Libertarian Atheists

[darwinfish]

I've got a few questions, and I figured this would be a good place to ask people. I've only been an atheist for about three years. And, mostly I'm not really political. As a christian I didn't really fall into the Republican side of the fence. There's a lot with social programs I don't really agree with either, and that's kept me from the Dems. Within the past year, I've been thinking I might be more of a Libertarian. From what I can tell it's sort of a live and let live policy. Earn your way in life, and the government shouldn't get involved in your personal business. Sounds reasonable to me. Of course, I'm sort of a Dem sympathizer, so some social programs are necessary. I just feel there needs to be a little balance between what the government should provide, and what you should be expected to provide for yourself. I listen to a lot of podcasts at work, and mostly on Reasonable Doubts and the Non-prophets they really seem to very anti-Libertarian, for what seems to me both philosophical reasons as well as political reasons. Does anyone on here really know what the contention seems to be about? I'm sure there's more about this anti-Libertarianism that pops up on my Atheist podcasts that I have no idea about. I'm relatively new to both atheism and Libertarianism.

[Ramen666]

There is a lot of wrong with Libertarianism, it is simply unrealistic and unachievable in modern society. That is because Libertarianism removes the variable of human nature. There is tons and tons of threads regarding this topic has been heavily debated here of what is wrong with the ideology. I suggest you checking out some of the threads here, and you will see exactly why Libertarianism fails on so many levels.

 

Here is a good place to start if you have some spare time on everything that is wrong with Libertarianism:

http://world.std.com...n/libindex.html

[JoeCoastie]

I considered myself libertarian before I became an atheist. I changed when I started taking on a more Darwinian point of view. Of course the Christian will say, Libertarians are all about Darwin. Do what you want, crush the weak, do what benefits you. They of course relate Darwin with the outdated Social Darwinism. I thinking along the lines of humans and apes needing to work together to thrive. We didnt crush the weak in our societies we need to protect the weak. We didn't hoard up food all to ourselves, we shared it.

[TrueFreedom]

Decent intros on wikipedia: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

 

And Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/

 

Noam Chomsky has always been a controversial figure supporting a form of libertarian socialism.

[♦ nivek ♦]

http://www.down-with-power.com

 

http://www.mises.org

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com

 

http://www.c4ss.org

 

A site for individualist feminism and individualist anarchism

 

 

The Zero Aggression Principle

 

A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever ...

 

—L. Neil Smith, The Libertarian Enterprise

 

 

There is no set of set in concrete tenants for "What is a libertarian?". One can be part of the political group, a party of folks across the Nation striving to achieve presence.

 

Little "l" libertarians are those of we all across the spectrum of self directed sorts are those who need little guidance or direction from the State. Practical ways and methods to live sans that heavy hand of control and regulation. We live in society, take part in, do what the hive does, save we tend to do the extra things that let us be prepared and free-er in ugly times.

Self sufficiency is a guideline for most of we "down on the dirt' of little l practice.

 

Then of all things the ZAP, as seen above helps make solutions possible when practiced. I have to leave the ZAP up to reader to see how it might work in your life.

 

We who are libertarian or anarchists politically tend to not worry about the huge things, try to help and do those chores that we can influence and assist.

 

"I'm here from da Goobermint" is last thing on this old man's list of shit he wants to hear from anyone in a suit or with a badge..

 

Living with a society of statists is interesting. There are those who worship the State and gladly give all they are and own sans complaint, expecting to be cared for in every possible manner.

 

Then there are chuckleheads like myself who see many potentials and manners to find what I or we need by trade/barter/selling materials and things sans interference of the State.

 

Ideas are all different and interesting. Little "l" libertarianism is inclusive rather than exclusive. It allows for and depends on ideas and works by intelligent folks. It needs no central planning, huge buildings, nor an identity run by a centralized core of "demBosses".

 

One can be a libertarian and live in and unfree world. Welcome freedom minded folks....

 

kevin, oldanachistbikeridingguntotin'chickenraisin'Freedomorientedfool, L

[Guest Babylonian Dream]

Ramen is just on time too! If you want a Democratic Official Response to Libertarianism, he's good for talking points but not substance.

[Noggy]

Ramen thinks that because the government isn't taking care of people like their parents that it is evil and "doesn't work". Sounds like a perfectly working system to me.

[Ramen666]

Ramen thinks that because the government isn't taking care of people like their parents that it is evil and "doesn't work". Sounds like a perfectly working system to me.

