NationStates Jolt Archive

This is shameless promotion of my region and perhaps the best way to spark the interest of rare libertarians who are also Christians. We will not be a conservative paradise, but a free-thinking paradise. Ours shall be a christian/conservative-libertarian paradise. We are interested in debating topics from a distinctly libertarian perspective. While we have a perspective, it is our goal to stimulate ideas, not propagate them. We find America's boolean voting system disheartening, the polarized parties unreasonable; American citizens are blind to colors other than blue and red--Democrat or Republican. Anyone is, of course, welcome. It is a good thing to have opposition. It helps one understand why one believes what one believes. As in the church, heresy is the best thing for it. While wrong ideas aren't healthy in and of themselves, they make us stronger by finding their flaws.

The region name is Mars Hill. I hope to see some of you there.

- New Babel

"Here, along the slopes of Mars Hill, the products of the greatest minds in history are given free discussion, and in the light of the One True God, men find that all truth is God's truth."

To tell the truth I don't know much about Libertarianism(Or however you spell it) but the lack of government aid to poor citizens in it's philosophy is disheartening.

Libertarians support lower taxes, a smaller, more efficient government, greater personal rights and economic rights. I, as a Christian, believe that it is the job of the church and individuals to give to the poor. If the church did its job properly, we could abolish welfare. As this seems improbable, welfare will probably remain for the needy even if at libertarian became president.

From the Libertarian Party's website: "Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you don’t violate the rights of others. Politically, this means Libertarians favor rolling back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that stifle the economy and control people’s personal choices."

Libertarians aren't Republicans with a twist or Democrats who like guns. Modern
Republicans and Democrats are both for huge government. Libertarians are the opposite in this respect and follow closer to the guidelines our Founding Fathers put down for us.

How would a Christian Libertarian government deal with the issue of abortion?

I am from England, and I too a a Libertarian Christian which are also rare here too.
However I disagree that Libertarian Governments are smaller, or have smaller taxes, it really depends on your Economical view.

Jesus was more of a socialist than a libertarian IMO. Oh yeah, and hello fellow Christian! :)

Libertarians support lower taxes, a smaller, more efficient government, greater personal rights and economic rights. I, as a Christian, believe that it is the job of the church and individuals to give to the poor. If the church did its job properly, we could abolish welfare.



.



That's just it, the church will NEVER give money to the needy because there GREEDY and they just made up that whole story so they could control Europe, and they made up "hell" so people would think that if they dared to question the church they would go to "hell", and it says that "the devil" went to "hell" for questioning, that's really just a hidden threat saying that if you question it you go to "hell".

That's just it, the church will NEVER give money to the needy because there GREEDY and they just made up that whole story so they could control Europe, and they made up "hell" so people would think that if they dared to question the church they would go to "hell", and it says that "the devil" went to "hell" for questioning, that's really just a hidden threat saying that if you question it you go to "hell".



:rolleyes:

How would a Christian Libertarian government deal with the issue of abortion?
If I may jump in for New Babel, it's actually a dividing issue for us. Take a look at this article on libertarian perspectives on abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_abortion). Here's some helpful excerpts:
Of course, some libertarian thought goes beyond the standard Pro-Choice/Pro-Life debate. The abortion debate consists of multiple questions, including whether or not abortion should be illegal, at what level of government this should be enforced........

....some libertarians doubt not the authority or morality of goverment to pass laws against abortion, but the effectiveness of such laws. Abortion laws may turn out to be futile in stopping abortion...




That's just it, the church will NEVER give money to the needy because there GREEDY and they just made up that whole story so they could control Europe, and they made up "hell" so people would think that if they dared to question the church they would go to "hell", and it says that "the devil" went to "hell" for questioning, that's really just a hidden threat saying that if you question it you go to "hell".
Stupid troll

Libertarians support lower taxes, a smaller, more efficient government, greater personal rights and economic rights. I, as a Christian, believe that it is the job of the church and individuals to give to the poor. If the church did its job properly, we could abolish welfare. As this seems improbable, welfare will probably remain for the needy even if at libertarian became president.

I am not quite a libertarian and nowhere near Christian, but you hit the nail on the head there. Wealth redistribution and charity is a free choice of the person and not the job of government.


As for abortion, that is a good question, I would like to hear your feelings on it. The way I see it, the argument over abortion is not quite the religious debate that people make it out to be.

The "rare" libertarians who are also Christians?

Have you perhaps heard of Ronald Reagan?

The "rare" libertarians who are also Christians?

Have you perhaps heard of Ronald Reagan?

Reagan was not a libertarian. He was responsible for record deficit spending, supported sodomy laws, and created the largest anti-drug campaign in history.

If I may jump in for New Babel, it's actually a dividing issue for us. Take a look at this article on libertarian perspectives on abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_abortion).

