Rapture Countdown ... join the after-party!

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: I agree the Bible is not a history book, but it's more than just an example of literature, it's the representation of the most sacred beliefs of a huge percentage of the world. Iván

^Mike, Mike, Mike... I'm on my phone now so quickly: how many times have I said I love Germany? My sister lives there, I've been there, I know the language, I was educated in a Deutsche Schule, I root for the team in world cups since 1986. I'm not playing any card. I'm saying that I understand the fear for indoctrination in Germany since dark things happened in the past. Is it "going too low"? You are playing the "I'm German I get offended if someone mentions nazism" card actually, when all I'm doing is tying the country's fear of indoctrination with the past - the REASON behind it.

About libertarianism, I'm not the bigest expert in PA but I can give you a primer when I'm home writing from a computer. I could do what you do and put youtube videos and links but I'll prefer to answer myself.

^Yes you have misrepresented libertarianism. When you say that it's just idealism without concern for reality, I answer that it's actually reality what informs libertarianism. Man is not supposed to be a perfect entity that is devoid of self-interest and leaves the decisions in the hands of a few "representatives". Man is seen as free, an individual first and foremost, with self interest the fullfilment of which can be better be attained if he's left to do the decisions and not a central planner who has no idea about circumstances and details and many other variables in every aspect of life. Man acts out of self interest and it's in his self-interest not to live in a world of chaos and anarchy. Most people have been trained and raised to think that the only reason why humans are not killing each other on the streets is the existence of government. Actually, government is the one killing people in streets; people don't need to be told and guided by a master of puppets not to kill each other. Anarchy is not the natural end of lack of a big state. But most problems are caused by this big monster: inflation and thanks to it a worde standard of living, corruption, poverty, death due to wars and poverty. The big powerful government has been in charge of eliminating poverty and making the world perfect for everyone and so far it has failed miserably.

The market has been painted as an ugly monster that creates injustice and pain when it's government the one making it be less than what it truly is if it's let really free. There's a lot of economical analysis behind libertarianism by authors that in no way are juvenile or senseless like Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, etc. The movement originated mostly in Europe but it was here in the US where it has really gained ground, in part probably because this country was already founded with a vision of a small government that was there just to check that rights were protected. In Europe the vision has always been one pro-state, specially in the more Germanic regions. Limited government is what is being asked. Some go to the extreme and ask for the utter elimination of the state (anarchy) but propose the survival of order and society thanks to the market (anarcho-capitalism). This is a position I tend to like but which is somewhat more idealistic. Libertarianism itself isn't. It just asks man to be man, to be what he already is. It's not an utopia like communism where people are supposed to lose their self-interest and adapt and welcome a shared world. No, that's against nature. Libertarianism doesn't go against nature. You are quite mistaken when you think libertarianism asks for a society without enforcement of laws. The thing is, one, there would be far better laws, since most activities would be legal and only infringing and violating other people's rights would be a crime. Victimless crimes would disappear. Initiation of force could only be accepted in self-defense. There would be law enforcers (to call them that way), society needs them. In softer versions of libertarianism (minarchism, libertarianism), the state, the goernment is still in charge of that (and of national security and of laws and courts and roads); in extreme forms, law enforcement and even law itself would be handled by private actors. I know it's difficult to think of that, but all it takes is an open mind. For one second liberating of years of government-reliance indoctrination and read. Not everybody has to like it. Try and read some Mike, you who claim to be so open minded and reasonable. Don't dismiss out of gut feelings. I can offer you some links to some great readings. There have been several books by philosophers/economists/scientists who will at least make you realize this is not an angry child's dream. There is a lot of deep thinking behind this.

Hey you claim to have liberated yourself from the idea that you depend on a big enormous entity that governs every aspect of your life and without which everything would be, let's say it, hell. In here it's the same, just that we don't agree with a different god.

Don't say something is senseless or inmature or something like that with no real knowledge Mike. You tend to idolize Dawkins who when I have seen in tv actually resembles an inmature angry boy upset because other people still can't "free themselves" like he has. He writes good books though. But they can't compare in depth, breadth, or importance to the writing on economics, politics, ethics, and liberty, of authors like the ones mentioned above. Don't dismiss without evidence Mike. It's not like you

That wasn't that good but at 3 am on a night I can't fall asleep you can't ask for more. Read the threads on the subject where more articulate explainations can be found.

