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
(05-13-2014, 06:59 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]Uhh, yes, and having to leave is not a choice. Hence there's no subtle difference between having a choice and having to leave. There's a world of difference between the two.

And who in America is forcing people to leave? I don't see mass emigration, in-fact if you look at the US-Mexican border and Congress along with the USCCB...it's quite the opposite

Quote:Well, I'm not a libertarian and am not here to defend them per se.

Sorry if I made it personal. I don't mean to make it seem like you're a Libertarian


Quote:
No, not everyone has a choice about everything, and being in a given situation is not necessarily a matter of one's choosing to be in it. The mentally retarded kid isn't going to grow up and be able to choose to study Physics, for ex. Or, I guess you could say he could "choose" to, but he won't be successful and likely wouldn't be admitted into college. In which sense, I choose to be a millionaire and 25 years old, too.

Apples and Oranges. Once again, no American is prevented by the US government from renouncing their citizenship or leaving...the same cannot be said for say Cuba.

Quote:We have no choice but to tolerate things we can't change, but that doesn't mean that pointing out what's wrong is a bad thing (or that it's a good thing to think we can't change things that we can change).

Absolutely nothing wrong with that, in-fact you have every right to point it out as wrong and gather into an assembly as per the social contract with your government via the US Constitution.

Quote:Again, I'm not here to defend libertarianism, but saying "love it or leave it" to a libertarian in a country which was pretty libertarian to begin with, and was designed to be pretty libertarian, is libertarianish according to its founders' vision and the unmolested Constitution which is being breached by the government, sort of makes no sense.

I'm sorry, but can you please show me when America was "libertrarian"? I hear this all the time from Libertarians, but I cannot see where this Libertarian utopia existed, except only in the minds of Libertarians.

As for the US designed to be Libertarian, it was designed to be a Federalist Constitutional Republic based upon mostly the philosophy of John Locke, but even that is too narrow. The US Consitution was built on compromises, there was no unified "Founder's View" just read up the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers to see how cohesive the Founders were....they weren't.

As for "love it or leave it" I'm not saying that to your or the Libertarians, I'm saying when whacky ideas are put forth, they shouldn't be so butthurt if the response is that. I know for one when I was against the Iraq War, that I was told "love it, or leave it"


Quote:No, the problem is that people want laws to govern every facet of our existence -- from the gallons of water our toilets hold to what kinds of light bulbs we use to whom private businesses have to serve, etc. The problem isn't the law in se to a libertarian (anarcho-libertarians aside); it's what kind of laws are made. Straight-up libertarians have no problems with Courts of law and law enforcement when it comes to murder, rape, robbery, enforcing contracts, fraud, etc. But they are likely to have problems with some girl braiding hair being thrown into jail for it, and being told they should shut up, tolerate, and "love it or leave it."

And I would say that being against absurd laws such as being against braiding, doesn't make one a libertarian per se. A Libertarian is someone who sees personal freedoms and limited government as the most important tenants of society with Individualism being the core foundation.

As to people wanting absurd laws (and I'll give you that some laws are absurd) where the Libertarian shows their hypocrisy, is that they are all for free-choice of the people (remember they don't want government telling people what to do), but when the people decide they want something like a "lightbulb" ban...then the Libertarian cries sacrilege and claims that the system is not working....even though it is working perfectly fine...just not to their tune.
(05-13-2014, 09:36 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]And I would say that being against absurd laws such as being against braiding, doesn't make one a libertarian per se. A Libertarian is someone who sees personal freedoms and limited government as the most important tenants of society with Individualism being the core foundation.

As to people wanting absurd laws (and I'll give you that some laws are absurd) where the Libertarian shows their hypocrisy, is that they are all for free-choice of the people (remember they don't want government telling people what to do), but when the people decide they want something like a "lightbulb" ban...then the Libertarian cries sacrilege and claims that the system is not working....even though it is working perfectly fine...just not to their tune.