Following the "Libertarians for Life" link, here is the basic pro-life perspective:

The Libertarian Case Against Abortion

To explain and defend our case, LFL argues that:
1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.
2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.
3. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally depersonify any one of us, born or preborn.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

Although I agree with these basic ideals, and have no respect for a woman who could abort her child simply because it wasn't planned or convenient for her (I'm not talking about the "hard cases" here - just stupid stuff, like basic failure to use contraception and that sort of thing) - it is difficult at best to enforce any laws prohibiting abortion, at least in the first trimester. As much as I despise the practice of abortion, I'd have to say that it should be the woman's choice in the first trimester. After that, the only circumstance in which early termination of pregnancy should be permitted is to save the mother's life. Just my opinion...

Ummmm...regional advertisements belong in the Gameplay forum, not General.

That said, I would probably enjoy discussing issues with like-minded folks and might choose to send a puppet to your region.

Gay.

Gay.

You are? That's wonderful for you, but hardly relevant to this thread.

Lew Rockwell is a christian libertarian, as far as I can tell. His website (http://www.lewrockwell.com) has an archive (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/christianity-arch.html) devoted to this topic. Many of them question or attack commonly held ideas, like the notion that Jesus was a socialist, or that christianity is compatible with waging wars of aggression.

Am I the only person who sees the oxymoron when he mentioned "conservative libertarianism"?

Jesus was more of a socialist than a libertarian IMO. Oh yeah, and hello fellow Christian! :)

In the perfect world, socialism would work. Unfortunately, we don't have a perfect world. It is true that the early church had some selfless practices, but it wasn't mandated by the state; it was done through generosity.

That's just it, the church will NEVER give money to the needy because there GREEDY and they just made up that whole story so they could control Europe, and they made up "hell" so people would think that if they dared to question the church they would go to "hell", and it says that "the devil" went to "hell" for questioning, that's really just a hidden threat saying that if you question it you go to "hell".

That's a church-state, not a true church. Even if religion is inherently an opiate, it is often a sincere illusion.


Have you perhaps heard of Ronald Reagan?

Ronald Reagan was no libertarian. Christian? Sure, whatever.

Am I the only person who sees the oxymoron when he mentioned "conservative libertarianism"?

"Conservative" is relative to the political tradition of whatever nation or region you're in. If libertarianism is the traditional ideology of a place, then calling it conservative is indeed accurate in that context.

In the perfect world, socialism would work. Unfortunately, we don't have a perfect world. It is true that the early church had some selfless practices, but it wasn't mandated by the state; it was done through generosity.



I believe the best form of government was that display by the early church.

Gay.
alright?

And I got to respond with "WTF man"

"Conservative" is relative to the political tradition of whatever nation or region you're in. If libertarianism is the traditional ideology of a place, then calling it conservative is indeed accurate in that context.

The founding fathers were much more libertarian in their approach to government than modern conservatives, who are nothing like traditional conservatives. The ideas of the founding fathers should be be conserved.

Anyone interested in joining?

If I may jump in for New Babel, it's actually a dividing issue for us. Take a look at this article on libertarian perspectives on abortion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_abortion). Here's some helpful excerpts:


While I did learn a lot from your link, it is an article that outlines “libertarian perspectives on abortion” and not “Christian libertarian perspectives on abortion”. However I would like to address one aspect of the article.

“A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the right to life of the actual human being involved [the mother]) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb.”

Although I understand the reasoning behind the argument I can’t help finding it somewhat cold blooded in terminology. However, this led me to think about the responsibility a woman has for a life that she creates. By this rational a woman has no responsibility to provide for the child before it is born. Does this mean that libertarians who perscribe to such a doctrine believe that a woman is not responsible for providing for that child after it is born?

Although I understand the reasoning behind the argument I can’t help finding it somewhat cold blooded in terminology. However, this led me to think about the responsibility a woman has for a life that she creates. By this rational a woman has no responsibility to provide for the child before it is born. Does this mean that libertarians who perscribe to such a doctrine believe that a woman is not responsible for providing for that child after it is born?

I doubt that any libertarian would advocate killing a child--it would have the same right to live as the mother. Libertarians believe we should be allowed to do what we want, as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others. In the case of abortion, secular libertarians would say that the fetus has no rights.

I doubt that any libertarian would advocate killing a child--it would have the same right to live as the mother. Libertarians believe we should be allowed to do what we want, as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others. In the case of abortion, secular libertarians would say that the fetus has no rights.

I have two questions;

1. Do you think abandoning a child is the same as killing it?

2. What is the Christian libertarian attitude towards abortion?

What would be the CL position on economics? Would it be a totally free market, with Christian morality preventing abuses by the different companies/individuals, and "social welfare" managed through the churches?

1. Do you think abandoning a child is the same as killing it?

2. What is the Christian libertarian attitude towards abortion?

1. If the end result is death, then yes. If not, then it is irresponsible and wrong.

2. It depends on what Christian libertarian you ask. More appropriately, it depends on what Christian you ask. If abortion is murder, it should be banned. If it's not, then it shouldn't be. This isn't simply a libertarian issue, but we know this. Perhaps you want my position on it? I tend to think that abortion is probably wrong. I've struggled with this issue for years, and have come to no absolute conclusion. But pregnancy can be avoided, and the moral dilemma of abortion can be reserved for extreme situations. Prevention is undeniably better and should be supported.

