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
(05-15-2014, 07:24 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]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?

If the church doesn't want to do it, then the gay couple has no right to a marriage there.  Their desire to force the church to do something it is opposed to constitutes an act of aggression against the church.  Libertarianism is about personal freedom, but it's not just about personal freedom.  A group of like minded individuals, if they are not coerced to belong to a group, would have the right to form a group of common ideals.

Quote:- 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?

If the woman is coerced, then her freedom is violated, so any such pornography should and would be illegal in a truly libertarian society.  It would only be wrong to ban pornography when all the participants are truly willing participants.

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

That one is a little less clear, although I'm inclined to say that the child truly is not able to give informed consent.  I don't know for sure.  I know you don't like the circumcision topic, but I can't help but see a clear parallel with child pornography.  In both cases, the child is not capable of giving consent.  In the case of circumcision, which is clearly harmful to child (even if only insignificantly, for the sake of argument), the parent is presumed to have the right to make the decision for the child based on some good the parent perceives to be a good.  The decision is made entirely externally to the child.  If it is acceptable for parents to make such decisions for their children, I can see the same argument being made for an adult being able to decide that a child will participate in pornography based on their own perceived goods.  In reality, I am opposed to both, so it is not a conflict of principle for me.

Quote: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?

A true libertarian would side with the 10 on this.  The meth lab owner can claim that he is not harming anyone, but if he is bringing down the value of the property of the others, then he clearly is destroying their property.  He doesn't have the right to continue his operations at the expense of the others.  If he could produce the meth in a way that truly did not have any negative impact on his neighbor's health or property, then he should be allowed to continue.  It's because he isn't truly not hurting anyone else that removes his right to continue. 
I think this scenario is similar to what a lot of libertarians argue in favor of allowing smoking in bars, which I would agree is hypocritical.  They are really libertine in their argument, because they just want to be able to do what they want to do.  They don't care that those of us who don't want to breathe their smoke have the right to not be harmed by them.  Their smoke is essentially aggression.

Quote: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???

That's something I have wondered about as well.  Ideally, a child should have a mother and a father.  But circumstances always don't allow that.  What would be better for an orphan, to be adopted by a homosexual couple who would love him, or to languish in a state run orphanage only to be kicked to the curb on their 18th birthday?  I don't think you could say which one is better, I think you'd have to look at it on a case by case basis.  Also, now that I think about it, I don't think anyone has a right to adopt a child.  Adoption should always be done in the best interests of the child.  It is and should be seen purely a privilege, to both gay and straight couples.  Although it will never happen in our current society, I think it would be fair to give heterosexual couples priority in adoption, and only consider homosexual couples if there isn't a safe heterosexual couple willing to adopt the child.  But that sometimes doesn't happen.  What do you think would be better if a straight couple isn't an option?  A gay couple or homelessness? (not from a spiritual perspective only, but also in the circumstances of this life.)
(05-15-2014, 08:30 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-15-2014, 07:24 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]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?

If the church doesn't want to do it, then the gay couple has no right to a marriage there.  Their desire to force the church to do something it is opposed to constitutes an act of aggression against the church.  Libertarianism is about personal freedom, but it's not just about personal freedom.  A group of like minded individuals, if they are not coerced to belong to a group, would have the right to form a group of common ideals.

So does that mean an employer can refuse to hire an employee or serve a customer based upon race, religion, sex, or being a sodomite?

Quote:- 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?

Quote:If the woman is coerced, then her freedom is violated, so any such pornography should and would be illegal in a truly libertarian society.  It would only be wrong to ban pornography when all the participants are truly willing participants.

But how can one determine coercion...most women in porn are pressured and consensually agree, only to have serious regrets later because they were impaired by fear and drugs. This can also be applied to abortion, where many women are persuaded to get an abortion and consent because of the same environmental conditions.

I would say in a Libertarian society, pornography that involves coercion would be free, because at the time both parties consented...even though one was indirectly pressured into doing it.

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

That one is a little less clear, although I'm inclined to say that the child truly is not able to give informed consent. 

Says who? If a 8 year old doesn't want to be circumcised...he shouldn't have to right???

Quote:I don't know for sure.  I know you don't like the circumcision topic, but I can't help but see a clear parallel with child pornography.  In both cases, the child is not capable of giving consent.  In the case of circumcision, which is clearly harmful to child (even if only insignificantly, for the sake of argument),

Sorry but you're wrong. I'm circumcised, not abused and not in any denial.

