You must be logged in.
You must be logged in.
Without Christianity There Is No Libertarianism. Period
“Furthermore, if Christians actually acted as Jesus taught them to – if they governed their
social interactions through love, forgiveness and charity – then there would be no need for a state.
People would help one another and willingly share all of life’s basic necessities. The ordering
principle of society would be love, not a fictional ‘justice’ enforced by a brutal state.
For Tolstoy, therefore, Christianity and the state are incompatible visions for society. One
cannot be both an honest Christian and at the same time recognise the legitimacy of the state, both
because the state directly contravenes Jesus’ clear advice, and because if Jesus’ recommendations
were put to practice, then the state would anyway become obsolete.”
Tolstoy the peculiar Christian anarchist
RUSSIA IS MY HOMEBOY
It would be nice if the article could spell “atheist” correctly. It isn’t the superlative of “athy.”
The article just asserts its conclusion without any supporting arguments. There is a strong tradition of non-Christian libertarianism.
Lol. Isn’t the title of this piece a bit totalitarian to be libertarian? BTW, this fake libertarian decided not to waste time reading the attachment, considering life is fairly short.
I just wish the person who had made the post would come back and answer our objections, but it appears we heretics aren’t worth talking to.
the golden rule is not the non aggression principle, technically.
the people who founded what we call “libertarianism” were mostly of jewish heritage or atheist, as far as I could tell. one could argue that classical liberals were christians, but many of them were deists, yea?
also, are we to be so naive to believe that without a dominance system such as religion, we would never have individual liberty? if anything, I view it the other way around. Hey, isn’t it nice that christianity (all those commandments are technically jewish, are they not?) has all these libertarian values?
Actually, the golden rule is much better, IMHO. It would have you do something good for others, and obviously the best way to do good for the most people is through entrepreneurship in a capitalist economy where there is no state. Steve Jobs, for example, may not of thought of himself as following the golden rule, but he was–big time. His idea, his products, his company with its employees, etc., created a cornucopia of good and goods for others. Indeed, the golden rule may be credited with inspiring laissez faire.
Richard, I do not equate Jesus and his principles with Christianity, which, if it ever did adhere to his principles, has long since parted company. Complete rejection of his principles occurred when the Roman Empire subsumed the church and the church and its leaders leaders began sharing in the loot from Roman taxes.
If the rule change from simply non-interference to proactively do good to third parties, it could be very dangerous Ned, for the good of one is often the bad for another. All the “good-intentioned” Left underpins its social experiments on this idea, “we know what’s good for you better than you do”.
Your entire argument is a correlation fallacy. You seem to be under the impression that “Christianity says X, and Libertarianism says X, therefore Christianity must be the basis for Libertarianism.”
First of all, all the evidence you give cannot draw any causal relationship at all. Sure, Christianity prohibits murder, theft, and perjury, but so do the vast majority of legal systems, with Christian influence or otherwise. Your argument is equivalent to saying that because Libertarianism prohibits murder and the Soviets made murder illegal, the Soviet union must have been libertarian.
Which brings me to my next problem with the post. It cherry-picks doctrines that actually fit with Libertarianism, while ignoring the fact that none of the other commandments have any relationship at all, and some are even in the contrary spirit. And you still have another 603 commandments to account for, many of which are gross violations of the NAP.
Finally, the Golden Rule is not the basis for the NAP. The Golden Rule states that you shouldn’t do what you don’t want others to do to you. The NAP states that you shouldn’t commit a certain type of action, regardless of what you would feel if it were done to you. These are incompatible ideas.
So far, you’ve provided no evidence for you claim.
The Golden Rule does not say “you shouldn’t do” anything. It tells you “to do.” You are misinterpreting it.
Institutional Christianity, especially the post-Pauline Church has a made a mess out of Jesus teachings’, but I guess that is to be expected with any social organization. Although I wouldn’t say the title of the OP is correct. Perhaps by following the life and experience of Jesus one would become a better individual, therein facilitating a more llibertarian society.
I hate it when people come on here to dump content and don’t hang around. That’s your free membership, L.me. more members, less interaction.