 

No. Just no and this is a common misunderstanding between simply believing a government needs to exist and regardless what Libertarians want a government will exist in some form. I have never said our system is perfect, nor great. The system that we have now is highly corrupted by the wealth (the 1% who essentially buy our politicans and influence policies). That is another topic, what the Libertarians believe though is that the government is always bad, always has bad intentions, while ignoring what causes it to be bad. They stand to close to the trees to see the forest beyond it.

 

Ramen is just on time too! If you want a Democratic Official Response to Libertarianism, he's good for talking points but not substance.

 

Wow that post reads like a BO post...yikes. Second, meet your fellow Libertarians showing up in this thread illusion, these are the remaining members that are true believers. Babylonian Dream, I am not even going to go on my long rants what is wrong with the ideology because it is easily searchable and don't feel like repeating everything again, when we have had countless debates.

 

What the OP can do is read that link in my post, to see other people, former Libertarians (which were ex-Christians), talk about the ideology, you don't need me to.

[darwinfish]

Well, what I'm getting is that liberals are portraying libertarians more as anarchists (and maybe they are). That wasn't really my understanding of libertarianism, but like I said I'm pretty naive on the topic, which is why I asked for some input. After reading for a bit, I think I have more liberal ideals than I originally thought. Really, I just don't think the gov. should bother what's going on in my bedroom, or whether someone's smoking pot or something like that.

 

Where I think I depart from liberals would be that I don't think rich people should have a higher tax. I feel like every dollar earned should be taxed the same. But, I have no problem with welfare, or health care, or any of the infrastructure that is needed by the government. And, still feel like there is a laziness factor that liberals ignore or try pretend isn't there. There is this feeling I get from most liberals like if someone is doing better then they should be punished, or if your not doing well it's someone else's fault. And, that doesn't really sit well with me.

[Ramen666]

Libertarians (on this site at least), when they screw up and have their own failures, they just blame the government. The whole personal responsibilty thing kind of gets thrown out of the window. Also a misconception that comes from the right wing here, is if you are making money that makes you a bad person and corporations, that is not true or the argument people are making. The problem lies when those wealthy or corporations mess with the political process.

 

A lot of the times, the rich do unethical schemes, bending the rules, to make their money and not paying their share of taxes, also that doesn't include that they are constantly lobbying politicans and pushing policy. You will notice most Libertarians on here and accross the think tanks, special interest groups, ignore that factor. I would say because the Libertarian movement is backed by Koch Industries pushing their agenda, that is why you notice the Libertarians are always defending the rich and fight against their own interests if they have to.

 

Here is more info on what I am talking about.

http://en.wikipedia....e_Koch_brothers

[Ouroboros]

Well, what I'm getting is that liberals are portraying libertarians more as anarchists (and maybe they are).

And sometimes libertarians are described as fascists. Try to figure that one out... It took me quite a while to get it.

[darwinfish]

Well, what I'm getting is that liberals are portraying libertarians more as anarchists (and maybe they are).

And sometimes libertarians are described as fascists. Try to figure that one out... It took me quite a while to get it.

 

Yeah, that's confusing.

[darwinfish]

Libertarians (on this site at least), when they screw up and have their own failures, they just blame the government. The whole personal responsibilty thing kind of gets thrown out of the window. Also a misconception that comes from the right wing here, is if you are making money that makes you a bad person and corporations, that is not true or the argument people are making. The problem lies when those wealthy or corporations mess with the political process.

 

A lot of the times, the rich do unethical schemes, bending the rules, to make their money and not paying their share of taxes, also that doesn't include that they are constantly lobbying politicans and pushing policy. You will notice most Libertarians on here and accross the think tanks, special interest groups, ignore that factor. I would say because the Libertarian movement is backed by Koch Industries pushing their agenda, that is why you notice the Libertarians are always defending the rich and fight against their own interests if they have to.

 

Here is more info on what I am talking about.

http://en.wikipedia....e_Koch_brothers

 

Speaking to the economic and political side of things. Economically speaking, I haven't the slightest idea what a better economic system looks like. Libertarians says unrestrained systems will self regulate. Liberals wants government to regulate the system. I'm not even sure what the difference with the Conservatives are. Mostly, though, I'm in unfamiliar territory with the economy, and everyone says their system works better.