You don't understand Libertarianism, you are confusing it with Populism.  Libertarians aren't for free choice of the people, libertarians are for live and let live.  So there is no hypocrisy in libertarians opposing a light bulb ban that the majority of the people support.  We're sort of the ultimate republicans.  If one person wants to do something, and his doing that will not harm anyone else and does not involve force or compulsion against another person, then it shouldn't matter what the majority thinks about it and they should have no authority over it.  That is libertarianism.  There is even a social aspect to libertarianism.  People think that it is only about individual freedoms to the extreme, and that's understandable, but there are plenty of libertarians who also see society as having rights.  We are social beings after all, so insofar as humans are social beings and need to belong to a society in order to be fully healthy individuals, that society can be said to have rights that individual freedoms should not be allowed to violate.
(05-14-2014, 06:39 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]You don't understand Libertarianism,
:eyeroll:

Of course I don't. If I criticize Libertarianism, then obviously I'm confused and "don't really understand" Libertarianism....even though what I said about Libertarianism is all true. Personal Liberty is the prime focus. Personal Liberty is the prime focus of Libertarians, seeking to minimize government and taxes and maximize personal freedoms.

Quote:you are confusing it with Populism.

Populism is to appeal to the interests and conceptions of the general public...most Americans while they are fed up with government, do not believe in Libertarians.

Quote:Libertarians aren't for free choice of the people, libertarians are for live and let live.  So there is no hypocrisy in libertarians opposing a light bulb ban that the majority of the people support.

Then why are libertarians always up in arms whenever Ron Paul never wins, or when the people decide they want government interference??...obviously they are rotten statists and hate freedom. Why are libertarians so eager to want to privatize Social Security when clearly no one but Libertarians and CATO-institute Republicans want.


Quote:We're sort of the ultimate republicans.

Except when it comes to social issues like abortion and "gay marryge", Libertarians align more with the Democrat party

Quote: If one person wants to do something, and his doing that will not harm anyone else and does not involve force or compulsion against another person, then it shouldn't matter what the majority thinks about it and they should have no authority over it.  That is libertarianism. 

Well there you go, you just prove the hypocrisy of Libertarianism. How can Libertarians be okay with lighbulb bans, if it compels a person to refrain from doing something that causes  no malice to others?


Quote:There is even a social aspect to libertarianism.  People think that it is only about individual freedoms to the extreme, and that's understandable, but there are plenty of libertarians who also see society as having rights.  We are social beings after all, so insofar as humans are social beings and need to belong to a society in order to be fully healthy individuals, that society can be said to have rights that individual freedoms should not be allowed to violate.

I really would like to see these social-libertarians, who do not fall in the camp of Marxism. Social-libertarianism is an oxymoron. Libertarianism believes in individual conscience and choice...bringing a society into the mix means less individual freedoms...it's a conflict.
(05-13-2014, 05:24 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]
And you then go back to the first word of the first choice: Tolerate

Libertarians love their liberty, except when it disagrees with their ideal worldview. When you push unpopular ideas, expect the "love it, or leave it" line.

C'mon, austenbosten....this is really laughable.  Just like the "left" is just sooooooo "tolerant" of everybody and everything.  Except of course, anybody or anything that doesn't believe what they do.  Then you're "racist", "homophobic", "crazy right-wing nut", "sexist", etc., etc.

As for "libertarianism", I found this interesting: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/
(05-14-2014, 07:55 AM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]Of course I don't. If I criticize Libertarianism, then obviously I'm confused and "don't really understand" Libertarianism....even though what I said about Libertarianism is all true. Personal Liberty is the prime focus. Personal Liberty is the prime focus of Libertarians, seeking to minimize government and taxes and maximize personal freedoms.

No, you don't.  You can criticize libertarianism, but you are wrong because you are criticizing things that don't make libertarianism hypocritical.

Quote:Then why are libertarians always up in arms whenever Ron Paul never wins, or when the people decide they want government interference??...obviously they are rotten statists and hate freedom. Why are libertarians so eager to want to privatize Social Security when clearly no one but Libertarians and CATO-institute Republicans want.

Libertarians aren't up in arms whenever Ron Paul loses, Ron Paul supporters are up in arms whenever he loses.  The latter is a subset of the former.  Libertarianism isn't about popular opinion, which is why you don't understand libertarianism.  Libertarians are opposed to government interference when it violates an individual's sovereignty when that person isn't bothering anyone else.  It doesn't matter if the majority want that interference or not.  On the other hand, if that sovereignty is being used to hurt someone else, libertarians WANT government interference on those issues.  That's the purpose of government from a libertarian perspective; to protect the freedoms of people from those who seek to violate those freedoms.  Libertarians get upset when the government tries to "protect" people from things that they don't actually need any protection from.


