Libertarianism Is Not Atheist, Is Not Religious

[Kevin_Kennedy]

A Liberty magazine article (March 1987) on religion was entitled "Freedom is for Everyone (Including the despised 'Rightists')." In it, Murray Rothbard observed, "The libertarian movement, and the Libertarian Party, will get nowhere in America – or throughout the world – so long as it is perceived, as it generally is, as a movement dedicated to atheism. Nock, Morley, Chodorov, Flynn et. al. were not atheists, but for various accidental reasons of history, the libertarian movement after the 1950s consisted almost exclusively of atheists." (The article's title includes "despised rightists" because religion, especially Christianity, is closely associated with the right.)

The 1950s were pivotal because of Ayn Rand's profound influence on the broadly-defined individualist movement from which many libertarians emerged. (The mid-'30s to mid-'50s were dominated by such figures as Frank Chodorov, Albert J. Nock, Felix Morley and Isabel Paterson who were not atheists.) Rand was adamantly atheistic. She believed all men of reason and self-esteem must reject God. In her book of essays For The New Intellectual, Rand stated: "Man's mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God ... Man's standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man's power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith .... The purpose of man's life ... is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question." She did not willingly tolerate the presence of believers.

Unfortunately for his status in the Rand circle, around which Murray briefly trotted, he was married to "an abject zombie." JoAnn Rothbard was an observing Presbyterian. Accordingly, Murray was summoned to stand trial in Rand's living room to answer the accusation that was his marriage. Such trials were a repeated response to alleged breaches of principle committed by Rand's associates, with Nathaniel Branden acting as prosecuting attorney. As Murray later exclaimed while telling the story, "Ah, screw that!" He declined the summons.

Murray's wife was a full partner in his libertarian scholarship. The insane intolerance toward her must have made a deep emotional impression. For one thing, Murray went on to vent the experience by writing a one-act play that parodied a cross-examination of him by Rand and Branden: "Mozart Was A Red." Serious reflection about the relationship between religion and libertarianism also emerged.

The Daily Bell - Libertarianism Is Not Atheist Is Not Religious

Lew Rockwell's comments on this piece:

Libertarianism, as a political philosophy, is neither atheist nor religious, as Murray Rothbard said, but linking it to Ayn Rand’s virulent hated of Christianity was, he thought, strategically stupid as well as unlovely. See Wendy McElroy.

I should note that Murray, a man of impeccably bourgeois views across the board, was pro-Christian, and especially pro-Catholic, though he himself was not a man of faith.

Libertarianism and Religion 8211 LewRockwell.com

This is why you can have atheist libertarians like Rothbard, Catholic libertarians like Tom Woods, and Christian libertarians like Laurence Vance. You could also have Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, or any other religious libertarians as well. Not a particularly controversial statement, but you begin to see why you can have, for example, pro-life libertarians and pro-choice libertarians, with nobody questioning their libertarianism.

 

[Kosh]

Any political sect can become a religion even it is not delegated as one.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Any political sect can become a religion even it is not delegated as one.

Not really the point of the thread.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Libertarian here.

I am a Christian. My faith is essential part of who I am. Nobody can define what I believe in. I am someone who can differentiate from personal opinion, my faith, and what my view of government is. Libertarianism has many variations. I am one of them. There is no stated aim or goal of the party that says we must believe one way or another. A core aspect of libertarianism is that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.

Rothbard advocated the allowance of religion in libertarianism, and of other types of religious or non religious belief. Unlike the two parties, we are allowed to think for ourselves, nobody feeds us propaganda or talking points. It is for most of these reasons that I became one. I am free to believe what I want without being looked down upon.

Believe it or not, I support the equal treatment of homosexuals in American society. Nowhere does the Constitution create any differentiation between one group of people and another. If conservatives glorify the document, then let it apply equally to everyone. Let it shine for the light it is. Government is better ruled by law than by opinion.

I also support the equal treatment of the religious, as the Constitution applies equally to them as it does to homosexuals. If liberals are allegedly 'tolerant' of all belief, then they should acknowledge that the Constitution does not only apply to them or their beliefs. Likewise they should let the document do what it was designed to do, let it shine as a beacon of light for all Americans to see. Equally as such, the Government is better ruled by law than opinion.

