What political/economic system promotes religious freedom?

[ThePainefulTruth]

*stages an intervention*

I'm not going to participate in this thread in any depth but I've left a few videos below which should be very informative.

Milton Friedman was a leading proponent of the view that Capitalism is a precondition of Freedom (but I would emphasise he said it does not automatically do so). If you have the time, they are well worth watching regardless as to whether you agree with that view because you will hear these sorts of arguments repeated in many forms accross the media and academia. Where once they were on the fringes in the 1960s and 70s now they are almost mainstream, particuarly in the US and the Tea Party.it's taken decades for these views to become accepted as "fact" whereas before they were looked on as virtually insane. such arguments are very much the product of recent history and do not represent an "eternal" or "natural" view.

The Libertarian Right had an uphill battle changing the public understanding of history from largely Marxist conceptions in which capitalism is responsible for dictatorship, slavery, colonialism, poverty and economic crises to one in which Capitalism was not responsible and in which it was the fault of the government and "socialism". In the Great Depression in the 1930's Communists were very active in intellectual circles in the US and their views did gain quite a foothold in society and many people who were suffering from the depression were willing to hear them out. The ongoing legacy of racism and slavery also meant Communists had alot of sympathy amongst african americans.The McCarthy era was what destroyed it, but even in the 1960s and 70s you had a "New Left" revival. Very often it is portrayed that "Communism" and "Marxism" is an alien force in US politics, but it was very powerful intellectually for many decades and shaped public opinion in the US (and elsewhere) on many issues. the move away from it is still historically only very recent, and many of the view professed by the libertarian right today are not consistent with the views their predecessors would have made in the 19th century. arguing the economics determines politics, and that "free markets" leads to "free societies" is itself a very marxist position and has roots in the far-left criticisms and dissilusionment with the Soviet Union who then switched sides to become pro-capitalism. So this position is only superfically anti-marxist and is not consistent with views from the 19th and 20th centuries that society was "free to chose" to combine democracy and socialism. it is a product of the divisions of the Cold War.

The relationship between Capitalism and Freedom is primarily a debate over definitions and how we interpret the historical record but there are much larger discussions regarding the nature of freedom and power behind them. I don't agree with the OP but I concede there isn't a "silver bullet" against that position. acceptence of complexity and naunce in the argument is the only way to challanging it and recognising it has significant limitations as an understanding of history and politics. over-turning it remains an on-going intellectual challange for the left because it is so persuasive. When the argument that Capitalism is a precondition of Freedom is made with any consistency however, it does sound "counter-intutitive" in places and you can start to build up a picture of anonmilies and weaknesses in the argument. those are the areas worth looking into and discussing because it doesn't always make sense.

Oh, and Thanks @allfoak (being away from RF has been pretty good so far).

Spoiler: Capitalism and Freedom?

I generally agree with the first two paragraphs, especially the encapsulation of Milton Friedman on freedom and capitalism. Though I don't know what you're referring to when you say that the US has recently been moving away from from (socialism). Every time the Constitution is ignored, if favors the left.

The last paragraph is very short on specifics, which is particularly noticeable when you say you disagree with the OP but don't really come up with a reason why, much less a silver bullet. Wouldn't that at the very least be an indication for the need to remain uncommitted? BTW, the move in the 60s and 70s to the new left was ironically initiated by the most corrupt and racist president in our history, LBJ. He sold the socialist War on Poverty and Great Society programs to his racist cohorts by convincing them it would keep the (blacks) down on the Plantation and voting Democrat for 200 years. 50 years and counting. He turned the meaning of "liberal" on its head.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

BTW, I think my point about there being no capitalist dictators is a good one. Technically, a benevolent "dictator" could be a capitalist and thus promote freedom in his country. Why do you suppose it almost never works out that way? Power > corruption pretty much says it all. How many people in the history of the world would decline the crown of their country if it was offered to them? And if you found one (Washington), would even he have remained uncorrupted by it? I suspect he knew that.

We must deliver ourselves from temptation.

 

[Laika]

I generally agree with the first two paragraphs, especially the encapsulation of Milton Friedman on freedom and capitalism. Though I don't know what you're referring to when you say that the US has recently been moving away from from (socialism). Every time the Constitution is ignored, if favors the left.

The "rhetoric" of Ronald Reagan was a dramatic shift to the Right, but in many respects he was a strong supporter of "big government", particuarly the increasing military budget, and the dramatic expansion of the US prison population. Where we have moved to the right is that the government has stopped supporting the people (through welfare/social security) and instead supports corporations ("corporate welfare"). Libertarians would call this Socialism but the Marxist definition of socialism does not simply mean big government but specifically refers to the class character of the state. This is why Marxists will say Nazism is Capitalist (because it was an anti-communist system that endorsed big bussiness, suppression of trade unions and workers rights and helped increased the size of corporations by eliminating competition laws) whereas Libertarians would say Nazism was "socialist" (because it involved economic planning, regulation of the market, and- as hinted above- a support for "corporate capitalism"). Marxists would also describe the UK labour Partys reforms in 1945 and FDR's New Deal in the US as "Capitalist". There is a massive gulf between the definitions (and why so often discussions can be at cross purposes). we're not really speaking the same [political] language.