Quote:Except when it comes to social issues like abortion and "gay marryge", Libertarians align more with the Democrat party

I meant small r republican.  There is actually a big rift in the Libertarian party over abortion, so we're not all as democratic leaning on that issue as you think.  There is a significant amount of pro-life Libertarians who end up voting republican because they won't vote for a pro-choice libertarian.  As for gay marriage, if someone enters into a gay marriage, it doesn't hurt anyone else in the least (assuming that it is just between them and they are not bringing children into the situation).  No hypocrisy on the part of libertarians there.  Tolerance for gay marriage doesn't have to equate to approval of homosexual behavior for libertarians.  Republicans, on the other hand, are cultural socialists in that they want to force everyone to live a certain way.

Quote: Well there you go, you just prove the hypocrisy of Libertarianism. How can Libertarians be okay with lighbulb bans, if it compels a person to refrain from doing something that causes  no malice to others?

Libertarians *aren't* ok with light bulb bans, it infringes on freedom of choice.  You are confused on this.  Your previous post suggested you think libertarians are up at arms about light bulb bans, but this one suggests that they want them? 

Quote:I really would like to see these social-libertarians, who do not fall in the camp of Marxism. Social-libertarianism is an oxymoron. Libertarianism believes in individual conscience and choice...bringing a society into the mix means less individual freedoms...it's a conflict.

They are few and far between, no disagreement there.  You are confusing libertarianism with libertinism here.  The latter is individual conscience and choice over everything, but with libertarianism, the fundamental principle is that of non-aggression.  You aren't free to do whatever you want if what you want is aggression against another person.  That's why so many libertarians are pro-life.  Not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists.  The moderates recognize the need for society and that protecting non-aggressive social norms can be good when it supports individual sovereignty.  So, for example, a social libertarian can support public education if it can be shown (and it does) that giving everyone education enhances the ability of everyone to have the most freedom of choice.  Most libertarians are not for a complete cut of all social programs, but merely a drastic reduction in unnecessary social spending.  You have some ideas about libertarianism that, while understandable, are just plain untrue.
(05-14-2014, 09:42 AM)J Michael Wrote: [ -> ]C'mon, austenbosten....this is really laughable.  Just like the "left" is just sooooooo "tolerant" of everybody and everything.  Except of course, anybody or anything that doesn't believe what they do.  Then you're "racist", "homophobic", "crazy right-wing nut", "sexist", etc., etc.

As for "libertarianism", I found this interesting: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

Exactly!  :grin:

and if you disagree with Libertarianism, you're a: "liberal", "statist", "Communist", "Marxist", or the worst of all.....a "neocon"
(05-14-2014, 10:51 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]No, you don't.  You can criticize libertarianism, but you are wrong because you are criticizing things that don't make libertarianism hypocritical.

Such as what?

Quote:Libertarians aren't up in arms whenever Ron Paul loses, Ron Paul supporters are up in arms whenever he loses.  The latter is a subset of the former. 

I will give you that, but much libertarians are Ron Paul supporters and many Ron Paul supporters are radicals.


Quote:Libertarianism isn't about popular opinion,

Never said that

Quote: which is why you don't understand libertarianism. 

No, you just didn't read carefully. I never said libertarianism was popular opinion


Quote:Libertarians are opposed to government interference when it violates an individual's sovereignty when that person isn't bothering anyone else.  It doesn't matter if the majority want that interference or not. 

And where is the line drawn on individual freedom? Who decides when it's government interference, who decides when someone's actions are not bothering anyone else? Is the bothersome individual's personal freedoms somehow more valued than 10 others?


Quote:On the other hand, if that sovereignty is being used to hurt someone else, libertarians WANT government interference on those issues. 

Except we are once again at the dilemma of "who" decides

Quote:That's the purpose of government from a libertarian perspective; to protect the freedoms of people from those who seek to violate those freedoms.  Libertarians get upset when the government tries to "protect" people from things that they don't actually need any protection from.

Once again who defines the freedoms, who decides when they are being violated...ect.