But still, the dogma of the two parties is stifling, and I chose not to be a part of it.

“The Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”

--John Marshall

 

[ScienceRocks]

Libertarianism doesn't make any sense. To have a nation you need science, infrastructure, r&d investment and education. You also need police and laws...

Libertarianism is like Somalia! It is bad.

 

[Skylar]

Just out of curiosity, who is telling libertarians they can't be atheist or religious?

 

[Skylar]

Libertarianism doesn't make any sense. To have a nation you need science, infrastructure, r&d investment and education. You also need police and laws...

Libertarianism is like Somalia! It is bad.

It doesn't quite have to be that anarchic. Though some extreme variants are. My primary criticism of libertarianism is that it has no mechanism for limiting private power. The system is an oligarch or Pinkerton's wet dream. And of course, its fitfully naive and astonishingly unrealistic. As it has no mechanism to check private corruption of its political processes. Zero, nada, zilch.

And the likelihood that men of power won't try and use government to enforce their will is roughly that number that comes right after zero.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Libertarianism doesn't make any sense. To have a nation you need science, infrastructure, r&d investment and education. You also need police and laws...

Libertarianism is like Somalia! It is bad.

You know, that's like asking "oh, but who will build the roads?' People can do that without being stepped on by the government.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Just out of curiosity, who is telling libertarians they can't be atheist or religious?

Nobody.

 

[AntiParty]

A Liberty magazine article (March 1987) on religion was entitled "Freedom is for Everyone (Including the despised 'Rightists')." In it, Murray Rothbard observed, "The libertarian movement, and the Libertarian Party, will get nowhere in America – or throughout the world – so long as it is perceived, as it generally is, as a movement dedicated to atheism. Nock, Morley, Chodorov, Flynn et. al. were not atheists, but for various accidental reasons of history, the libertarian movement after the 1950s consisted almost exclusively of atheists." (The article's title includes "despised rightists" because religion, especially Christianity, is closely associated with the right.)

The 1950s were pivotal because of Ayn Rand's profound influence on the broadly-defined individualist movement from which many libertarians emerged. (The mid-'30s to mid-'50s were dominated by such figures as Frank Chodorov, Albert J. Nock, Felix Morley and Isabel Paterson who were not atheists.) Rand was adamantly atheistic. She believed all men of reason and self-esteem must reject God. In her book of essays For The New Intellectual, Rand stated: "Man's mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God ... Man's standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man's power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith .... The purpose of man's life ... is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question." She did not willingly tolerate the presence of believers.

Unfortunately for his status in the Rand circle, around which Murray briefly trotted, he was married to "an abject zombie." JoAnn Rothbard was an observing Presbyterian. Accordingly, Murray was summoned to stand trial in Rand's living room to answer the accusation that was his marriage. Such trials were a repeated response to alleged breaches of principle committed by Rand's associates, with Nathaniel Branden acting as prosecuting attorney. As Murray later exclaimed while telling the story, "Ah, screw that!" He declined the summons.

Murray's wife was a full partner in his libertarian scholarship. The insane intolerance toward her must have made a deep emotional impression. For one thing, Murray went on to vent the experience by writing a one-act play that parodied a cross-examination of him by Rand and Branden: "Mozart Was A Red." Serious reflection about the relationship between religion and libertarianism also emerged.

The Daily Bell - Libertarianism Is Not Atheist Is Not Religious

Lew Rockwell's comments on this piece:

Libertarianism, as a political philosophy, is neither atheist nor religious, as Murray Rothbard said, but linking it to Ayn Rand’s virulent hated of Christianity was, he thought, strategically stupid as well as unlovely. See Wendy McElroy.

I should note that Murray, a man of impeccably bourgeois views across the board, was pro-Christian, and especially pro-Catholic, though he himself was not a man of faith.

Libertarianism and Religion 8211 LewRockwell.com

This is why you can have atheist libertarians like Rothbard, Catholic libertarians like Tom Woods, and Christian libertarians like Laurence Vance. You could also have Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, or any other religious libertarians as well. Not a particularly controversial statement, but you begin to see why you can have, for example, pro-life libertarians and pro-choice libertarians, with nobody questioning their libertarianism.