 

Obviously, the lobbyists and special interest groups have been a corrupting influence on politics. And, here's maybe where I'd definitely think that we could use some regulation. I've become slightly jaded with the whole political process. I don't really think that anyone in office will really do much to help the common citizens. And, mostly, I think that has to do with alliances with organizations that got the guy elected in the first place. So, they have obligations to the people that gets them in office, not necessarily to anyone else.

 

So, to sum up, can't understand economy enough to decided what side I agree with, but definitely feel the Liberals are more right with the political arguments.

[Ramen666]

Libertarians (on this site at least), when they screw up and have their own failures, they just blame the government. The whole personal responsibilty thing kind of gets thrown out of the window. Also a misconception that comes from the right wing here, is if you are making money that makes you a bad person and corporations, that is not true or the argument people are making. The problem lies when those wealthy or corporations mess with the political process.

 

A lot of the times, the rich do unethical schemes, bending the rules, to make their money and not paying their share of taxes, also that doesn't include that they are constantly lobbying politicans and pushing policy. You will notice most Libertarians on here and accross the think tanks, special interest groups, ignore that factor. I would say because the Libertarian movement is backed by Koch Industries pushing their agenda, that is why you notice the Libertarians are always defending the rich and fight against their own interests if they have to.

 

Here is more info on what I am talking about.

http://en.wikipedia....e_Koch_brothers

 

Ramen...the op was asking what Libertarianism stands for....HE WAS NOT ASKING FOR THE GOP/DEM VIEW OF LIBERTARIANISM.....DO YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO INTERJECT DEM/GOP POLITICS? DUH...READ THE POST FIRST.....

Libertarians (on this site at least), when they screw up and have their own failures, they just blame the government. The whole personal responsibilty thing kind of gets thrown out of the window. Also a misconception that comes from the right wing here, is if you are making money that makes you a bad person and corporations, that is not true or the argument people are making. The problem lies when those wealthy or corporations mess with the political process.

 

A lot of the times, the rich do unethical schemes, bending the rules, to make their money and not paying their share of taxes, also that doesn't include that they are constantly lobbying politicans and pushing policy. You will notice most Libertarians on here and accross the think tanks, special interest groups, ignore that factor. I would say because the Libertarian movement is backed by Koch Industries pushing their agenda, that is why you notice the Libertarians are always defending the rich and fight against their own interests if they have to.

 

Here is more info on what I am talking about.

http://en.wikipedia....e_Koch_brothers

 

Ramen...the op was asking what Libertarianism stands for....HE WAS NOT ASKING FOR THE GOP/DEM VIEW OF LIBERTARIANISM.....DO YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO INTERJECT DEM/GOP POLITICS? DUH...READ THE POST FIRST.....

 

The OP is about the clash with atheism and Libertarianism, and why Libertarianism gets backlash it gets. You obviosuly can't read, which is understandable due to the shitty school system over there and I will help you out.

 

I listen to a lot of podcasts at work, and mostly on Reasonable Doubts and the Non-prophets they really seem to very anti-Libertarian, for what seems to me both philosophical reasons as well as political reasons. Does anyone on here really know what the contention seems to be about? I'm sure there's more about this anti-Libertarianism that pops up on my Atheist podcasts that I have no idea about. I'm relatively new to both atheism and Libertarianism.

 

 

The post (you quoted) is about the how the right wing creates this misconception, especially you, that you believe people on the left think that if someone has money or makes money they are bad people. That really is not what the left believes or people on here believe. Second of all informing the OP on who funds the special interest groups, think tanks and corrupting the political process, it is not a Dem/GOP issue, that is a major issue that goes all the way around BUT important for your movement, because they have convinced Libertarians to vote against their own interests.

[Ramen666]

illusion,

 

Way to fail BO, I will tell you about BO since you are a new here and haven't had the BO experience.

 

Understand BO, he is someone who was fucked over by the banks, really not something to laugh about. I do feel that no one should go through something like that BUT at the same time, BO goes out of his way and defends, appologizes for the same people that screwed him over and push for a party to make what they did to him legal and give the banks less regulations the very people who screwed him over.

 

Essentially BO went down a shitty path, a shiity situation and wants everyone to suffer because of it.

[Ramen666]

 

Ramen tries to categorize Libertarians into a formula. Libertarians come in all stripes

 

 

Correct.

 

 

 

. Ramen thinks government is an absolute essential to keep people under control. He cannot trust himself to be civil or have any self control.

 

It is NOT me that I am worried about BO, you put too much faith in your fellow man though. I don't trust people and have faith in humanity like you do to believe that people will just act "civil" and have "self control". But, hey, if you believe that a society with no order, no government, no laws, or any control is paradise, that is faith that everyone will just be good to one another. It will be a third world shit hole and you know it.

