion is force.


Of course, but coercion is a little harsh. A society is formed through written and unwritten social contracts. These contracts are enforced by the rule of law and the state

No one chooses which society they are born into.  Contracts can only be entered into by two willing participants.  One can not enter another into a contract by proxy.  Like circumcision and infant baptism, it is coersion.  That's not a social contract.
(05-12-2014, 07:09 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]Of course, but coercion is a little harsh. A society is formed through written and unwritten social contracts. These contracts are enforced by the rule of law and the state.

Harsh? It is harsh but accurate. What else would you call it? The rule of law and the state exist only to serve the collective defense of our rights as individuals.


(05-12-2014, 07:09 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]That's pretty absurd. Fines, penalties and jail sentences are not "deadly" but you cannot claim that a man who views pornography is not affecting my life and liberty. If someone who purveys pornography and becomes a rapist as a result of it (has happened), then it does affect other people's liberties.

Fines and penalties (by the way why would you fine or penalize someone except to coerce them to do or not to do something?) are not deadly but resist the government long enough and it become deadly. They will come to your home, most likely with a SWAT team or armed with assault rifles like the BLM,  and if you resist they most certainly will shoot you. Just ask the families of the Branch Davidians or Randy Weaver. As to your second point I think you miss the full and precise meaning of what you are advocating. What you are saying is that the government can use it's police power to regulate, i.e. coerce you, into not committing an act that is not violating anyone's right to life, liberty or property but that might maybe sometimes in the future supposedly cause you to commit an act that violates someone else's rights. If that is the case you have no rights at all. There is no limit to what can be regulated by government.

(05-12-2014, 07:09 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]Freedom of Religion is another example that affects liberties of others, only one has to look at the Black Mass Haaaaavard is hosting. Let's assume (and hope) the host isn't consecrated, it is theft for it was never intended to be abused.

Tell me how what those people do at Harvard is violating your right to life, liberty or property?

(05-12-2014, 07:09 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]I can go on and on, but this idea that maximum personal liberty is moral and affects no one but the individual is a farce.

Affects? No one ever said it doesn't affect other people. But the test is whether or not your individual rights are violated.


(05-12-2014, 07:09 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]Kinda like now where nothing is done in the US Congress, while the proletariat suffers abuse in the workforce

I would love to see any examples of actual abuses in the workforce. Because this is mostly still a free society anyone in the workforce has recourse to the ultimate safeguard. They are protected by the existence of other employers. If they are not treated well they can simply go to and employer that will treat them well. The marketplace will punish the abusers. Same goes for the employers by the way. They are protected by the fact there are other people willing to work for them.

(05-12-2014, 07:09 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]declining wages

Why are wages declining? When you put more and more people on government handouts, essentially incentivizing them not to work, you shouldn't be surprised that people work less.


(05-12-2014, 07:09 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]rising costs

Why do prices rise? It's because of inflation and inflation is always caused by monetary policy. If you keep printing worthless money to prop up the investor class and corporations of course the price of everything will go up.


(05-12-2014, 07:09 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]and the bourgeoisie become wealthier and wealthier by robbing pension funds, cutting people's jobs and shipping them overseas.


The fact of the matter is the rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich in the first place and the poor get poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor. The idea that there is a permanent underclass here in the United States is just factually inaccurate. That is until the statist have their way. They need a permanent underclass dependent on government so they, the ruling class can stay in power. 

(05-12-2014, 07:09 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]If what you stated is true, it's the solution currently in effect in the United States.

If the U.S. had stayed with the principles in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that would be true. Unfortunately we haven't.

(05-12-2014, 08:24 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Of course, but coercion is a little harsh. A society is formed through written and unwritten social contracts. These contracts are enforced by the rule of law and the state

No one chooses which society they are born into.  Contracts can only be entered into by two willing participants.  One can not enter another into a contract by proxy.  Like circumcision and infant baptism, it is coersion.  That's not a social contract.

