Is Libertarianism Compatible With Religion?
The article that is linked says yes. What is your opinion?
READ ARTICLE: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/vance/van...
READ ARTICLE: http://archive.lewrockwell.com/vance/van...
You type: | You see: |
---|---|
*italics* | italics |
**bold** | bold |
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Now, doesn't the fundamental doctrine of Christianity hold that are born deficient and that you must be saved by having another (Jesus) who lived for your sake?
Evil is still determined by the mind, not be religion or science. No additional arguments are needed.
Objectivism much more than "libertarianism" because it is a whole systematic philosophy (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics) whereas liberarianism is just a determination about ethics as relating to gov't. Objectivism is not compatible with any religion that asserts the mystical or upholds belief in the absence of perceptive evidence and/or reason.
It's essential to keep things simple, and the non-aggression pact needs to be the only basis to both let the majority in and keep personal differences out.
The Scientific Method - five steps, nine or fourteen - is the process for creating and validating true claims. Where is the Religious Method?
In Atlas Shrugged "Project X" was a betrayal of science. When a suicide bomber kills people in the mosque of another sect, where is the betrayal of religion?
Whether Catholics vs. Protestants in Northern Ireland or Druse versus Marianist versus Hezbollah versus Hamas in Beirut, no standard of truth exists.
Show us where the students of Linus Pauling blew themselves up to destroy the people working in the laboratories of Crick and Watson because they disagreed about the structure of DNA.
You are a good person. But religion can be used for evil. Science cannot.
Science can be betrayed. One of my specialities is misconduct in scientific research. Easily 20% of scientists are crooks. But that is betrayal. Show us where the religious leader betrays religion by calling for martyrs.
There are people from every walk of life that want free agency. The ability to choose for themselves on all maters that do not involve the use of force on another person. Shortening the net to exclude religion would simply be foolish.
Libertarians are completely comparable with religion as long as they do not go the path the the republicans before them. Small government and free agency (individual choice) must be the trump card over personal bias.
first of all, idolatry is a Christian concept and NOT part of Objectivism . Rand:
"The Objectivist ethics holds man’s life as the standard of value—and his own life as the ethical purpose of every individual man."
the pursuit of money in a free society is to pursue creation and trade-those who do not pursue money-trade people and use force
Money is a medium of exchange-a tool. Two people decide to engage in a transaction that is mutually beneficial to both parties. Murder for hire is not consistent with capitalism, for example.
Ayn Rand's open hostility to religion deprives her of the WHY of doing things. If the almighty dollar becomes the WHY of capitalism, is not that idol worship in and of itself?
Now don't misunderstand me, I in no way approve of the behaviors Rand specifically criticized in "Atlas Shrugged" - the moocher mindset. I believe very firmly that the principle of being rewarded for one's actions is not only a good principle of finance, but also for life in general and in no way detracts from religious value. But I believe that if you make money the object for productivity, you are in effect setting up money as your god and are creating your own downfall, just of a different kind. The drive to be productive is admirable, but if money is all you care about, you also lose the part of the argument Galt makes about money being a symbol of productivity and pervert it into being the object, destroying the symbology entirely.
and that is why Man needs values.
"Let me stress this. The first question is not: What particular code of values should man accept? The first question is: Does man need values at all—and why?"
The Virtue of Selfishness
Regards,
O.A.
You compare a collective (religion) as bad to individuals as good.
Religion is a tool of the mind, like anything else that requires thought. It can be used for both good and evil. Do people use science to accomplish evil? To say they do not is absolute rubbish.
Good people are good and constantly attempting to be better. Those that are bad choose to be bad, and will use the tools they can to accomplish there bad designs.
Religion has no more ability to be bad or good than science or philosophy. It is what a persons mind does with it that makes it bad or good. To state religion is bad is the same as stating philosophy is bad. Individuals are bad or good. Exactly what is bad or good can be determined by the results that individuals actions achieve, and nothing else.
have people used religion for evil. Over and over again. have they also used it for good. Over and over again. Both will continue to be true no matter what the piece of knowledge is or what its called. It is the mind that determines how it is used and the consequence of the actions that determines if that use was good or bad.
Load more comments...