Edited by The T - May 31 2011 at 02:15

Mr ProgFreak wrote: And I officially promise: No more religiously motivated threads or polls from me after this one in this forum.

http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=64093&PID=3502021#3502021

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

I am non-religious in the fullest sense. I am neither Atheist nor a worshiper of any faith. I have attempted with the strongest fibers within myself to remove myself from all opinion and belief. I am neither for or against religion of any kind. I do assume things, but I try with the very core of my being to never believe. I fight to be 100% objective in every possible sense. It just seems - just seems that within context of the bible (the only religious document I have any familiarity with) that the God depicted in said texts could not exist. Do I know? No. What's this assumption based on? Scriptures that clash. Does it mean anything? Only if you think it does. Am I merely a pathetic child lacking valid knowledge of anything - desperately, futilely attempting to carve out some hallucinatory gesture of uniqueness and individuality that only exists to vainly circumvent my vehement self-deprecation and rampaging insecurity? Definitely.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: You *are* an idealist, and you can complain about government all you want - you haven't shown conclusively that a society without government would work. We are not talking about the existence or non-existence of an entity here. Many political systems started in theory, only to be applied later (in some cases, like communism,, with poor results). That a society with a minimal government hasn't really existed outside of a few examples doesn't mean it can't work. Logic and economics show it can. It's in the interest of those in power not to let it happen though. You claim that libertarianism is not a society without enforcement of laws - then you go on to say a libertarian society would simply have better laws - which is the one thing I'm essentially asking which you fail to do: describe those laws.Come on Mike what the hell. I'm not saying "better" laws, I'm saying laws that sanction victimless crimes would disappear, laws that sanction personal activities that don't harm nobody would disappear. In general the law code would be radically smaller, thus requiring far less enforcement. It would still be necessary of course because thieves and rapists and murderers and etc will always exist. Now, there are free-market ways to go about these issues, this is a nice compendium of thoughts and essays, though long to read. Of course I recognize it's hard to visualise this (I have problems with it, and I'm much closer to like anarchy that most people) but it's an example. In the next sentence you invalidate the previous sentence to a large extent by saying that since most activities would be legal, you would have much fewer laws. Again, apparently I wasn't clear, which was expected considering the time and place from where I posted. Then you make the (IMO) childish statement that "only infringing and violating other people's rights would be a crime". Yeah, that's what non-libertarian societies are also trying to accomplish. Childish? And, really?? I don't see non-libertarian societies doing this. I see them penalizing and prosecuting individual activities that don;t harm anyone but the person doing them. Granted, there are many cases where laws (or systems of law) are abused to serve other purposes, but returning to the subject of child indoctrination: Preventing parents from indoctrinating their children has the purpose of protecting the childrens' freedom. Yes but who is to decide what is good and bad for them? A bureaucrat in an office miles away? I know there are cases where some parents really need to lose custody of their children but if you checked our news you'd see how many times that has been abused and children have been taken from parents only for doing slightly awkward things. You can also see it as an infringement of the parents' rights - and there you have the dilemma that I was talking about, which you (as it appears to me) try to avoid adressing.I don't avoid addressing. It's a dilemma but in most cases I'd fall in the side of the parents. There are monsters out there who rape and hit their children and those shouldn't keep their children but if parents want to teach their children any bullsh*t they want I don't see it as a reason to take custody away. It is thought control what that would be, government-sanctioned thought-control.  BTW: Where am I "idolizing" Dawkins: Show me just one post where I'm doing that. Or did you also just idolize Hayek, Mises, Rothbard etc.? In that case I would say that you need to look at how you use the word "idolize". I don't idolize them. I'm saying you seem to idolize Dawkins not from this thread only but come one we've been reading your atheist threads for a long time now.... ... Ok this was poor choice of words.  I'm not saying that there's not a lot of deep thinking behind libertarianism ... there surely is, just as there's a lot of deep thinking behind socialism, communism or indeed most of the "isms". That does not prove that it's a viable concept. Practice proved the other "isms" to fail. Libertarianism is not really a revolutionary way to organize society since it only asks for LESS organization of society. It asks the government to recede and let the free market and the individuals make most of their economic and personal choices. As soon as you claim that libertarianism is superior to what we currently have, you are making a positive claim which needs backing by evidence, and in this case it also needs a detailed description of how this society is supposed to function, and how difficult practical problems would be addressed. Only then would we even have something to talk about.Again, we're not discussing god-no-god here. There's no need for evidence beyond logic, economics, and the evidence AGAINST our current government-ruled systems.  Ok now I will shut up and if you want further discussion I'll see you in the relevant thread. This thread is meant to be about Camping remember??

Edited by The T - June 01 2011 at 11:50

I love that show ... they used to be about 90 minutes, and as far as I know they just recently got permission by YouTube to post the full-length shows.