The Fall of the Libertarians

You assume a great deal.

If my assumptions are wrong, and you are especially informed, should you not post the same type of disclaimer you want him to post.

Because Libertarinaism rejects the authority of the christian church and makes the individual conscience the sovereign judge of religious and moral truth.

Waaait a minute. What, exactly, does the authority of the christian church mean? What is it you're rejecting when you complain about libertarianism making each person the "sovereign judge of religious and moral truth". As far as I can tell, the only possible meaning that can have is that you reject religious liberty, which means that your complaint isn't with libertarianism, it's with America.

OF COURSE libertarians don't believe in compelling everyone to make a particular outward profession. No American political faction does. Nor should they. Further, if you want to tell me that the absence of compulsion is incompatible with Christianity, you'll find very few Christians to agree with you. Not even Catholics, who would seem to be the only ones who can agree with you and remain intellectually consistent.

It also rejects moral absolutes and authority...especially religious authority.

You don't understand libertarianism very well. It's based on a moral absolute, namesly that force is only justified to defend or as punishment for violation of life, liberty, or property.

It emphasizes that men should be free to do whatever they want in moral matters, whereas in Christianity, all moral authority comes from God, and if that authority is not excersized in harmony with God's law, then it isn't legitimate.

It emphasizes that men are not free to harm any peaceful person.

I would submit that this is a part of Christianity. Yes, libertarianism in a part of Christianity. Not all of it, of course, but anyone who acts in accord with Biblical teaching will behave as a libertarian. Not a libertine, a libertarian.

Waaait a minute. What, exactly, does the authority of the christian church mean? What is it you're rejecting when you complain about libertarianism making each person the "sovereign judge of religious and moral truth".

Just that--that libertarians [at least the ones on this forum] reject religious moral authority [as taught by Christianity] in favor of the individual being the final judge in those matters. "My will versus Thy will." You can't serve two masters.

OF COURSE libertarians don't believe in compelling everyone to make a particular outward profession. No American political faction does. Nor should they. Further, if you want to tell me that the absence of compulsion is incompatible with Christianity, you'll find very few Christians to agree with you. Not even Catholics, who would seem to be the only ones who can agree with you and remain intellectually consistent.

I think you read too much into my post. I am simply stating that because [most] libertarians champion the idea of sovereignty in themselves instead of God, that it can't be truly compatable with true Christian doctrine.

You don't understand libertarianism very well. It's based on a moral absolute, namesly that force is only justified to defend or as punishment for violation of life, liberty, or property.

That is a very broad definition of libertarianism. After hanging around here for a while, you come to realize that there is no set system of beliefs within your movement. If anything, libertarians are strict constructionists, which then leads back to 18th century French liberalism that taught men should be able to do whatever they want in moral matters and that political authority comes from the people themselves who should be free to overthrow existing governments--by violence if necessary--and set up new governments based on the will of the majority, as interpreted and guided by 'intellectual' leaders.

This, of course, being carried out to its logical extreme in the French revolution. Jefferson, Franklin, and Henry adopted much of the writings of the French philosphers and liberal philosophy and applied it to the american situation. Now--I am not attacking this philosophy, I am merely stating that true Christianity is incompatible with this because Christianity teaches that ALL authority comes from God--not the will of the people. By placing sovereignty in the people rather than in God and divine law, libertarians--depart from the Christian belief system.

And yes, I have no doubt that few will agree with me. I also have a question for you.

Do you not think the reason that the constitution allows matters of truth and morality to become open questions is because it isn't anchored in 'divine law?'

Just that--that libertarians [at least the ones on this forum] reject religious moral authority [as taught by Christianity] in favor of the individual being the final judge in those matters. "My will versus Thy will." You can't serve two masters.

That's hardly clear. How, exactly, do libertarians reject religious moral authority? Do you mean that some libertarians aren't Christians? So what? Some conservatives aren't either. Some of them are even libertines.

Do you mean the libertarian position on laws against drugs, prostitution, ect? Remember that libertarianism itself doesn't say whether you yourself should actually do those things, it only says that you shouldn't use violence against those who do.

I think you read too much into my post.

I don't think I am at all, and other parts of the comment I'm replying to certainly make it look like I'm not. With the things you've said, the only consistent position you could take is theocracy, and not a Sandlinian Libertarian Theocracy, but the kind of thing that might be called "Talibornagain". What else can an attack on the Constitution because it "allows matters of truth and morality to become open questions" mean?

I am simply stating that because [most] libertarians champion the idea of sovereignty in themselves instead of God, that it can't be truly compatable with true Christian doctrine.

Libertarianism is a political doctrine, not a religious one. There are libertarians from every religion.

You might answer that Christianity isn't merely a religious doctrine, and you'd be right. The question is, what is the proper Christian political position?

I submit that it necessarily involves the government acting in a Christian fashion, which means in a libertarian fashion. You would agree that doing something sinful to advance the cause of Christ is more than a little contradictory, wouldn't you?