And this will be the end of the circumcision talk, cause I won't continue any further on it. I'm tired of hearing about it...as for you and I apologize for my bluntness I think you should stop obsessing over your dick...get married, have a bunch of sons and ostensibly refuse to have them circumcised and let them know why you didn't and be proud that you didn't follow what your parents did and your gave your kids what foreskin-crowd calls "an intact penis"

Anyways sorry if that was too blunt, my two bits...you can take it or tell me to go screw myself.


Quote:the parent is presumed to have the right to make the decision for the child based on some good the parent perceives to be a good.  The decision is made entirely externally to the child.  If it is acceptable for parents to make such decisions for their children, I can see the same argument being made for an adult being able to decide that a child will participate in pornography based on their own perceived goods.  In reality, I am opposed to both, so it is not a conflict of principle for me.

I guess the point is, a NAMBLA f*cking dirtbag, would argue that the child has free will and children can make informed decisions (since they have to do so during court cases) they can do so regarding sex.

And good grief I really played advocat diablo.....ugh (shudders) I feel dirty.  :((

Anyways, the problem I see with Libertarianism and their obsession for personal freedoms, is one of relativism and that they cannot have a truly free society without in some way contradicting the very values they aspire. Obviously, some form of philosophical absolutism must lord over the nation.


Quote:
Quote: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.

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?

A true libertarian would side with the 10 on this.  The meth lab owner can claim that he is not harming anyone, but if he is bringing down the value of the property of the others, then he clearly is destroying their property. 

So then how will the law be enforced, and how aren't Libertarians not going to be up in arms that a legitimate business was closed down by the government and a man's property rights were trampled. Not to mention, the government now has a law demanding that people need to keep their property(ies) tidy.


Quote: He doesn't have the right to continue his operations at the expense of the others.  If he could produce the meth in a way that truly did not have any negative impact on his neighbor's health or property, then he should be allowed to continue. 

So then Libertarians should be with the environmentalists when they want to ban fracking because of what it's doing to neighboring villages

Quote:It's because he isn't truly not hurting anyone else that removes his right to continue. 

You don't know that, there's no proof his meth lab is an environmental hazard. Just they said/I say

Quote:I think this scenario is similar to what a lot of libertarians argue in favor of allowing smoking in bars, which I would agree is hypocritical.  They are really libertine in their argument, because they just want to be able to do what they want to do.  They don't care that those of us who don't want to breathe their smoke have the right to not be harmed by them.  Their smoke is essentially aggression.

But why can't a bar owner allow smoking, just like chuyrches refusing to marry sodomites. If you don't like smoking, don't go to that bar...no one is forcing you to drink beer there.

Quote:
Quote: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???

That's something I have wondered about as well.  Ideally, a child should have a mother and a father.  But circumstances always don't allow that.  What would be better for an orphan, to be adopted by a homosexual couple who would love him, or to languish in a state run orphanage only to be kicked to the curb on their 18th birthday?  I don't think you could say which one is better, I think you'd have to look at it on a case by case basis.  Also, now that I think about it, I don't think anyone has a right to adopt a child.  Adoption should always be done in the best interests of the child.  It is and should be seen purely a privilege, to both gay and straight couples.  Although it will never happen in our current society, I think it would be fair to give heterosexual couples priority in adoption, and only consider homosexual couples if there isn't a safe heterosexual couple willing to adopt the child.  But that sometimes doesn't happen.  What do you think would be better if a straight couple isn't an option?  A gay couple or homelessness? (not from a spiritual perspective only, but also in the circumstances of this life.)
[/quote]

Well I'm not a libertarian so I do not have this dilemma. Rights are something that must be met with empiricism. One should have the right to bear arms, but one does not need a nuclear warhead. Everyone has the right to free speech, but one can't shout fire in a movie theatre. One has every right to gather and assembly, but not if you're peddling gay propaganda or Satanism.

For this question, I'm against gay civil unions, I'm against them adopting and I'm against no-fault divorces.
(05-15-2014, 09:55 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]So does that mean an employer can refuse to hire an employee or serve a customer based upon race, religion, sex, or being a sodomite?

Yup.

Quote:But how can one determine coercion...most women in porn are pressured and consensually agree, only to have serious regrets later because they were impaired by fear and drugs. This can also be applied to abortion, where many women are persuaded to get an abortion and consent because of the same environmental conditions.