What would be the CL position on economics? Would it be a totally free market, with Christian morality preventing abuses by the different companies/individuals, and "social welfare" managed through the churches?

The Christian Libertarian position on the church and state is that moral structure is needed for a secular government to function; both institutions are separate, but also dependent. As Martin Luther said, "God has ordained the two governments: the spiritual, which by the Holy Spirit under Christ makes Christians and pious people; and the secular, which restrains the unchristian and wicked so that they are obliged to keep the peace outwardly.”

The Christian Libertarian position on economics follows along those lines: we are free to do much as long as it doesn't violate the rights of our fellow man. As Edmund Burke said, “Liberty too must be limited in order to be possessed.” In general, we practically support free trade completely; but we understand that there always must be some guidelines. Libertarianism is not anarchy.

In the ideal setting, as I've said, charities like the church would completely control welfare; but since we don't live in a perfect world, the state and church end up having to fulfill some of the duties of the other.

Jesus was more of a socialist than a libertarian IMO. Oh yeah, and hello fellow Christian! :)

You fail economics 101....

For one thing, Jesus was not a public officer. Or a member or creator of any "government". Christ created a "Group" of people, who through "charity" handed out and fed the poor and destitute.... A group not part of, or in cohorts with any governmental agency; and in fact, differentiated with the "government" over many things...... So Jesus could not have been socialist, as that would have required Christ advocating governmental operations of his own acts; as opposed to free offerings by the people through charitable work.

Though he was no "Libertarian" since all at that time considered "Government" its master.... And the people served the powers that be as slaves.

Though he was no "Libertarian" since all at that time considered "Government" its master.... And the people served the powers that be as slaves.

I agree that Jesus' political views are not libertarian or authoritarian. We should always strive to obey the laws of the established government as long as they do not contradict those of God. Changing these laws through politics is a completely different matter; politics grow from personal beliefs. If you believe that we should be free to choose right from wrong, you probably would agree that the state shouldn't dictate the legality of everything. Its job is to help prevent crime, to maintain order, and to protect us as citizens. With every law passed, another right is restricted.

The Christian Libertarian position on economics follows along those lines: we are free to do much as long as it doesn't violate the rights of our fellow man. As Edmund Burke said, “Liberty too must be limited in order to be possessed.” In general, we practically support free trade completely; but we understand that there always must be some guidelines. Libertarianism is not anarchy.

In the ideal setting, as I've said, charities like the church would completely control welfare; but since we don't live in a perfect world, the state and church end up having to fulfill some of the duties of the other.

I agree with this position. There should be some restrictions, but only to protect the rights of others; this would be the best system because it allows everyone to realize their potential but not at the expense of others. Pretty much win-win, it seems.

That's just it, the church will NEVER give money to the needy because there GREEDY and they just made up that whole story so they could control Europe
The thousands of Christian charities and peace groups operating globally kind of disprove your theory.

The thousands of Christian charities and peace groups operating globally kind of disprove your theory.

Yeah, Swimmingpool, that guy was an ignorant troll. Yes, when the church becomes the state, bad things happen. But we don't have a church-state or a theocracy like Iran. We are slightly more sensible, after all.

Sorry to drag this(abortion) back up, but I too am a Libertarian, and came to this political conclusion by Christian principles.

A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the right to life of the actual human being involved [the mother]) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb


Counter example:
Say you own a boat or plane, Others may occupy it with your permission. However, you cannot, in mid journey, change your mind and force them off of it, as doing so would harm them.
If a mother could have a baby extracted from her body without harming the baby, then I would support it, as long as someone else were willing to care for it.

However, I too am wary of a possible "War on Abortion", and am unsure overall whether the the government should allow abortion.

I will probably send a puppet to Mars Hill. Probably one of my old (non-libertarian) nations...

Counter example:
Say you own a boat or plane, Others may occupy it with your permission. However, you cannot, in mid journey, change your mind and force them off of it, as doing so would harm them.
If a mother could have a baby extracted from her body without harming the baby, then I would support it, as long as someone else were willing to care for it.

Along the same lines, is it the baby's fault that it's there? It's like running the boat up against a dock with some people walking on the edge. Eventually, someone will fall in. They wouldn't be trespassing because it would be your fault for getting them there. Now that they're your guest, would you not have a duty to protect them?

This topic has deviated from libertarianism, but I'm really still recruiting. lol

I'm more on the fence, as a libertarian, over abortion. It's not as cut and dry as each side always likes to portray the issue.

I'm more on the fence, as a libertarian, over abortion. It's not as cut and dry as each side always likes to portray the issue.

I haven't completely decided myself either, but I'm trying to resolve it. My mind is still open.

Is anyone else interested in joining my region?