Libertarianism Is Not Atheist, Is Not Religious

[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.

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?

If the laws says that felons can not be armed, do you disagree with that?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Lets get one thing straight here. We aren't 'anti-war.' We oppose wars that don't combat immediate threats to our homeland. How is a threat overseas a threat to us? I make an exception for ISIS in this case, however.

But believe it or not, we do advocate for a robust standing army. Trust me on this one.

 

[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.

Lets get one thing straight here. We aren't 'anti-war.' We oppose wars that don't combat immediate threats to our homeland. How is a threat overseas a threat to us? I make an exception for ISIS in this case, however.

But believe it or not, we do advocate for a robust standing army. Trust me on this one.

Yes that is a part of the Constitution.

And like I said the Libertarians are anti-war. If it came to the actual defense of this nation it would be different story, except maybe for the far left.

One thing I give libertarians over the far left as they do have more of a consistent stance, not based on which letter is in office.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Lets get one thing straight here. We aren't 'anti-war.' We oppose wars that don't combat immediate threats to our homeland. How is a threat overseas a threat to us? I make an exception for ISIS in this case, however.

But believe it or not, we do advocate for a robust standing army. Trust me on this one.

Yes that is a part of the Constitution.

And like I said the Libertarians are anti-war. If it came to the actual defense of this nation it would be different story, except maybe for the far left.

One thing I give libertarians over the far left as they do have more of a consistent stance, not based on which letter is in office.

Can't argue with that last part. Dead on. But as far as 'anti-war' goes, well that depends on what people define as 'war.' We don't oppose war altogether, just wars which have no bearing on the defense of our country. War is war, whether we fight it over there or over here.

 

[Kosh]

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.

Lets get one thing straight here. We aren't 'anti-war.' We oppose wars that don't combat immediate threats to our homeland. How is a threat overseas a threat to us? I make an exception for ISIS in this case, however.

But believe it or not, we do advocate for a robust standing army. Trust me on this one.

Yes that is a part of the Constitution.

And like I said the Libertarians are anti-war. If it came to the actual defense of this nation it would be different story, except maybe for the far left.

One thing I give libertarians over the far left as they do have more of a consistent stance, not based on which letter is in office.

Can't argue with that last part. Dead on. But as far as 'anti-war' goes, well that depends on what people define as 'war.' We don't oppose war altogether, just wars which have no bearing on the defense of our country. War is war, whether we fight it over there or over here.

Yes however war is not war, sometimes it has to be relabeled like kinetic military action to make it more politically correct and easier pill for the die hards to swallow.

Fighting to achieve a limited war status has never worked.

Just like now the illegal bombing campaign is not working against ISIS. No one has the stomach to go against them. The far left Europe certainly will not do it. They would not do it when Putin invaded the Ukraine and now controls a significant supply of natural gas.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

Lets get one thing straight here. We aren't 'anti-war.' We oppose wars that don't combat immediate threats to our homeland. How is a threat overseas a threat to us? I make an exception for ISIS in this case, however.

But believe it or not, we do advocate for a robust standing army. Trust me on this one.

Yes that is a part of the Constitution.

And like I said the Libertarians are anti-war. If it came to the actual defense of this nation it would be different story, except maybe for the far left.

One thing I give libertarians over the far left as they do have more of a consistent stance, not based on which letter is in office.

Can't argue with that last part. Dead on. But as far as 'anti-war' goes, well that depends on what people define as 'war.' We don't oppose war altogether, just wars which have no bearing on the defense of our country. War is war, whether we fight it over there or over here.

Yes however war is not war, sometimes it has to be relabeled like kinetic military action to make it more politically correct and easier pill for the die hards to swallow.

Fighting to achieve a limited war status has never worked.

Just like now the illegal bombing campaign is not working against ISIS. No one has the stomach to go against them. The far left Europe certainly will not do it. They would not do it when Putin invaded the Ukraine and now controls a significant supply of natural gas.

I have a problem with invasions, but if we are going to pick a fight, we should stay until it is over; not slink away like snakes, who strike at their prey and go back from whence they came. That bombing campaign needs to be followed by ground forces for it to have any effect.

When we fight a war, whether I like it or not, we should fight it to the end with all our strength. Our military utilized properly is still the most powerful military in the world. We should at least be proud of that.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

It's merely a common misconception that libertarians are all pro-choice atheists.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Actually it does, and that system is called profit and loss. Without the government helping them maintain their market power, as happens now, big firms would be forced to bow to the whims of the consumer at all times. If they're corrupt, or immoral, or whatever, then they will lose money and ultimately go out of business.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Video Entrepreneur builds private toll road after landslip - Telegraph

 

[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.

Libertarian is Nihilist. Pretty basic.

Well I'm glad you made your case so effectively.

 

[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.

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.

I don't remember if it was you, though it probably was, but I recall this incident being brought up not too long ago, and I pointed out that this is not an example of libertarianism, because a rooster that was going on all the time would violate the property rights of others. Thus there would be no right to have a rooster where it can violate others' property rights.

So what was it you were saying about not worrying about the rights of others?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Wrong again. You may walk the mall with an AK-47, assuming the owner of the mall allows that to happen. Chances are that any mall owner who did would suffer losses as a result, and thus would turn around and ban such behavior. Owning a tank is another matter. You may certainly own one on your own property, but it's utility would be so limited, and the price so high, that it would be uneconomical.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

I'm getting the feeling you shouldn't be saying what libertarians are or are not, since you've displayed quite a bit of ignorance on the subject here.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Lets get one thing straight here. We aren't 'anti-war.' We oppose wars that don't combat immediate threats to our homeland. How is a threat overseas a threat to us? I make an exception for ISIS in this case, however.