You can only work with the information you have.  If it is believed that it was purely consensual, and later it was found to be coercive, then at that point its sale becomes illegal.  I don't see that it can be applied to abortion, since we can objectively see that abortion is the murder of a human being.  Women can't consent to ending the life of their child; it's not their life to give consent over.

Quote:Says who? If a 8 year old doesn't want to be circumcised...he shouldn't have to right???

Very few 8 year olds understand what circumcision entails.  They're not capable of giving consent, even if they think it is something they want.  What I meant with child pornography is that the child isn't capable of consenting, even if he or she thinks she is freely choosing.

Quote:I guess the point is, a NAMBLA f*cking dirtbag, would argue that the child has free will and children can make informed decisions (since they have to do so during court cases) they can do so regarding sex.

There is objective medical proof that child sexual abuse destroys their mental health.  In a truly libertarian society, pedophilia would be considered aggression, no matter how much the child might claim to be willing.  I don't see it as limiting freedom to acknowledge that certain age groups are not psychologically developed enough to make certain decisions.

Quote:Anyways, the problem I see with Libertarianism and their obsession for personal freedoms, is one of relativism and that they cannot have a truly free society without in some way contradicting the very values they aspire. Obviously, some form of philosophical absolutism must lord over the nation.
 

I would consider a society of moral relativity a libertine one, not truly libertarian.  I agree that there is a philosophical absolutism, and that absolutism is "if they ain't bothering you, leave them alone."  And by bothering, of course, I don't mean merely feeling strange about something.

Quote:So then how will the law be enforced, and how aren't Libertarians not going to be up in arms that a legitimate business was closed down by the government and a man's property rights were trampled. Not to mention, the government now has a law demanding that people need to keep their property(ies) tidy.

I think the people that would be up in arms aren't really libertarians, but are really...licensarians?  In this scenario, the man's property rights are only trampled insofar as he is harming the property of others.  The other property owners don't have the right to shut him down completely.  They only have the right to repel him enough that he is no longer harming their property.  As far as the government law, it would not be that people must keep their property tidy, but they must not negatively effect the property of others.  There isn't anything contrary to libertarianism in this.


Quote:So then Libertarians should be with the environmentalists when they want to ban fracking because of what it's doing to neighboring villages

When fracking is actually harming those villages, yes absolutely.

Quote:You don't know that, there's no proof his meth lab is an environmental hazard. Just they said/I say

I was assuming from your scenario that it was proven.  If it is not proven, then yes, they can't stop him.  At least on health issues.  It's not difficult to determine whether the trash is bringing down their property value.

Quote:But why can't a bar owner allow smoking, just like chuyrches refusing to marry sodomites. If you don't like smoking, don't go to that bar...no one is forcing you to drink beer there.

As long as there is fair warning that it was specifically a smoking bar, that would not be a problem.  The owner should be able to open whatever kind of bar he wants.
I think the point that is being missed is there is a legitimate (and very limited) function of government beyond protecting individual rights. There are some things, telephone lines as an example, that it's just not feasible to have 30 different phone lines running into every neighborhood. Government has to step in a regulate in that case. There are other times, such as when a person is not capable of making fully informed rational choices, such as the mentally insane and people who are underage, that the government may need to be involved. That's why the question of child porn is not a issue. We as a society have made a judgment that people under a certain age don't have the mental faculties to make those kinds of decisions. Libertarians aren't the absolutist that you seem to imagine them to be. There are circumstances in which judgment calls have to be made. Not everything is black and white. But if you stick to a set of principles normally the outcome will be correct.

[Image: 6f0377ddbb0eb1ed173c49e8d7e06aa3.jpg?itok=tnm3FflF]

Ron Paul for life!!!!!
From what I gather, there is a lot of backpeddling with Libertarianism, where basically it's free...until it isn't in certain cases. It seems to me that in a Libertarian society, a lot of people will be in court, oh and workplace discrimination is a-okay....not my cup of tea. I'd rather live in a stable society, then one where society is basically a step from anarchism
(05-16-2014, 06:05 AM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]From what I gather, there is a lot of backpeddling with Libertarianism, where basically it's free...until it isn't in certain cases. It seems to me that in a Libertarian society, a lot of people will be in court, oh and workplace discrimination is a-okay....not my cup of tea. I'd rather live in a stable society, then one where society is basically a step from anarchism

Benjamin Franklin may (or may not) have been a mason or a deist or whatever, but he was a pretty clever fellow and said some pithy things, like, "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (Also rendered as, "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.")  Whether or not you agree with it, well...that's another matter entirely.  :)
(05-16-2014, 06:05 AM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]From what I gather, there is a lot of backpeddling with Libertarianism, where basically it's free...until it isn't in certain cases. It seems to me that in a Libertarian society, a lot of people will be in court, oh and workplace discrimination is a-okay....not my cup of tea. I'd rather live in a stable society, then one where society is basically a step from anarchism

That's a very simplistic way of defining it.  Would monarchy not also be basically free, until it isn't in certain cases.  I don't like workplace discrimination, but we have workplace discrimination now.  It's called affirmative action.