Oh good grief here we go again  :eyeroll:

Enough with the stupid circumcision crap obsession, it has nothing to do with law. No child is forced to be circumcised in the West


As for no one being chosen which society they are born into, true; but then again...they never had a chose in being born either. You are free to break your contract by renouncing your citizenship. The contracts were entered willingly by your parents choosing to have you be born in the nation that you are born into.
(05-12-2014, 08:55 PM)Silouan Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-12-2014, 07:09 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]Of course, but coercion is a little harsh. A society is formed through written and unwritten social contracts. These contracts are enforced by the rule of law and the state.

Harsh? It is harsh but accurate. What else would you call it? The rule of law and the state exist only to serve the collective defense of our rights as individuals.

Well, are you coerced to live in your nation? No, you are not. You are free to leave at any time. So there is no coercion, you are part of a collective agreement...the agreement is if you break a rule, you suffer punishment. Coercion is a poor use of the term.

Quote:
(05-12-2014, 07:09 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]That's pretty absurd. Fines, penalties and jail sentences are not "deadly" but you cannot claim that a man who views pornography is not affecting my life and liberty. If someone who purveys pornography and becomes a rapist as a result of it (has happened), then it does affect other people's liberties.

Fines and penalties (by the way why would you fine or penalize someone except to coerce them to do or not to do something?) are not deadly but resist the government long enough and it become deadly. They will come to your home, most likely with a SWAT team or armed with assault rifles like the BLM,  and if you resist they most certainly will shoot you. Just ask the families of the Branch Davidians or Randy Weaver. As to your second point I think you miss the full and precise meaning of what you are advocating. What you are saying is that the government can use it's police power to regulate, i.e. coerce you, into not committing an act that is not violating anyone's right to life, liberty or property but that might maybe sometimes in the future supposedly cause you to commit an act that violates someone else's rights. If that is the case you have no rights at all. There is no limit to what can be regulated by government.

Yes, the government can use police, courts, law and military to regulate society...otherwise we would have something akin to Somalia. The question is to what extent should the government use its force, that is up for debate. As for rights, rights are determined by the social contract. In this case, the US social contract is the US Constitution. The rights American citizens have are detailed in the Constitution. Interpretation are determined by the courts.

Quote:
(05-12-2014, 07:09 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]Freedom of Religion is another example that affects liberties of others, only one has to look at the Black Mass Haaaaavard is hosting. Let's assume (and hope) the host isn't consecrated, it is theft for it was never intended to be abused.

Tell me how what those people do at Harvard is violating your right to life, liberty or property?

I just said, they are violating Church property if they took an unconsecrated host to use without permission the evil acts that they are. If you take something to use without permission from the owner....that's stealing.

As for your absurd question...If a man kills another man, just because it doesn't affect me personally....does not mean that it's not a  criminal act.

Quote:
(05-12-2014, 07:09 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]I can go on and on, but this idea that maximum personal liberty is moral and affects no one but the individual is a farce.

Affects? No one ever said it doesn't affect other people. But the test is whether or not your individual rights are violated.

Once again; must it always affect only me to be wrong?

Quote:
(05-12-2014, 07:09 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]Kinda like now where nothing is done in the US Congress, while the proletariat suffers abuse in the workforce

I would love to see any examples of actual abuses in the workforce. Because this is mostly still a free society anyone in the workforce has recourse to the ultimate safeguard. They are protected by the existence of other employers. If they are not treated well they can simply go to and employer that will treat them well. The marketplace will punish the abusers. Same goes for the employers by the way. They are protected by the fact there are other people willing to work for them.

Oh more fanciful hope in the almighty power of the market forces....yeah explain how it was that the all-powerful market gods failed to end: child-labor, food safety standards, racial discrimination and female discrimination in the workforce....what happened to the punishment there?
Quote:
(05-12-2014, 07:09 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]declining wages
Why are wages declining? When you put more and more people on government handouts, essentially incentivizing them not to work, you shouldn't be surprised that people work less.

