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
austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]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.

No, i understand that.  Nothing is perfect.  Which religious beliefs would be forbidden even from private practice, and what would be a just penalty if private practice was discovered?

What constitutes public practice?  Would other religions be allowed to build places of worship?  Are they allowed to advertise cultural festivals?  Are they allowed to explain why they believe what they believe in a public forum?  Or is public practice strictly overt evangelization?

What kind of penalties would there be for victimless crimes?  Would practicing homosexuals who do not act homosexually outside of their homes be subject to fines or imprisonment?  Or would they be turned a blind eye if they agree to keep it private?
(05-17-2014, 10:21 AM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.


Hmm that sounds vaguely familiar........

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTsf5oWxarzzDsawvCxzW-...uctzgSyppw]


I wonder what happens when this benevolent monarch makes the SSPX one of those forbidden cults, outlaws the TLM and prescribes everyone attend a NO mass every week?
It's a lot like private firearms ownership. Sure, guns can be used to defend one's family from criminals, but they can also be used to kill innocent people. That's why it's best to just ban them all.
(05-17-2014, 11:10 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]It's a lot like private firearms ownership. Sure, guns can be used to defend one's family from criminals, but they can also be used to kill innocent people. That's why it's best to just ban them all.


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ1Kj1b3JM_AQ44EgjoXMx...wieckp5tQz]
(05-17-2014, 10:47 PM)Silouan Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-17-2014, 10:21 AM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.


Hmm that sounds vaguely familiar........

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTsf5oWxarzzDsawvCxzW-...uctzgSyppw]


I wonder what happens when this benevolent monarch makes the SSPX one of those forbidden cults, outlaws the TLM and prescribes everyone attend a NO mass every week?

Or it sounds like Germany....many several religions are banned in Germany. Indonesia has freedom of religion, as long as it's part of 6 defined....I guess I could be coy too and show a picture of libertarians paradise.

[Image: OWGvKtK.png]
(05-18-2014, 08:31 AM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-17-2014, 10:47 PM)Silouan Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-17-2014, 10:21 AM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.


Hmm that sounds vaguely familiar........

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTsf5oWxarzzDsawvCxzW-...uctzgSyppw]


I wonder what happens when this benevolent monarch makes the SSPX one of those forbidden cults, outlaws the TLM and prescribes everyone attend a NO mass every week?

Or it sounds like Germany....many several religions are banned in Germany. Indonesia has freedom of religion, as long as it's part of 6 defined....I guess I could be coy too and show a picture of libertarians paradise.

[Image: OWGvKtK.png]

Prone to hyperbole, are we? :eyeroll: :eyeroll:
(05-18-2014, 12:06 PM)J Michael Wrote: [ -> ]Prone to hyperbole, are we? :eyeroll: :eyeroll:

No, just offering friendly banter back. :P

My dream ideal state is Saudi Arabia according to Silouan
I'm jokingly responding that Silouan's ideal state is the caricature of the Libertarian ideal
(05-17-2014, 11:31 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]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.

No, i understand that.  Nothing is perfect.  Which religious beliefs would be forbidden even from private practice, and what would be a just penalty if private practice was discovered?

What constitutes public practice?  Would other religions be allowed to build places of worship?  Are they allowed to advertise cultural festivals?  Are they allowed to explain why they believe what they believe in a public forum?  Or is public practice strictly overt evangelization?

What kind of penalties would there be for victimless crimes?  Would practicing homosexuals who do not act homosexually outside of their homes be subject to fines or imprisonment?  Or would they be turned a blind eye if they agree to keep it private?

To start off: any new religious movement, certain Protestant denominations, certain Islamist groups, Satanism, neo-Paganism would be explicitly forbidden

Public practice would be overt evangelization. Other religions are free to erect places of worship on private property.

Penalties would be fines, followed by jail sentence.

Buggery is not a victimless crime in my opinion, but privacy is important. Sodomy would be illegal, but one would not be in fear of the police arresting for individual cases.

Regarding matters of group orgies (and this includes heterosexuals too) and things like "public bath houses" would warrant arrest, rehabilitation (classroom and counseling...no ECT or any crap like that)  would bring the police knocking on your door.

So typically 2 homosexuals would not have to fear punishment as long as they keep it in their home, just like other people engaging in sexual deviancy. If a married couple wanted to throw a "swingers" party....if reported, the police would fine and arrest the perps (or pervs) and send them to rehabilitation.

So in that scenario, the state is more concerned with the sexual deviancy of several heterosexual perverted couples engaging in the disgusting act known as "swinging"....than the 2 sodomites keeping to themselves at home.


The point is this, the state is concerned at the influence of society by sexual deviancy...isolated cases are of no importance, only ones that can be a public nuisance...a site like AshleyMadison.com would be shut down, and the owner fined and sent to prison. The records of the people who signed up, would be confiscated and the state would then offer assistance to the people to help them with their adultery.

So yes, there would be a governmental agency designed to offer help to ensure strong, stable marriages and families.
(05-18-2014, 08:51 PM)austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-17-2014, 11:31 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]
austenbosten Wrote: [ -> ]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.

No, i understand that.  Nothing is perfect.  Which religious beliefs would be forbidden even from private practice, and what would be a just penalty if private practice was discovered?

What constitutes public practice?  Would other religions be allowed to build places of worship?  Are they allowed to advertise cultural festivals?  Are they allowed to explain why they believe what they believe in a public forum?  Or is public practice strictly overt evangelization?

What kind of penalties would there be for victimless crimes?  Would practicing homosexuals who do not act homosexually outside of their homes be subject to fines or imprisonment?  Or would they be turned a blind eye if they agree to keep it private?

To start off: any new religious movement, certain Protestant denominations, certain Islamist groups, Satanism, neo-Paganism would be explicitly forbidden

Public practice would be overt evangelization. Other religions are free to erect places of worship on private property.

Penalties would be fines, followed by jail sentence.

Buggery is not a victimless crime in my opinion, but privacy is important. Sodomy would be illegal, but one would not be in fear of the police arresting for individual cases.

Regarding matters of group orgies (and this includes heterosexuals too) and things like "public bath houses" would warrant arrest, rehabilitation (classroom and counseling...no ECT or any crap like that)  would bring the police knocking on your door.

So typically 2 homosexuals would not have to fear punishment as long as they keep it in their home, just like other people engaging in sexual deviancy. If a married couple wanted to throw a "swingers" party....if reported, the police would fine and arrest the perps (or pervs) and send them to rehabilitation.

So in that scenario, the state is more concerned with the sexual deviancy of several heterosexual perverted couples engaging in the disgusting act known as "swinging"....than the 2 sodomites keeping to themselves at home.


The point is this, the state is concerned at the influence of society by sexual deviancy...isolated cases are of no importance, only ones that can be a public nuisance...a site like AshleyMadison.com would be shut down, and the owner fined and sent to prison. The records of the people who signed up, would be confiscated and the state would then offer assistance to the people to help them with their adultery.

So yes, there would be a governmental agency designed to offer help to ensure strong, stable marriages and families.


I will say this is one of the most terrifying posts I've ever read on a discussion forum and illustrates perfectly why an armed and educated citizenry is so important.
(05-18-2014, 08:58 PM)Silouan Wrote: [ -> ]I will say this is one of the most terrifying posts I've ever read on a discussion forum and illustrates perfectly why an armed and educated citizenry is so important.

What's so terrifying about it?

and I'm all for education and the right to bear arms.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9