Libertarian is Nihilist. Pretty basic.

 

[Skylar]

So the OP is a refutation of an argument nobody is making?

 

[Skylar]

Libertarian is Nihilist. Pretty basic.

I suppose Nihilists would find plenty to love about libertarianism. But at its core, I think its well intentioned. It seeks to maximize freedom.

Unfortunately, its not set up well for sustaining it in any practical sense.

 

[AntiParty]

A Liberty magazine article (March 1987) on religion was entitled "Freedom is for Everyone (Including the despised 'Rightists')." In it, Murray Rothbard observed, "The libertarian movement, and the Libertarian Party, will get nowhere in America – or throughout the world – so long as it is perceived, as it generally is, as a movement dedicated to atheism. Nock, Morley, Chodorov, Flynn et. al. were not atheists, but for various accidental reasons of history, the libertarian movement after the 1950s consisted almost exclusively of atheists." (The article's title includes "despised rightists" because religion, especially Christianity, is closely associated with the right.)

The 1950s were pivotal because of Ayn Rand's profound influence on the broadly-defined individualist movement from which many libertarians emerged. (The mid-'30s to mid-'50s were dominated by such figures as Frank Chodorov, Albert J. Nock, Felix Morley and Isabel Paterson who were not atheists.) Rand was adamantly atheistic. She believed all men of reason and self-esteem must reject God. In her book of essays For The New Intellectual, Rand stated: "Man's mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God ... Man's standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man's power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith .... The purpose of man's life ... is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question." She did not willingly tolerate the presence of believers.

Unfortunately for his status in the Rand circle, around which Murray briefly trotted, he was married to "an abject zombie." JoAnn Rothbard was an observing Presbyterian. Accordingly, Murray was summoned to stand trial in Rand's living room to answer the accusation that was his marriage. Such trials were a repeated response to alleged breaches of principle committed by Rand's associates, with Nathaniel Branden acting as prosecuting attorney. As Murray later exclaimed while telling the story, "Ah, screw that!" He declined the summons.

Murray's wife was a full partner in his libertarian scholarship. The insane intolerance toward her must have made a deep emotional impression. For one thing, Murray went on to vent the experience by writing a one-act play that parodied a cross-examination of him by Rand and Branden: "Mozart Was A Red." Serious reflection about the relationship between religion and libertarianism also emerged.

The Daily Bell - Libertarianism Is Not Atheist Is Not Religious

Lew Rockwell's comments on this piece:

Libertarianism, as a political philosophy, is neither atheist nor religious, as Murray Rothbard said, but linking it to Ayn Rand’s virulent hated of Christianity was, he thought, strategically stupid as well as unlovely. See Wendy McElroy.

I should note that Murray, a man of impeccably bourgeois views across the board, was pro-Christian, and especially pro-Catholic, though he himself was not a man of faith.

Libertarianism and Religion 8211 LewRockwell.com

This is why you can have atheist libertarians like Rothbard, Catholic libertarians like Tom Woods, and Christian libertarians like Laurence Vance. You could also have Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, or any other religious libertarians as well. Not a particularly controversial statement, but you begin to see why you can have, for example, pro-life libertarians and pro-choice libertarians, with nobody questioning their libertarianism.

EVERY party should have a major focus on Liberty. The only think the Libertarian party brings beyond other parties is Nihilism. Liberty for yourself even if it effects/affects the Liberty of others.

Basic example. Should I have the right to own a Rooster in town? I'm a free man right? 'Merica!

Well a man died when cops came to take his rooster. Libertarians called it an act against Freedom. Truth is, if you want a rooster move to the country. You can still make eggs with chickens and no rooster. City law is law and not an attack on your freedom. (the city allowed chickens, not roosters within a 3/4 mile radius of a neighbor, he broke the law)

Also I remember when a well noted Libertarian writer said he thinks sex with children was ok and the Libertarian media turned on him stating he is a Liberal and all Liberals are like him.

Again...........Libertarians are Nihilists and nothing more.

 

[AntiParty]

Libertarian is Nihilist. Pretty basic.

I suppose Nihilists would find plenty to love about libertarianism. But at its core, I think its well intentioned. It seeks to maximize freedom.