But believe it or not, we do advocate for a robust standing army. Trust me on this one.

Yes that is a part of the Constitution.

And like I said the Libertarians are anti-war. If it came to the actual defense of this nation it would be different story, except maybe for the far left.

One thing I give libertarians over the far left as they do have more of a consistent stance, not based on which letter is in office.

Can't argue with that last part. Dead on. But as far as 'anti-war' goes, well that depends on what people define as 'war.' We don't oppose war altogether, just wars which have no bearing on the defense of our country. War is war, whether we fight it over there or over here.

Yes however war is not war, sometimes it has to be relabeled like kinetic military action to make it more politically correct and easier pill for the die hards to swallow.

Fighting to achieve a limited war status has never worked.

Just like now the illegal bombing campaign is not working against ISIS. No one has the stomach to go against them. The far left Europe certainly will not do it. They would not do it when Putin invaded the Ukraine and now controls a significant supply of natural gas.

I have a problem with invasions, but if we are going to pick a fight, we should stay until it is over; not slink away like snakes, who strike at their prey and go back from whence they came. That bombing campaign needs to be followed by ground forces for it to have any effect.

When we fight a war, whether I like it or not, we should fight it to the end with all our strength. Our military utilized properly is still the most powerful military in the world. We should at least be proud of that.

The longer we stay to allegedly "clean up our mess," the worse the situation inevitably becomes.

 

[JoeNormal]

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.

Well said and 100% correct!

 

[Skylar]

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

It's merely a common misconception that libertarians are all pro-choice atheists.

Ah. I wasn't aware of the atheist angle. But I thought 'pro-choice' kinda went with the 'don't tread on me' bumpersticker. Choice being integral to the philosophy of libertarianism and all.

 

[Skylar]

Actually it does, and that system is called profit and loss. Without the government helping them maintain their market power, as happens now, big firms would be forced to bow to the whims of the consumer at all times. If they're corrupt, or immoral, or whatever, then they will lose money and ultimately go out of business.

Save of course for monopolies. The natural tendency of any free market system. Company stores. Vertical integration. And powerful business interests doing everything they can to prevent competition. Remember, businesses hate competition. They hate the free market. And will do what they can to fix prices, force customers to over pay, to under delivery in order to maximize profits.

If say, the same company that owned the roads into a given town also sold gasoline.....and it wouldn't allow its roads to be used by gasoline peddling competitors or charge them exorbitantly higher rate, Libertarianism can do jack shit about it. If companies got together to conspire to price gouge or price fix, libertarianism could do nothing. If companies used anti-competitive practices like only paying their employees in vouchers that can be used to buy products from the company that employs them- at higher than market rates of course- libertarianism has no recourse.

How do we know? Because all of that happened. The post civil war era to about the turn of the century was *far* less regulated and involved *far* less market power maintenance by the government. And it had monopolies up the ass. It had private armies. It had human rights abuses the likes of which would make Lifetime Movies of the week today. It had burning women jumping from skyscrapers to land in heaps on the streets of New York. ANd the economic system was wildly unstable. With twice the years of recession and depression that existed after government intervention. With no social safety nets, no social security, no medicare, no unemployment, nothing. So the impact of economic downturns were far more severe. And occurred far more often.

And nothing breeds good business practices and social equity like poverty, unemployment and economic instability! I mean no business would *ever* take advantage of people, right? Exploitation *never* happens in time of economic turmoil, right? Which would occur far more often in Libertarianism.

And of course, these are the system killing weaknesses that exist when everyone is playing by the rules. Which, of course they won't be.

Lets say that a business person wanted to influence government and get regulations passed that that benefit their business? Oh, I know that libertarians firmly believe in the lack of those regulations. But you have no mechanism for the prevention of the corruption within your system. You've created a system that is perfectly designed to be corrupted as there are NO checks on private power. Libertarianism wouldn't be able to maintain the ideological purity of their government as it would be corrupted by influence peddlers and special interests who have no government oversight or limitations. Business men and women that want to exert power and influence in an immoral and unethical way would have a field day.

The libertarian conceptions of power are almost childlike in their naivete. They consider the only concentration of power worth checking to be that of government. Amazingly, failing to recognize that ANY concentration of power will lead to likely abuse. And they have no checks for the inevitable exploration, monopolization, anti-competative practices, and corruption that is inherent to any political and economic system. Save in libertarianism, there are no white blood cells. And the virus of corruption can just go apeshit.

 

[g5000]

Some of the more famous Libertarians are atheists. Penn and Teller, for example, are rabid, militant atheists.

It does not help that Ayn Rand, who is the goddess of Libertarians, subscribed to objectivism and detested people of faith.

That does not mean all Libertarians are atheists, though. One thing they all agree on is that church and state must be kept separate. Many of our social issues wouldn't even exist if the state and church kept themselves apart.

The institution of marriage is a perfect example. The State is all up in our marriages, because that is what we demanded. We demanded all kinds of cash and prizes from the State for being married, and for having kids. If the State was not involved in our marriages, gay marriage would be a total non-issue.

Get government out of your religion. That is not only good for the State, it is especially good for religion. Don't invite the Devil (government) into your house (religion).

 

[g5000]

But believe it or not, we do advocate for a robust standing army. Trust me on this one.

Actually, I do not trust you. I have had many Libertarians tell me we should not have a standing army.

 

[g5000]

THE DANGERS OF A STANDING ARMY

Hornberger's Blog is a daily libertarian blog written by Jacob G. Hornberger, founder and president of FFF.

While Americans are rightfully concerned with out-of-control federal spending, in large part owing to the enormous burden of sustaining the vast military establishment and all its activities, Americans would be wise to reflect upon and reevaluate the fateful decision to abandon the founding principles of our nation with respect to standing armies.