The last paragraph is very short on specifics, which is particularly noticeable when you say you disagree with the OP but don't really come up with a reason why, much less a silver bullet. Wouldn't that at the very least be an indication for the need to remain uncommitted? BTW, the move in the 60s and 70s to the new left was ironically initiated by the most corrupt and racist president in our history, LBJ. He sold the socialist War on Poverty and Great Society programs to his racist cohorts by convincing them it would keep the (blacks) down on the Plantation and voting Democrat for 200 years. 50 years and counting. He turned the meaning of "liberal" on its head.

I have reconsidered my views. I've been reading Hayek's the Road to Serfdom, some parts of Freidman's Capitalism and Freedom, part of Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness and the Anarcho-Capitalist tract, "The Market for Liberty" (over about a four year period). Rand did actually have quite a strong effect because it make me reconsider the very "religious" overtones of expecting people to be selflessness and I soon realised that view is compatable with Marxism too. Anarcho-Capitalism was also intruging because it overlapped with many ideas from Marxism (e.g. Self-ownership treats people as property and I've found that useful when thinking about the relationship between private property and individual liberty and whether "Communism" is slavery by denying self-ownership). The problem is that I don't agree on the definition of "freedom" that is spelled out by these authors.

In the case of Rand, she would argue that there are no economic rights beyond the right to private property. She would insist that government support is not "freedom" but is dependence and therefore submission to the state. If someone is starving because they don't have a job and can't get one- I don't call that freedom and support the government providing soup kitchens, food stamps (at least a tempory solution till they can get employment). That reflects much deeper philosophical differences which I'm having to explore.

BTW, I think my point about there being no capitalist dictators is a good one.

I can give you examples of where "capitalists" behave in dictatorial ways, but I'm fairly certain we won't agree because of the difference in definitions. For example, The Medici family in Florence, Italy were bankers who monopolised power and eventually used their powers of patrongage so a Medici became a Pope. it is often cited in Marxist literature as evidence of early capitalism during the Italian Rennaissence. The British East India Company was essentially a single large corporation that- through a mixture of buying the favour of local princes and military conquest- was able to colonise the whole of India. It was only taken into state ownership by the British government because of Bankcruptcy. As in the first video in my previous post, Frediman brings up the example of Pinochet's market reforms using students of the Chicargo School of Economics. Closer to home in the UK the enclosure acts in the 18th and 19th century stripped people of access to the common lands and privatised them (and could be regarded as a form of "theft" from the people- but again, it hinges in whether you think common property or private property takes precedence). The United States has supported various dictatorships which have defended capitalist interests (such as various governments in Guatemala backed by the United Fruit Company). Boris Yeltsin outlawed the Communist Party and suspended the Russian Parliament in the later years of his rule to protect the on-going market reforms. The Republic of (South) Korea was a military dictatorship under Park Chung-Hee from 1961 to 1979 spurred massive economic growth in the country. etc, etc, etc.

There are alot of examples where dictatorial methods have been employed to serve the interests of a capitalist class. However, the struggle over definitions takes precedence and so we will agree over whether or not those examples are relevant.

Technically, a benevolent "dictator" could be a capitalist and thus promote freedom in his country. Why do you suppose it almost never works out that way? Power > corruption pretty much says it all. How many people in the history of the world would decline the crown of their country if it was offered to them? And if you found one (Washington), would even he have remained uncorrupted by it? I suspect he knew that.

We must deliver ourselves from temptation.

"Never" is a strong word. There are instances of Enlightened Absolutism in the 18th and 19th centuries, where Monarchs pursued relatively liberal policies for the time. Oliver Cromwell declined the crown of the United Kingdom and became Lord Protector, during the English Republic (or Commowealth) (1649-1660). In more recent history, Juan Carlos I of Spain introduced Reforms which dismantled General Franco's dictatorship and re-introduced Democracy and established a constitutional Monarchy. The reforms of Mihkail Gorbachev were also very dramatic but the shift to "democracy" away from Communist Party rule was an unintended consequences of his reforms.

There are again plenty of examples to contradict the view that power naturally corrupts. The problem is not the evidence but its interpretation and whether corruption by power is the exception or the rule. Many of the arguments for capitalism and freedom are highly selective and what at first is self-evident can later appear MUCH more complex with deeper research.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The "rhetoric" of Ronald Reagan was a dramatic shift to the Right, but in many respects he was a strong supporter of "big government", particuarly the increasing military budget, and the dramatic expansion of the US prison population.

Fulfilling constitutional mandates, i.e. national defense, aren't a move toward big government. His main fault was increasing spending, though his tax cuts were a major source of prosperity. And I agree the increase in the prison population was wrong, but only because the increase was mostly due to the BS war on drugs--a religious issue.