So that's why people continuously employed have not seen a pay raise in almost 7 years? That's why wages have not kept up with inflation and stagnated over a 30-year period...cause of welfare bums?

Let me ask you a question, how is it that the top 10% percentile saw a 400% increase in wages over the 30-year period???

Obviously the government handouts don't affect the unemployed and rich class

Quote:
(05-12-2014, 07:09 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]rising costs

Why do prices rise? It's because of inflation and inflation is always caused by monetary policy. If you keep printing worthless money to prop up the investor class and corporations of course the price of everything will go up.

Yes, so what's your point?  Putting America on the gold standard isn't going to automatically lower the price of food and gas

Quote:
(05-12-2014, 07:09 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]and the bourgeoisie become wealthier and wealthier by robbing pension funds, cutting people's jobs and shipping them overseas.


The fact of the matter is the rich keep getting richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich in the first place and the poor get poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor. The idea that there is a permanent underclass here in the United States is just factually inaccurate. That is until the statist have their way. They need a permanent underclass dependent on government so they, the ruling class can stay in power. 

Keep telling yourself that...the fact is there is a large minority that are permanently unemployed or underemployed. As for the rich and poor, while the rich get richer because of what they do, you can't blame poverty because of choices people make. If someone loses their job and are unable to find decent, gainful employment because of the economy...you can't blame their actions if it is beyond their hands. Also how do you explain people made poor because of medical or disability?

You spoke about ideas being un-Christian. To me that statement that poor people are poor cause they make bad choices, is shallow, ignorant and uncharitable.

Quote:
(05-12-2014, 07:09 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]If what you stated is true, it's the solution currently in effect in the United States.

If the U.S. had stayed with the principles in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution that would be true. Unfortunately we haven't.

You said that the only solution is to pit the self-interested powers against each other.....that's exactly what's happening.
(05-12-2014, 08:55 PM)Silouan Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-12-2014, 07:09 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]declining wages

Why are wages declining? When you put more and more people on government handouts, essentially incentivizing them not to work, you shouldn't be surprised that people work less.


(05-12-2014, 07:09 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]rising costs

Why do prices rise? It's because of inflation and inflation is always caused by monetary policy. If you keep printing worthless money to prop up the investor class and corporations of course the price of everything will go up.

There is more to that.  In the US, wages have generally been higher than Europe, the main reason has largely been supply and demand.  In the late 19th century, the US had a massive labor shortage as the economy grew faster, this incentivized immigration from Europe (as well as Asia and Latin America) and companies paid more for comparable jobs in europe.  When the economy goes bust, there is a surplus of workers which depress wages.  Then you have the overall trend of increased efficiency and productivity (through mechanization and automation), that reduces the need for workers, particularly unskilled workers.  In addition, there is the old fear about immigrants coming and undermining wages (which is partly true and partly not).  

Likewise, while most inflation is probably being caused by monetary policy (especially when it comes to real estate), but supply and demand also affects pricing particularly when it comes to oil and raw supplies.  Right now, the great beast of China is buying up and consuming vast quantities, especially oil and rare metals.  For all the talk of energy independence it doesn't work like that.  Oil generally produced in the US is often exported to Japan or China or other countries where it can be brought for a premium (US oil is usually more desirable because there is a lot of sweet oil here, that is have a lower sulfur content) and the US imports cheaper oil (often heavier oil) from Mexico, Canada, or Venezuela.   And just to let everyone know, petroleum is in everything we use from plastics to fuel.  So if the price of oil goes up, the cost of manufacturing those plastic bracelets that you think are so cool go up, the price of transporting them go up, which by the time it reaches you, you see an increase.  Now companies have been pretty creative in ways to reduce costs to minimize rising costs, at least to the public awareness in the last decade or so.  From the old trick of reducing size of the product, but a lot of them have been doing labor manipulation where they are not hiring full time staff position, but are increasingly relying on hiring through staffing firms that don't pay nearly as much and without benefits (I know this from my experience of working for Mars, one issue that companies face are healthcare and pension issues and by hiring third party contractors they can avoid accumulating additional healthcare and pension costs).  