 

We know what people do to each other, with a government in place, now remove that, I don't think it will make things any better, hell it will go backwards.

[♦ nivek ♦]

illusion,

 

Mises dot org will go a long way to introduce you to Austrian economic thought.

 

Ramen? Young fellow cannot help himself. We've got used to his mewling and carping. Strikes me like one of my several little sisters tattling on me for something imagined wrong and rat worthy. Just get used to it.

 

Read, use the resources given to use a jump off to wherever your studies may lead you.

 

For me libertarianism is the practice as well as any accompanying thought. What you do is as or more important than what you say you think.

 

Zero Aggression Principle is heart of libertarianism.

 

kevinL

[blackpudd1n]

illusion,

 

Way to fail BO, I will tell you about BO since you are a new here and haven't had the BO experience.

 

Understand BO, he is someone who was fucked over by the banks, really not something to laugh about. I do feel that no one should go through something like that BUT at the same time, BO goes out of his way and defends, appologizes for the same people that screwed him over and push for a party to make what they did to him legal and give the banks less regulations the very people who screwed him over.

 

Essentially BO went down a shitty path, a shiity situation and wants everyone to suffer because of it.

 

Hey Ramen,

 

We're in the Colosseum here. Can we stay on topic? Because it is a rather interesting topic, and really, the post above adds nothing to the discussion.

 

Thanks.

[blackpudd1n]

I agree with the principle of self-sufficiency. I'm not rich, but I like to know I can take care of myself, so I expect life to throw me financial curveballs and I save appropriately.

 

I don't have a huge issue with having a government. As long as that government is not a police state, a fascist state, or making the citizens live in fear.

 

I believe we need governments more for the point of being administrators; allocating funds and keeps things running smoothly is what they should do. I believe a government should provide a safety-net to its citizens, because we are not all born equal, and some of us experience shit in life that would condemn us to a shitty existence without a safety-net. But even with a safety-net, I think everyone should try to participate in some way in their community, whether it be formal work, volunteering, whatever. Part of that safety-net is welfare, but part of it is medical services, public education, and certain infrastructure.

 

These days, governance seems to be more about power than administration, and I don't think the true purpose of governance should be power. It's an administration role; public service. And those administrators need to be delegating, to keep things running smoothly.

 

So. Am I a libertarian?

[Ramen666]

To the OP here is an article I would like you to check out, this isn't some article written by someone who is "left" or "pro government" or any of that, this is written by a former Libertarian. Which there is a few around actually, haven't seen them in this thread though. The Libertarians on here, think I don't know perspective of one, because I am not one, sooooooo here is perspective of what is essentially an ex-Libertarian saying why he left the ideology.

 

Libertarianism-I have been conned Part 1

http://www.transhuma...rch/003344.html

 

Libertarianism- I have been conned Part 2

http://www.transhuma...rch/003343.html

[♦ nivek ♦]

pudd1n,

 

Seriously, read into the Zero Aggression Principle. Then from that foundation grow your thoughts and actions from there. There is no one particular *exact* definition of what an *XXXXX* is.

 

Casey and I have spent many hours over the proceeding years exchanging ideas and descriptions of our various Countries politics and ways, and I'm STILL not sure my weak understanding of Aus' systems is much fuller. In our chats I have enjoyed comparing and and listening to his views. Been great for me.

 

I don't know that I would like the goobers in the Aus Goobermint any more than I like those in mine. However, the differences in populations of city and rural areas is very similar in both Countries, population centers always outweighing in funding and vote count.

 

As far as being libertarian, there is a difference. What we who are, or practice being, refer to "Party People" as big L libertarians, those interested in taking part in the existing system, trying to make what are important changes in the broad spectrum of American Politics.

 

THEN there are those like myself who could give a phuk less about big L, eschew the deep political involvement and tend to do the individual things, doing what c an be done for those who need it. Again, trying to define libertarian is tough, even ramen's formidable charting in his above post.

I'll keep my nose outa your life, not screw you over, trade fairly, and try to extend courtesy in things that my House does. Mutalism, Agorism, assorted thoughts are works of persons trying to do the different than the course of "politics"...

 

"If voting changed anything, it would be unlawful!"

 

kL

[♦ nivek ♦]

illusion,

 

Back to your OP, no, not necessary to be any certain persuasion religiously or not to consider yourself libertarian.