Quote:As for gay marriage, if someone enters into a gay marriage, it doesn't hurt anyone else in the least (assuming that it is just between them and they are not bringing children into the situation).  No hypocrisy on the part of libertarians there.

That's hypocrisy! How can you decide that it's wrong for gays to have a civil union and not have children. You're violating their personal freedoms, they are not doing anything to harm anyone...in-fact they are trying to give a child a home.

(Note, I'm not in favor of gays adopting...everyone knows on here I'm not a fan of gays in general...I'm simply pointing out the problem with Libertarianism)

 
Quote:Tolerance for gay marriage doesn't have to equate to approval of homosexual behavior for libertarians.  Republicans, on the other hand, are cultural socialists in that they want to force everyone to live a certain way.

Well not to sound like a broken record, but isn't that hypocritical again? Aren't Libertarians trying to force everyone to live a certain way, not everyone wants to live in a laissez-faire society.

Quote: Libertarians *aren't* ok with light bulb bans, it infringes on freedom of choice.  You are confused on this.  Your previous post suggested you think libertarians are up at arms about light bulb bans, but this one suggests that they want them?

They are few and far between, no disagreement there.  You are confusing libertarianism with libertinism here.  The latter is individual conscience and choice over everything, but with libertarianism, the fundamental principle is that of non-aggression.  You aren't free to do whatever you want if what you want is aggression against another person.  That's why so many libertarians are pro-life.  Not all libertarians are anarcho-capitalists.  The moderates recognize the need for society and that protecting non-aggressive social norms can be good when it supports individual sovereignty.  So, for example, a social libertarian can support public education if it can be shown (and it does) that giving everyone education enhances the ability of everyone to have the most freedom of choice.  Most libertarians are not for a complete cut of all social programs, but merely a drastic reduction in unnecessary social spending.  You have some ideas about libertarianism that, while understandable, are just plain untrue.

This is the problem I have with Libertarianism. In order for all of that to work, there must be an authoritarian government of some sort, to ensure that the government remains limited. If the people decide they want statism, the libertarians would have to violate the personal freedoms (freedom of civic choice) of many to ensure the freedoms of the few. There you no longer have freedom of the common welfare, but instead and paradoxically a dictatorship of the minority.
(05-14-2014, 10:34 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]Such as what?

It's not hypocritical for libertarians to be opposed to a light bulb ban that has popular support. 

Quote:I will give you that, but much libertarians are Ron Paul supporters and many Ron Paul supporters are radicals.

I agree.  I thought the Ron Paul mania was a little too similar to Obamania.

Quote:And where is the line drawn on individual freedom? Who decides when it's government interference, who decides when someone's actions are not bothering anyone else? Is the bothersome individual's personal freedoms somehow more valued than 10 others?

It depends on each issue I guess.  It doesn't hurt anyone if one person decides they want to use a regular light bulb.  It doesn't hurt anyone else if two gay people decide to have a ceremony and call it a wedding.  It doesn't hurt anyone else when someone chooses to view pornography.  I would say the individual's personal freedoms are more important than 10 others when the freedoms in question are of the 10 others perceived freedom to dictate how the one individual lives his life.  I'll try and clarify if you have a few particular issues in mind.


Quote:Once again who defines the freedoms, who decides when they are being violated...ect.

Common sense would determine it.  Does what one person wants to do exact anything from you in order for them to do it?  If not, then let them be.  If so, and you don't want to be a part of it, then it's not a right they have.

Quote:That's hypocrisy! How can you decide that it's wrong for gays to have a civil union and not have children. You're violating their personal freedoms, they are not doing anything to harm anyone...in-fact they are trying to give a child a home.

Because civil unions are about partnerships, not having children.  In an ideal libertarian state, there wouldn't be any state marriage licenses.  If two, three or forty-five people want to get married, they'd go to whichever organization was willing to officiate a ceremony for them and it would be completely separate from the state.  Children, on the other hand, have a right to a mother and a father.  When gay couples adopt, how ever well-intentioned they may be, they are denying a freedom to the child.

Quote:Well not to sound like a broken record, but isn't that hypocritical again? Aren't Libertarians trying to force everyone to live a certain way, not everyone wants to live in a laissez-faire society.