Now due to government policies, there are bubbles that haven't popped which prevents a general reset of the economy and have caused higher prices.  For instance, with real estate, the market has not really reset itself.  It look at house price from 1789 to 2008, when adjusted for inflation is generally a flat line till the mid-90s where it becomes a hockey stick.  Part of it is from easing lending requirements, another part is the shift of investors toward the real estate market.  Investors are crafty devils (and probably are devils), essentially when one aspect of the economy begins a decline, they will pork their money someplace else causing it to rise.  So when the tech bubble busted in the late 90s, those investors poured money into the real estate market (figuring it to be a more stable bet as you had the baby boomers in their economical prime, population growth, and a constant need for housing).  The same replayed itself in 2008, when real estate market went bust, hedge funds poured money into the energy market, which was one of the additional causes for oil to rise to 132 dollars a barrel.  When energy went bust (oil dropped from 132 dollars to 35 dollars a barrel), instead of a general reset and market correction, you had TARP, which I believe to be largely responsible for the stagnation we are in, and at some point in the not too distance it will bust and no amount of federal dollars will fix it.
austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]Oh good grief here we go again  :eyeroll:

Enough with the stupid circumcision crap obsession, it has nothing to do with law. No child is forced to be circumcised in the West


As for no one being chosen which society they are born into, true; but then again...they never had a chose in being born either. You are free to break your contract by renouncing your citizenship. The contracts were entered willingly by your parents choosing to have you be born in the nation that you are born into.

Lol, virtually every person circumcised in the west was forced into it.  You are quite absurd to think otherwise.

No one has the choice of being born into a society, therefore there is no cultural contract that each person is obligated to abide by.  This isn't groupthink.  If someone thinks an aspect of their culture is unjust, more power to them to overturn it.  If you're not happy with other people choosing how to live for themselves, (eta: and would compel them to live the way you think they should) be prepared to fight.
(05-12-2014, 09:54 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]Well, are you coerced to live in your nation? No, you are not. You are free to leave at any time. So there is no coercion, you are part of a collective agreement...the agreement is if you break a rule, you suffer punishment. Coercion is a poor use of the term.

No, one has to have passports, be willing to be manhandled by TSA agents if leaving by plane, have whatever money Uncle Sam deigns to leave you after he gets "his" taxes, etc.  The bigger point is that there are few nations that are any better off. The police state is a pretty global phenomenon at this point. There's also the reality that most people love the countries they live in -- despite the government. There's more to one's homeland than what the politicians do. Most folks grew up where they live, their parents are buried there, they have friends and family there, etc. The "if you don't like it, leave it" is also very undemocratic (not that I'm a fan of democracy, but people who use that line typically are).

All law is coercion. Even a law against braiding hair without being licensed by the State is only ultimately enforceable by violence. If a cop catches some girl braiding hair without a license, they cite her. She doesn't show up to Court, they can arrest her. If she continues to braid hair, they can arrest her. Arrest is force. Any law has the same force backing it up ultimately, whether it's braiding hair without a license, or murder.
(05-12-2014, 09:54 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]The question is to what extent should the government use its force, that is up for debate. As for rights, rights are determined by the social contract. In this case, the US social contract is the US Constitution. The rights American citizens have are detailed in the Constitution. Interpretation are determined by the courts.


Even the Declaration of Independence says that rights are God-given, and not determined by social contract.

Also, you seem to be reading the Constitution backwards. While some rights are enumerated, it doesn't mean that no other rights exist. The 9th and 10th amendments:

[html]
Quote:The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
[/html]

I think enumerating some rights was a bad idea because it leads to folks thinking that if it isn't listed in the Bill of Rights, that right doesn't exist.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9