Which kind of government would you prefer?
(05-16-2014, 10:10 AM)J Michael Wrote: [ -> ]Benjamin Franklin may (or may not) have been a mason or a deist or whatever, but he was a pretty clever fellow and said some pithy things, like, "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (Also rendered as, "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.")  Whether or not you agree with it, well...that's another matter entirely.  :)

You know, so many Libertarians use this quote...and almost all of them have no idea what Franklin meant. He's always taken out of context to suite the Libertarian ideal.

Franklin made that quote in response to a dispute between the Pennsylvania Assembly and the Governor who was acting on behalf of the Penn family. Essentially the Assembly needing to appropriate funds for defence of the frontier against hostile Indian and French forces during the Seven Year's War (or French and Indian War as the yanks call it). The Assembly wanted to tax the Penn lands to raise the funds; the Governor consistently vetoed in favouring the Penn family.

Frankly penned this as a response to the liberty of self-governance in the interests of security...it had nothing to do with civil liberties (which I think Libertarians blatantly ignore, since the Founding Fathers also talked about the rights and freedoms of the state...not just individuals). The Assembly was trying to exercise its right to self-governance to tax the lands in the interests of Pennsylvanians security...however the Governor intervened and complained the Assembly was stalling over the insistence of taxing lands. Later the Penn family decided to offer up cash to fund the defence on the basis the Assembly agreed it had no power to tax their land.

Franklin was criticizing the Governor, for suggesting that the Legislature give up Liberty (the right to tax) for temporary security (a cheap cash offering to ensure the defense of the state)

Essentially Franklin was stating that the individual (Penn family) was trying to usurp the natural rights the Legislature had to legally tax those lands to ensure the defence of the state.



(05-16-2014, 10:12 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]That's a very simplistic way of defining it.  Would monarchy not also be basically free, until it isn't in certain cases.  I don't like workplace discrimination, but we have workplace discrimination now.  It's called affirmative action.

Which kind of government would you prefer?

Affirmative Action is wrong, but that does not mean laws in place to discourage discrimination should go as well. I certainly don't want to go back to the days of "Irish Need Not Apply" or being refused a job cause I'm a "damned dago, rosary-rattler"

Which kind of government I prefer...I would prefer a constitutional monarchist government based upon Catholic Social Teaching.
(05-17-2014, 12:09 AM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]Which kind of government I prefer...I would prefer a constitutional monarchist government based upon Catholic Social Teaching.

Is a constitutional monarch anything more than a figurehead?  In the same sense that the Pope is Tradition, for a monarch to be effective, wouldn't he or she have to be the Constitution?

In a constitutional monarchy based on Catholic Social Teaching, what would be the status of those who choose to not live a Catholic social life or practice a Catholic spiritual life?  What freedoms would they have to not be Catholic?
(05-17-2014, 12:39 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-17-2014, 12:09 AM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]Which kind of government I prefer...I would prefer a constitutional monarchist government based upon Catholic Social Teaching.

Is a constitutional monarch anything more than a figurehead?  In the same sense that the Pope is Tradition, for a monarch to be effective, wouldn't he or she have to be the Constitution?

In a constitutional monarchy based on Catholic Social Teaching, what would be the status of those who choose to not live a Catholic social life or practice a Catholic spiritual life?  What freedoms would they have to not be Catholic?

Sorry I can see the confusion, perhaps I should have rephrased it. I believe in a monarchy, with a Constitution to lay out succinctly the rights of the state and of men. The monarch would act in the similar manner as the President of the US does (since the President is really a de facto monarch); however the monarchy would be a lifetime appointment until resignation or death. The Constitution would of course have checks and balances to keep the King from being wholly absolute, but the same checks would keep the government in place to prevent making the monarch nothing but a pompous figurehead.

You can privately practice your faith, but not publicly...certain cults would be banned even for private use. I really can't answer your question, unless you specify and do note...I don't have a perfect ideal system...so everything I answer would be an ad hoc answer.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9