I don't see the hypocrisy.  If you want to live in an authoritative society, you can have that with like-minded individuals.  This is probably where the break down is.  Libertarians don't need people who disagree with us in order to have a laissez-faire society.  As long as society doesn't require things of us, you can go about your business as you wish, and belong to whichever organizations you want that have a greater authoritarian structure than society in general.  You (pl), on the other hand, are unable to have an authoritative society without, on some level, dictating to those of us who disagree how to live our lives because you think you know what's better for us than we do.  So, going back to the light bulb ban, I don't need you to use old light bulbs in order for me to be free to use them, and you don't need me to use newer light bulbs in order for you to be free to use them.  However, to impose a ban means you think your way is right and you can't tolerate any disagreement, so you need to compel others to live as you would.  But, I guess to sum it all up, those who don't want to live in a laissez-faire society aren't capable of having the society they want without dragging everyone else along with them.  If those people don't have the right to live in a laissez-faire society, despite the fact that it is what they want, how then can you have the right to live in the kind of society that you want?

Quote:This is the problem I have with Libertarianism. In order for all of that to work, there must be an authoritarian government of some sort, to ensure that the government remains limited. If the people decide they want statism, the libertarians would have to violate the personal freedoms (freedom of civic choice) of many to ensure the freedoms of the few. There you no longer have freedom of the common welfare, but instead and paradoxically a dictatorship of the minority.

That's what defines the difference between a republic and a democracy.  Libertarians are ultimately republican, Democrats are ultimately statist.  If the people want statism, Libertarians are not violating their freedoms because the will of the majority is to violate the will of the minority.  I agree that, ultimately, no form of government is going to make everyone happy, so it boils down to who has the greater right to live as they want?  Those who can do so without compelling others to go along with them, or those who can't?  This is the main problem I have with the idea of a Catholic monarchy.  It would be nothing other than a spiritual fascist state.  It's not surprising to me that almost every fascist movement has taken place in a majority Catholic country.
(05-14-2014, 05:42 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-14-2014, 09:42 AM)J Michael Wrote: [ -> ]C'mon, austenbosten....this is really laughable.  Just like the "left" is just sooooooo "tolerant" of everybody and everything.  Except of course, anybody or anything that doesn't believe what they do.  Then you're "racist", "homophobic", "crazy right-wing nut", "sexist", etc., etc.

As for "libertarianism", I found this interesting: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

Exactly!  :grin:

and if you disagree with Libertarianism, you're a: "liberal", "statist", "Communist", "Marxist", or the worst of all.....a "neocon"

This would only be true if the libertarian being disagreed with is as "tolerant" of others and their viewpoints as those "liberal, statist, pinko-Commie, Marxists" and all others on the "left".  :grin: :grin: :grin:
(05-14-2014, 11:25 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]It's not hypocritical for libertarians to be opposed to a light bulb ban that has popular support. 

Okay

Quote:I agree.  I thought the Ron Paul mania was a little too similar to Obamania.

Duce! Duce! Duce!

Quote:It depends on each issue I guess.  It doesn't hurt anyone if one person decides they want to use a regular light bulb.  It doesn't hurt anyone else if two gay people decide to have a ceremony and call it a wedding.  It doesn't hurt anyone else when someone chooses to view pornography.  I would say the individual's personal freedoms are more important than 10 others when the freedoms in question are of the 10 others perceived freedom to dictate how the one individual lives his life.  I'll try and clarify if you have a few particular issues in mind.

Okay some hypothetical questions (and let me know if I'm just being an argumentative bastard, cause I don't want to be that)

- Supposed the two sodomites want to "unionize" their "relationship", but every "chuyrch" refuses them...what about the personal freedom to "marryige" for the sodomites?

- Regarding pornography...most porn is produced by using women who are manipulated into doing these acts....one could very well argue the women in porn are being coerced into doing so.....So how can a Libertarian rectify supporting a consumer's "non-harmful" use of porn, when the product itself was "harming" others freedoms?

- Still on Pornography, what about under-age pornography (assuming it has been argued as being "consensual")? Freedom?


As for the 10 vs 1 Personal Freedoms, here is a scenario and I will use the case regarding property, since Libertarians get hard-ons regarding property rights.

