Posted on 09/01/2013 5:46:15 AM PDT by Popman
Now things were coming together. The Progressive worldview, and the Libertarian, Rand-worshipping worldview -- are all part of the same existentialist family tree containing Sartre and Alinsky. Rand's humanistic objectivism is as cold and Godless as Sartre's humanistic existentialism. These pseudo-intellectuals are the reason Christianity has been quietly erased line by line, year after year in the popular psyche. God was dead to Nietzsche, Sartre, and Ayn Rand. Even Sartre's famous cousin, Albert Schweitzer, denied the divinity of Christ.They were simply players in a full-court press for a total paradigm shift that has led us to the Mad Max dystopian hellhole upon which we are now teetering.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
libertarianism
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Christianity and libertarianism are not hostile enemies. I know plenty of Christian libertarians.
Perhaps you need to study up on it.
My apologies. I momentarily confused Rand with anarcho-capitalists, who often cite her as a major influence.
How silly.
When libertarians claim they want conservatism in economics and of limited government and personal freedom, yet the leftists morality and open borders, what do you think happens when everyone votes?
They vote just like they already do, social liberals and the broken culture vote for more government and welfare, and the Evangelical Christians vote for smaller government and conservatism.
People vote, and we know how pro-choicer, social liberals, the non-religious, the self absorbed, the drug users and homosexuals and immigrants, and hookers, and atheists, and anti-Christians vote, and it is not for fewer taxes and smaller government.
Matthew 7:
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
There are many ways to Hell, and only one way to God, faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
Amen.
Christianity and libertarianism are enemies, it is why there exists a movement that wants to retain conservative economics but fight the war of the left against Christian America of the past.
Lower taxes and homosexual equality for example.
Fifty years of history has proven that the libertarian social agenda is the real one that they are winning at and it also proves what kind of voting comes from that liberal/libertarian social agenda, more government and welfare.
Commonsense should tell a sane person that, social liberalism does not create selfless, conservative voters.
You clearly don't understand Ayn Rand. I'd suggest reading this before you attempt to enlighten us further.
Here's what she wrote about contracts back in 1963:
In a free society, men are not forced to deal with one another. They do so only by voluntary agreement and, when a time element is involved, by contract. If a contract is broken by the arbitrary decision of one man, it may cause a disastrous financial injury to the other—and the victim would have no recourse except to seize the offender’s property as compensation. But here again, the use of force cannot be left to the decision of private individuals. And this leads to one of the most important and most complex functions of the government: to the function of an arbiter who settles disputes among men according to objective laws.Criminals are a small minority in any semicivilized society. But the protection and enforcement of contracts through courts of civil law is the most crucial need of a peaceful society; without such protection, no civilization could be developed or maintained.
Please see post 82.
Momentarily meaning all your life up till now when you did a quick google search about her?
No, I got confused for a moment. It happens. She obviously has a lot in common with anarcho-capitalists, they just carry her doctrines a little farther out there.
There are so many variants of libertarianism and anarchism it’s not difficult to get them mixed up.
But if it makes you feel better to get all pissy, be my guest.
Yes, living in a civilization means living under laws that you don’t agree with. That’s part of life on earth regardless of who’s running the government.
You sound like a college freshman explaining the purity of Communism and why it will work.
Americans vote for their government and social programs.
Libertarian deconstruction of American Christian culture and law and the public space does not breed conservative voters, or the “libertarian voters” of your imagined utopia, instead it breeds liberal voters who want more acceptance of the social breakdown, and more government to spread the wealth.
LIBERTARIANISM CREATES MORE LIBERALISM, IT IS ABOUT VOTERS AND VOTING, NOT CLASSROOM THEORIES.
Her doctrine clearly contradicts that of the anarcho-capitalists who see no role for government in the function of the markets. This is not a minor difference, or a difference only in degree. This is fundamental.
Rand believes in absolutely minimalist government, anarcho-capitalists in no government at all.
Let’s assume a scale of government control of society and the economy from 0 to 100, with Stalinism at 100.