Unfortunately, its not set up well for sustaining it in any practical sense.

Libertarian is innocent in the opening. If you get into it deeply they will openly admit you should have the freedom to own an armed tank. They will admit you should have the freedom to walk the mall with an AK-47 on your shoulder. Things 3rd world Countries still do, just extreme Conservatism.

 

[AntiParty]

Libertarian is Nihilist. Pretty basic.

I suppose Nihilists would find plenty to love about libertarianism. But at its core, I think its well intentioned. It seeks to maximize freedom.

Unfortunately, its not set up well for sustaining it in any practical sense.

Libertarian is innocent in the opening. If you get into it deeply they will openly admit you should have the freedom to own an armed tank. They will admit you should have the freedom to walk the mall with an AK-47 on your shoulder. Things 3rd world Countries still do, just extreme Conservatism.

Laws for helmets, HELL NO, FREEDOM!...........Until you get in a bike wreck and we have to pay your bill through insurance and your family's Liberty is compromised since they can't spend time with you.

LIBERTY is a compound word.

 

[Kosh]

Libertarian is Nihilist. Pretty basic.

I suppose Nihilists would find plenty to love about libertarianism. But at its core, I think its well intentioned. It seeks to maximize freedom.

Unfortunately, its not set up well for sustaining it in any practical sense.

Libertarian is innocent in the opening. If you get into it deeply they will openly admit you should have the freedom to own an armed tank. They will admit you should have the freedom to walk the mall with an AK-47 on your shoulder. Things 3rd world Countries still do, just extreme Conservatism.

I think all those anti-war libertarians might disagree with much of what you said.

Then again if the far left in this country had their, the only people that would be armed would be the criminals.

 

[AntiParty]

Libertarian is Nihilist. Pretty basic.

I suppose Nihilists would find plenty to love about libertarianism. But at its core, I think its well intentioned. It seeks to maximize freedom.

Unfortunately, its not set up well for sustaining it in any practical sense.

Libertarian is innocent in the opening. If you get into it deeply they will openly admit you should have the freedom to own an armed tank. They will admit you should have the freedom to walk the mall with an AK-47 on your shoulder. Things 3rd world Countries still do, just extreme Conservatism.

I think all those anti-war libertarians might disagree with much of what you said.

Then again if the far left in this country had their, the only people that would be armed would be the criminals.

Libertarians nor Democrats are anti-war. They are anti-UNNECESSARY war. One thing they agree on.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So the OP is a refutation of an argument nobody is making?

Are you intentionally trying to troll this thread or what?

 

[AntiParty]

Libertarian is Nihilist. Pretty basic.

I suppose Nihilists would find plenty to love about libertarianism. But at its core, I think its well intentioned. It seeks to maximize freedom.

Unfortunately, its not set up well for sustaining it in any practical sense.

Libertarian is innocent in the opening. If you get into it deeply they will openly admit you should have the freedom to own an armed tank. They will admit you should have the freedom to walk the mall with an AK-47 on your shoulder. Things 3rd world Countries still do, just extreme Conservatism.

I think all those anti-war libertarians might disagree with much of what you said.

Then again if the far left in this country had their, the only people that would be armed would be the criminals.

You think the far left is the ones that wants criminals to be armed? Does this mean you think certain people shouldn't have the right to bear arms? You don't know about the 2A at all do you. You seem to have the perspective of the NRA long ago. Are you like 70 years old?

 

[Kosh]

Libertarian is Nihilist. Pretty basic.

I suppose Nihilists would find plenty to love about libertarianism. But at its core, I think its well intentioned. It seeks to maximize freedom.

Unfortunately, its not set up well for sustaining it in any practical sense.

Libertarian is innocent in the opening. If you get into it deeply they will openly admit you should have the freedom to own an armed tank. They will admit you should have the freedom to walk the mall with an AK-47 on your shoulder. Things 3rd world Countries still do, just extreme Conservatism.

I think all those anti-war libertarians might disagree with much of what you said.

Then again if the far left in this country had their, the only people that would be armed would be the criminals.

Libertarians nor Democrats are anti-war. They are anti-UNNECESSARY war. One thing they agree on.

Like Libya? The Congo? Mali? all the illegal Obama wars? Are they necessary?