Libertarianism Is Not Atheist, Is Not Religious

[g5000]

From the book For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto

 

[Skylar]

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).

Fair enough. I wasn't aware of the inference. Probably because I'm like most Americans and don't really pay all that much attention to libertarianism.

 

[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).

Fair enough. I wasn't aware of the inference. Probably because I'm like most Americans and don't really pay all that much attention to libertarianism.

I was a member of the Young Americans for Freedom in my youth, and was active in Republican politics for many years, even helping to run a couple congressional campaigns. As a result, I have rubbed elbows with many a Libertarian.

A principled bunch, but thoroughly unfamiliar with human nature.

 

[Skylar]

A principled bunch, but thoroughly unfamiliar with human nature.

That's been my take as well. Good intentions, fuuuuuuckin' naive.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Ayn Rand.

Religion mdash Ayn Rand Lexicon

 

[Skylar]

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

Ayn Rand.

Religion mdash Ayn Rand Lexicon

Yeah, but she's a self proclaimed objectivist. A philosophy that boils down to 'fuck anyone who isn't me'. That's not necessarily libertarianism.

 

[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.

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.

Non-aggression is integral to libertarianism. If you believe that a fetus is a living human being with a soul, then aborting it would constitute aggression.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Except that monopoly is merely a government grant of privilege that doesn't exist on a free market at all. You say there were all these monopolies and yet fail to include any examples.

In 1880 there were three competing gas companies in Baltimore who fiercely competed with one another. They tried to merge and operate as a monopolist in 1888, but a new competitor foiled their plans: "Thomas Aha Edison introduced the electric light which threatened the existence of all gas companies."[21] From that point on there was competition between both gas and electric companies, all of which incurred heavy fixed costs which led to economies of scale. Nevertheless, no free-market or "natural" monopoly ever materialized.

When monopoly did appear, it was solely because of government intervention. For example, in 1890 a bill was introduced into the Maryland legislature that "called for an annual payment to the city from the Consolidated [Gas Company] of $10,000 a year and 3 percent of all dividends declared in return for the privilege of enjoying a 25-year monopoly.[22] This is the now-familiar approach of government officials colluding with industry executives to establish a monopoly that will gouge the consumers, and then sharing the loot with the politicians in the form of franchise fees and taxes on monopoly revenues. This approach is especially pervasive today in the cable TV industry.

Legislative "regulation" of gas and electric companies produced the predictable result of monopoly prices, which the public complained bitterly about. Rather than deregulating the industry and letting competition control prices, however, public utility regulation was adopted to supposedly appease the consumers who, according to Brown, "felt that the negligent manner in which their interests were being served [by legislative control of gas and electric prices] resulted in high rates and monopoly privileges. The development of utility regulation in Maryland typified the experience of other states."[23]

The Myth of Natural Monopoly - Thomas J. DiLorenzo - Mises Daily

 

[whitehall]

You can add that the libertarian movement was hijacked by pot heads. It's not about liberty, it's about being able to make a buck by selling marijuana.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

I suppose some of the less radical libertarians might favor a standing army on the basis that they feel the U.S. should be prepared to strike if necessary at a moments notice. I certainly don't favor a standing army, however.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You can add that the libertarian movement was hijacked by pot heads. It's not about liberty, it's about being able to make a buck by selling marijuana.

The right to ingest whatever substance in your own body that you desire is about liberty.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

So, what do we defend ourselves with if a foreign enemy should choose to attack us?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am a Libertarian, with some semblance of common sense. What good are we in the face of a bona fide threat to our homeland if we cannot defend ourselves?

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

See "robust national defense" for my reasoning.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You can add that the libertarian movement was hijacked by pot heads. It's not about liberty, it's about being able to make a buck by selling marijuana.

Do you actually believe that? I abhor drug use, but I don't stop others from doing it either.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Just a minute. I know more about being a libertarian than you do, g5. I've studied their platform and committed most of it to memory.

3.1 National Defense

We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.

Platform Libertarian Party

 

[TemplarKormac]

So as I was saying, I support a standing army, for the reasons stated above. The No True Scotsman fallacies are pretty lame. What good is liberty if we have nobody to defend it with?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

See "robust national defense" for my reasoning.

The Libertarian Party is, unfortunately, hardly an authority on libertarianism.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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.

See "robust national defense" for my reasoning.

The Libertarian Party is, unfortunately, hardly an authority on libertarianism.

Are you such an authority? People have to make their own variants of libertarianism to fit their views of the world. So, what really is a true libertarian? I have plenty of strict libertarian friends, including my father, who say we should stay out of others' foreign affairs, but have a military to defend against threats here on our soil. So are we suggesting we have no military at all?

What I understand here is that there is no one authority that dictates the directions of the party. Quoting Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Mises, or even Ron Paul does not make any of them the single most authority on libertarianism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

See "robust national defense" for my reasoning.

The Libertarian Party is, unfortunately, hardly an authority on libertarianism.

Are you such an authority? People have to make their own variants of libertarianism to fit their views of the world. So, what really is a true libertarian? I have plenty of strict libertarian friends, including my father, who say we should stay out of others' foreign affairs, but have a military to defend against threats here on our soil. So are we suggesting we have no military at all?

What I understand here is that there is no one authority that dictates the directions of the party. Quoting Rothbard, Ayn Rand, Mises, or even Ron Paul does not make any of them the single most authority on libertarianism.

Not to toot my own horn, but far more so than an organization that puts forth Bob Barr as their candidate for President. Regardless, I'm not questioning your libertarianism, but merely pointing out that the LP is a weak source. This is another example of not all libertarians believing the same things.