On that scale Rand would be a 1 and the anarcho-capitalists a 0. To my mind that means she has a whole lot more in common with them than with anyone higher up the scale. But I guess that depends on how you define “fundamental difference.”
For every question we answer, there are even more questions raised. It is fascinating, but we are studying the artwork in science, not The Creator, except as He is reflected in His work.
For now we see as through a glass darkly, but then face to face.
Entirely agree. I guess if we were to be writing a Constitution from scratch, right now, in addition to the wonderful things put in by the framers of our Constitution, it would be very important to formulate a list of all the ways that people can be manipulated, and put in safeguards directed at each one. I know this is almost impossible, but knowing what we know now, some things could have been better.
Rand’s ideas are like medicine — they can, in proper doses, serve as a cure for those who have fallen into the sickness of idolatry the state or the collective, but in large doses are poisonous, and even in small doses can be poisonous to the already healthy, tending to cause the malady of idolatry of self.
The problem is Rand’s objectivism is the same as the problem with virtually all atheistic philosophies: without a transcendent source of morality, there is no “objective” morality. One cannot reason from premises in the indicative to conclusions in the imperative. Rand’s “objective” source for morality is ultimately cribbed from the Christian understanding of the human person — starting with “come let Us make Man in Our image and likeness” and ending with the full conception of personhood forged in the christological controversies to say correctly who Jesus is — which she refuses to acknowledge.
The problem is, without its Christian underpinnings, the transcendent worth of the human person is easy to brush aside, leaving only a morality of power, the strong preying on the weak. Every society in the world was a slave society until Christians, centuries after Our Lord’s earthly ministry and Saving Death finally, gradually, finally decided that the fact Christ died for each of us was sufficient reason to abolish both serfdom and slavery — all within a generation, slavery was abolished in America and in Romania (where Gypsies were kept as chattel slaves), serfdom abolished in Russia, pressure from Britain and France pushed the Ottomans to abolish both formal dhimmitude and slavery, and the Royal Navy suppressed the slave trade and slavery in the Muslim world. What was “rational” “scientific” Communism in practice, but the restoration of slavery? What are our secular elites pushing toward but functional slavery of the masses to an omnicompetent regulatory state?
The problem is Rand’s objectivism is the same as the problem with virtually all atheistic philosophies: without a transcendent source of morality, there is no “objective” morality. One cannot reason from premises in the indicative to conclusions in the imperative. Rand’s “objective” source for morality is ultimately cribbed from the Christian understanding of the human person — starting with “come let Us make Man in Our image and likeness” and ending with the full conception of personhood forged in the christological controversies to say correctly who Jesus is — which she refuses to acknowledge.
That needs a bump...
Actually, I don’t think Christianity as a whole had ant conflict with science. The problem with Galileo, for example, was not his opinion the earth and the sun - which he was not the first one to think in any case - but that he used this to support his particular cosmological outlook, which was one that no longer considered man to be the crown of creation. So it’s not science per se, except in the case of a few American fundamentalists, but the philosophical or world view espoused by scientists who abandon the Judeo-Chrisitan or even Greco-Roman philosophical basis.
When Christianity had a firm philosophical foundation,it could deal with this, but unfirtunately the destruction of Christian knowledge and tradition , combined with the rejection of Western thought by the educational world, left both churches and secular humanists with no way to combat the distortion and misuse of science.
You are like Pavlov’s dog.
When someone mentions Libertarians you start foaming at the mouth and ranting and raving that anyone believing in individual freedom or liberty is a leftist. The exact opposite is the truth but you are too dim-witted to see it.
In your hatred of freedom and those of us that espouse it you show your true colors. You won’t be happy until you can dictate to the rest of us on how to live. If you can’t do that through moral suasion you will be required to use force. If you use force you are no better than the leftist idiots running the country now.
As a Southern Baptist God through Jesus Christ gives me the ultimate freedom to make the ultimate choice. And your opinion of that freedom is as unimportant to me as a grain of sand on the bottom of the ocean.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.