[pre]There is a neighborhood with 12 lots.
Ten lots are inhabited by residential single-family dwellings
One lot is a park provided by a corporation for the community to use
and one lot is residential, but also houses a meth-lab

The gentleman with the meth lab is not harming anyone and is providing a commodity, he is a law-abiding citizen, however his house produces a lot of trash and the result of the lab has produced what neighbors fear to be toxic chemicals and as a result...it has brought down the property values of the entire neighborhood

Now, the neighborhood has had enough...they are worried for their safety and that of the children's health. They also don't like their property values being depressed because of this man's operation and lack of tidyness. So they go to City Hall to demand a law be set in place to ban not only the meth lab, but demand there be a modicum of some cleanliness.


Where does the Libertarian stand?

The freedom of the man to run his business and do with his property whatever he feels like it, since in his defense he is not harming anyone and rejects that his lab is producing toxic chemicals?
or
The freedom of the 10 individuals and the 1 Corporation, who are being affected with depressing property values and possible a health and safety issue[/pre]





Quote:Common sense would determine it.  Does what one person wants to do exact anything from you in order for them to do it?  If not, then let them be.  If so, and you don't want to be a part of it, then it's not a right they have.

And I will parrot what Vox always says to me...with the law, there is no common sense. You need to be specific

Quote:Because civil unions are about partnerships, not having children.  In an ideal libertarian state, there wouldn't be any state marriage licenses.  If two, three or forty-five people want to get married, they'd go to whichever organization was willing to officiate a ceremony for them and it would be completely separate from the state.  Children, on the other hand, have a right to a mother and a father.  When gay couples adopt, how ever well-intentioned they may be, they are denying a freedom to the child.

Gay couples would argue that children have a right to live in a stable home and that given the choice between an orphanage, a married couple who are abusive, and a gay "marriyed couple"...that they have every right to adopt. Who says children have a right to a mother and a father, when many kids grow up without either or???

Quote:I don't see the hypocrisy.  If you want to live in an authoritative society, you can have that with like-minded individuals.  This is probably where the break down is.  Libertarians don't need people who disagree with us in order to have a laissez-faire society.  As long as society doesn't require things of us, you can go about your business as you wish, and belong to whichever organizations you want that have a greater authoritarian structure than society in general.  You (pl), on the other hand, are unable to have an authoritative society without, on some level, dictating to those of us who disagree how to live our lives because you think you know what's better for us than we do.  So, going back to the light bulb ban, I don't need you to use old light bulbs in order for me to be free to use them, and you don't need me to use newer light bulbs in order for you to be free to use them.  However, to impose a ban means you think your way is right and you can't tolerate any disagreement, so you need to compel others to live as you would.  But, I guess to sum it all up, those who don't want to live in a laissez-faire society aren't capable of having the society they want without dragging everyone else along with them.  If those people don't have the right to live in a laissez-faire society, despite the fact that it is what they want, how then can you have the right to live in the kind of society that you want?

So basically the rights of one, outweigh the rights of the many. In a Libertarian society, if the populace wished that there would be a regulatory body to prevent meat-packing industries from selling spoiled and poisonous food....it's too bad, cause they are infringing on ppls freedoms. Essentially, bans are bad no matter how beneficial to the populace they may be and no matter how desperate the populace truly wants them.

Quote:That's what defines the difference between a republic and a democracy.  Libertarians are ultimately republican, Democrats are ultimately statist.  If the people want statism, Libertarians are not violating their freedoms because the will of the majority is to violate the will of the minority.  I agree that, ultimately, no form of government is going to make everyone happy, so it boils down to who has the greater right to live as they want?  Those who can do so without compelling others to go along with them, or those who can't?  This is the main problem I have with the idea of a Catholic monarchy.  It would be nothing other than a spiritual fascist state.  It's not surprising to me that almost every fascist movement has taken place in a majority Catholic country.

That makes no sense, Democracy is statist? Republicanism is a form of Democracy, so you are basically saying Libertarianism is ultimately statist....which I would agree slightly.

As for Catholic monarchy, I do not see it as spiritual fascism, as Fascism is power to the state and is generally militant left-wing. Don't be fooled by the pompousness, fascism was very progressive (sometimes in good ways) but it's a myth to say that every fascist movement took place in a majority Catholic nation...Italy, Argentina and Chile were the only nations where Fascism succeeded in Catholic nations.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9