 

As discussed, the ZAP is the only hard, fast, solid "rule" that defines what libertarian is and does. We can complicate things with discussion and argument in any direction that is wanted.

 

My particular "brand" of libertarianism is of the farther left variety, something that author Robert Heinlein left me when read as a child in his book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress". People choose how much goobermint they desire, most of we care for none at all in most occasions.

 

"A political convention illustrates the workings of majority rule: If the minority in a party advocate a progressive move which is defeated when put to a vote in the convention, the minority are prohibited from advancing it during the campaign; if this minority refuse to advocate what the convention has decided to be right, they are barred from the platform and press, the cry of majority rule is raised against them, and they are called "traitors to the party;" but if they abandon their progressive ideas and advocate the wishes of the majority they are rewarded with office. Thus majority rule develops the dishonest politician: in order to rule sometime, he consents to being ruled at other times. The desire to rule and the willingness to be ruled ends in degradation; and no one who accepts the principles of equal liberty can endorse majority rule."

-- Charles T. Sprading

(1871-1959) Libertarian activist, writer

 

kL

[darwinfish]

I agree with the principle of self-sufficiency. I'm not rich, but I like to know I can take care of myself, so I expect life to throw me financial curveballs and I save appropriately.

 

I don't have a huge issue with having a government. As long as that government is not a police state, a fascist state, or making the citizens live in fear.

 

I believe we need governments more for the point of being administrators; allocating funds and keeps things running smoothly is what they should do. I believe a government should provide a safety-net to its citizens, because we are not all born equal, and some of us experience shit in life that would condemn us to a shitty existence without a safety-net. But even with a safety-net, I think everyone should try to participate in some way in their community, whether it be formal work, volunteering, whatever. Part of that safety-net is welfare, but part of it is medical services, public education, and certain infrastructure.

 

These days, governance seems to be more about power than administration, and I don't think the true purpose of governance should be power. It's an administration role; public service. And those administrators need to be delegating, to keep things running smoothly.

 

So. Am I a libertarian?

 

What is this kind of system called? I agree 100% with the statements above. Is it just a mix of Libertarian and Liberal views?

[darwinfish]

Also, getting back to the OP. Mostly, when the anti-Libertarianism stuff comes up with these podcasts. It has to do with free will. Is there anything in Libertarianism that requires the belief in free will vs. deterministic view?

 

I'm getting the non-aggression bit (although, I'm not sure I'm sold on it), and I see the big difference between Liberalism and Libertarianism on taxes. I'm really only recently becoming aware of this split in the atheist communities.

 

I think I'm just going to keep calling myself an independent.

[blackpudd1n]

Pudd,

 

On most areas...just from your short description I would say you very well may be close if not quite there. The key to understanding the Libertarian view is the nonaggression principle. Libertarians don't believe in the initiation of force to achieve any goal. That would include person against person, Corporation against person, and government against person or any of those combinations there. The thing that I despise about income and property tax is that it is government force against the citizens. If you refuse to pay them, they can come and put you in jail or prison. That is legalized extortion at the barrel of a gun. In my estimation, ALL taxes should be voluntary...specifically, a user fee type system such as sales tax, excise tax, and tariffs....and direct fee for service. Those are all entered into by the uncoerced choice of the person partaking of the service or buying of goods. Nobody is forcing anybody to do what they object to. There is a fair exchange. Thus it is fair and equitable.

 

I see some taxes as necessary to support the safety-net. However, I think the government should be audited regularly and made to fully account for the use of taxes and explain any wastage.

 

When it comes to property taxes, like rates, I don't think it's fair to charge everyone the same amount, especially when the council area includes rural areas like it does in my area. Rates are meant to pay for things like waste removal, sewerage maintenance, roads, etc. My ex's parents, however, live about an hour out of town. The first 15- 20 minutes of the drive is on decent roads. The next 20-odd minutes are on poor roads with numerous potholes. The last 20 minutes of the drive is on pure dirt roads. They have a septic tank system for their sewerage, so they are not using the town system. They use bore water, so they're not even using town water. They get no waste removal services, except for a tip that is open twice a week... If they're lucky. They don't get postal services to their door, either- they drive 20 minutes to pick up their mail from the general store. As far as I am concerned, they should not be paying rates. Their impact is negligable, and until they start getting ALL the same services as town-dwellers, I think it's wrong to force them to pay rates. So I'm not completely 100% in favour of all taxes.