That is a very broad definition of libertarianism. After hanging around here for a while, you come to realize that there is no set system of beliefs within your movement.

I've been hanging out here for a while. I signed up in 1998. (I just checked your date and you signed up it 2000. I see you are a Catholic, which is why you uphold the authority of the church. A protestant, of course, would uphold the authority of God. I also see that you slander John Calvin.)

Yes, I know that there are many types of libertarians. That's precisely why I chose a very broad definition.

You, however, seem to take it as a justification for coming up with your own, a very narrow one which you want to force all libertarians into. That definition turns out to be majoritarianism, in the hard sense that the majority can do as it pleases.

This is absurd. Libertarianism is incompatible with hard majoritarianism, hard monarchism, and so on. Libertarianism isn't about who is in charge, it's about what they do with their power. Your (false) linkage of libertarians with French philosophers won't do you any good, since even if it were true, it wouldn't make libertarians think things we don't think. What is it with right-wing Catholics blaming everything they don't like on the French Revolution, anyway?

My whole post is based on giving authority to God through the church here on earth. I'm sure OP is familiar with my profile, and although we differ in religious dogma, I am not slandering Calvin anymore than He is slandering the Pope when argues against Catholicism.

You can say whatever you like, but the majority of libertarians on this forum don't accept religious authority of any stripe--OP is one of the only examples of a libertarain that I can think of on FR that adheres to religious moral authority. I'm sure others can be found, but the majority don't accept anything but the individual as a moral authority. I can give you example after example, but my point is still that there is no central beliefs holding your ideology together except perhaps that most of you guys wish for the government to return to the original intent of the founding fathers in the constitution.

This has gotten me to think about why, up until the 20th century, that our system remained sound--breaking down first with federal government taking power from the states and then the various branches of government dominiating the others--like the judiciary. The founders never dreamed of the judiciary gaining such dominance, to the point where the Supreme Court virtually has no real check on its power.

I believe [donning my asbestos!] that the constitution has one major flaw--that sovereignty rests in the people, which is an idea from 18th century liberalism, whereas men should regard sovereignty as coming from God. If power is not exercised in harmony with God's law, it isn't legtitimate, no matter how many people consent to it. By placing authority with the people instead of God and divine law, the framers left the door open for any evil so long as is justified by majority rule.

The reason IMO our constitutional system has been perverted is not the fault of the government set forth in the constitution, rather the reason is that the constitution allows matters of truth and morality to become open questions, not anchored in divine law.

What say you, OP? =)

Good point. Perhaps I was too charitable.

ROTFLMAO!!!

At least you have a sense of humor.

Just that--that libertarians [at least the ones on this forum] reject religious moral authority [as taught by Christianity] in favor of the individual being the final judge in those matters. "My will versus Thy will." You can't serve two masters.

Oops, you bear false witness. Is that part of what you call your Christian witness?

I am simply stating that because [most] libertarians champion the idea of sovereignty in themselves instead of God, that it can't be truly compatable with true Christian doctrine.

Oops, ya did it again.

I modified it to say "most" on a later post--but the ones I run into on this forum sure don't recognize any moral authority, except the individual. I can flag them and they can tell you themselves, if you like.

Do you think you deserve more charity?

Do you think you deserve more charity?

It just never occured to me that the word "charity" and your name should appear on the same page. Or decency for that matter. I can think of some others if you like.

I modified it to say "most" on a later post--

Even "most" is BS. You just made that up, you have no way of know what "most" of any group is or thinks. But it doesn't keep you from posting it as a fact. Pitiful.

but the ones I run into on this forum sure don't recognize any moral authority, except the individual. I can flag them and they can tell you themselves, if you like.

Well, you just met me, and I'll tell you now that there are many many more. Now you can never say that BS again in ignorance or carelessness. The next time it will be a willful lie.

It just never occured to me that the word "charity" and your name should appear on the same page.

Don't imagine that the world is as narrow as your vision.

Don't imagine that the world is as narrow as your vision.

It's not a matter of vison. It's a matter of personal experience with you. Not pleasant experience either.

“Out of every hundred new ideas ninety-nine or more will probably be inferior to the traditional responses which they propose to replace. No one man, however brilliant or well-informed, can come in one lifetime to such fullness of understanding as to safely judge and dismiss the customs or institutions of his society, for these are the wisdom of generations after centuries of experiment in the laboratory of history.” -- Will and Ariel Durant

“Out of every hundred new ideas ninety-nine or more will probably be inferior to the traditional responses blah blah blah blah blah” -- Will and Ariel Durant

According to these people, no progress in the relations between people is probable, therefore we should never try. Why am I not surprised that you would pick such a theory to embrace?

Kings have always had the power to kill their subjects, so going forward we should just accept our fate.

According to these people, no progress in the relations between people is probable blah blah blah...

False.

False.

You are an authority on falsehoods. You are one of the greatest purveyors of them.

Oh, but you are trying to change the subject. Go back to your original post (#13) that started this exchange and show where you mentioned avoiding "crashing into the WTC" as justification. - Duke ... That may have been the premise of the article, but that is not the point of discussion which was, and remains, your comments in Post #13, that arming the PASSENGERS would have prevented the HIJACKING. Not once, before post #206 did you mention preventing the crash.

It occurs to me that you are the one trying to change the subject. The subject is the article, which contends that Libertarianism is dead following 9-11, and that only the government can prevent terrorist attacks, etc. I did indeed fail to explicitly mention disarmed pilots in my original post, for which I beg your forgiveness. (In the future should I be sure to mention every single possible argument in my first post so as to not be accuesed of changing the subject?) However, you do not care to discuss this subject, but would rather spend post after post discussing, not government vs. private enterprise, but whether I did or did not change the subject vis a vis arming pilots vs arming passengers.

But, laying that aside, you still haven't established that armed passengers would have prevented that crash.

But I did establish that the only plane that didn't hit its target was the result of passenger action, not governmental action, which is sufficient to refute the author's point.

[The flights were specifically chosen because of] the fact that they had few passengers. This implies that it would have been highly unlikely that many, if any, passengers would have been armed.

That depends on the rate of carrying by passengers. If 50% or even 10% carried, there would still have been a lot of friendly guns aboard. (To say nothing of the fact that the pilots should have been 100% armed.)

The few armed passengers would have been at a significant tactical disadvantage, likely outnumbered, and faced with an organized group of determined hijackers with the advantage of surprise.

But this is exactly the situation of the plane that crashed in PA - where some three (3) actively resisting passengers brought the plane down early.

The prospects of the passengers would not have been good.

Beats killing thousands in a building, no?

Now you may argue that things have changed or that arming pilots while maintaining the current status of unarmed passengers, but that would be introducing a subject not in Post #13 and would be changing the subject.

I'm terribly sorry, oh great masterful rhetoric Nazi. I beg your forgiveness and humbly beseech you to consider arguments that are on-topic but raised following my initial post.

["The reference about arming pilots was to post #206. Regardless of where the point was made, the fact is that the government disarmed the pilots, which may very well have contributed to the success of the terrorist attacks."] Introducing a new concept almost 200 posts later is changing the subject.

1. I am not responsible for the fact that 199 other people posted between my replies. 2. My post was on-topic, and yours, talking about when I raised a second point, isn't. 3. By making this comment, you refuse to answer my argument which is that the article stated that "only the government can answer terrorist attacks" while in fact the government disarmed the pilots, which may well have contributed to the success of the attacks.

So, you're only a "partial" or "incremental" libertarian. That's interesting since the libertarian position is that all rights belong to all persons regardless of their national origin.

Now, you are misrepresenting my position. Even if I were a full-strength Libertarian, I would still prefer a solution that were half-Libertarian to one that is none, because half a loaf is better than none.

You are familiar with the libertarian platform on unlimited immigration? Surely, you see that by abandoning the complete libertarian position you validate the premise of the article, that libertarian position has failed?

LOL!! Now look who is changing the subject. Why don't you ask me about what I think of immigration law on an immigration thread, not on a "government is the only cure for terrorism" thread.

You really should read your posts more completely before you post. You're the one who has postulated the concept of denying rights to a segment of the population. What else do you consider denying RKBA to a class of individuals such as non-citiizens. And, don't claim that I first introduced this. I only asked how you would prevent hijackers from also being armed. It was you that said you would only allow armed citizens. Now how is this consistent with libertarian ideals and how does it differ from the premise of the article that libertarianism has failed?

You asked for several solutions, and I posed several. I don't necessarily endorse all of them equally. Furthermore, how does the fact that government intervention failed utterly to stop the attacks, even when it was clear they were underway, while the actions of individuals were successful, keep from completely destroying the entire point of the article?

You fall into the typical knee-jerk reaction of libertarianism of blaming all problems on the government.

Red herring: I do not blame all problems on government, for example the problem of terrorism.

The issue of restrictive states is significant and I'm glad you recognized this. But blaming all of this on government is a "red herring".

Indeed it is, and it's your's.

Consider the logistical difficulties of running a terminal were some passengers are allowed firearms and some are not depending upon their citizenship (your idea, not mine) and their choice of airline. How do you keep the passengers segregated? If you allow them to mix freely, then you allow the flow of armed passengers to "gunfree" airlines. There realy are significant difficulties. You would almost have to have separate terminals and it's not clear that present airports could provide this.

Well since you claim I'm just a knee-jerk Libertarian, the solution must clearly be government. How about a blue-ribbon panel to study the issue, for $45 million dollars, which will write a report, appoint a commission, and write and lobby for the enaction of thousands and thousands and thousands of pages of incomprensible legislation, "For Increasing Airport Secuirty, And Other Purposes," funded by an increase of taxes, billed as "Investing in Our Skys For The Future." That is the non-Libertarian solution to just about everything these days.