Where we have moved to the right is that the government has stopped supporting the people (through welfare/social security) and instead supports corporations ("corporate welfare").

Clinton was the only one to cut welfare benefits, at the behest of the Republicans, but it didn't last. We're even advertising food stamps now.

Libertarians would call this Socialism but the Marxist definition of socialism does not simply mean big government but specifically refers to the class character of the state. This is why Marxists will say Nazism is Capitalist (because it was an anti-communist system that endorsed big bussiness, suppression of trade unions and workers rights and helped increased the size of corporations by eliminating competition laws) whereas Libertarians would say Nazism was "socialist" (because it involved economic planning, regulation of the market, and- as hinted above- a support for "corporate capitalism"). Marxists would also describe the UK labour Partys reforms in 1945 and FDR's New Deal in the US as "Capitalist". There is a massive gulf between the definitions (and why so often discussions can be at cross purposes). we're not really speaking the same [political] language.

All government, technically, is socialism. It becomes BIG government as it expands beyond it's mandates and uses irresponsible spending. Nazis were socialist because they assumed de facto ownership of the means of production via bureaucratic controls. The US has been an increasingly fascist country since FDR with "W" being responsible for some of its greatest expansion in bureaucracy and spending. And let's not forget one of the greatest tools of government control of the people and corporations is the income tax, which got up to 70% under Carter. And now, for corporations and some individuals without loopholes, it's become so expensive, corporations refuse to pay the political parties under the table and just move out of the country.

Marxists would call the New Deal "capitalist". Socialists always accuse their opponents of what they're doing in order to undercut being accused of it. Besides trashing the dictionary first, that's their most commonly used tactic.

I have reconsidered my views. I've been reading Hayek's the Road to Serfdom, some parts of Freidman's Capitalism and Freedom, part of Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness and the Anarcho-Capitalist tract, "The Market for Liberty" (over about a four year period). Rand did actually have quite a strong effect because it make me reconsider the very "religious" overtones of expecting people to be selflessness and I soon realised that view is compatable with Marxism too. Anarcho-Capitalism was also intruging because it overlapped with many ideas from Marxism (e.g. Self-ownership treats people as property and I've found that useful when thinking about the relationship between private property and individual liberty and whether "Communism" is slavery by denying self-ownership). The problem is that I don't agree on the definition of "freedom" that is spelled out by these authors.

Well then what do you call freedom? Complete freedom only lasts until you come across those who start filling the power voids. My definition of the most freedom with the greatest good order, is with a government protecting the equal rights of all individuals to life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud. IOW, the freedom to be as dumb as you want, on your own dime. And we're only self-owners because it's either that or somebody or some other entity assumes that "ownership".

In the case of Rand, she would argue that there are no economic rights beyond the right to private property. She would insist that government support is not "freedom" but is dependence and therefore submission to the state. If someone is starving because they don't have a job and can't get one- I don't call that freedom and support the government providing soup kitchens, food stamps (at least a tempory solution till they can get employment). That reflects much deeper philosophical differences which I'm having to explore.

Even Jefferson advocated, as I do, earned assistance for able-bodied workers.

I can give you examples of where "capitalists" behave in dictatorial ways, but I'm fairly certain we won't agree because of the difference in definitions. For example, The Medici family in Florence, Italy were bankers who monopolised power and eventually used their powers of patrongage so a Medici became a Pope. it is often cited in Marxist literature as evidence of early capitalism during the Italian Rennaissence. The British East India Company was essentially a single large corporation that- through a mixture of buying the favour of local princes and military conquest- was able to colonise the whole of India. It was only taken into state ownership by the British government because of Bankcruptcy. As in the first video in my previous post, Frediman brings up the example of Pinochet's market reforms using students of the Chicargo School of Economics. Closer to home in the UK the enclosure acts in the 18th and 19th century stripped people of access to the common lands and privatised them (and could be regarded as a form of "theft" from the people- but again, it hinges in whether you think common property or private property takes precedence). The United States has supported various dictatorships which have defended capitalist interests (such as various governments in Guatemala backed by the United Fruit Company). Boris Yeltsin outlawed the Communist Party and suspended the Russian Parliament in the later years of his rule to protect the on-going market reforms. The Republic of (South) Korea was a military dictatorship under Park Chung-Hee from 1961 to 1979 spurred massive economic growth in the country. etc, etc, etc.

There are alot of examples where dictatorial methods have been employed to serve the interests of a capitalist class. However, the struggle over definitions takes precedence and so we will agree over whether or not those examples are relevant.

I see no problem with definitions here. I have always advocated regulating corporations using the same principles (my government mandate above) we apply to individuals. Some libertarians argue that all monopolies are government caused or supported somehow. I disagree, and see the need for anti-trust laws.

"Never" is a strong word. There are instances of Enlightened Absolutism in the 18th and 19th centuries, where Monarchs pursued relatively liberal policies for the time. Oliver Cromwell declined the crown of the United Kingdom and became Lord Protector, during the English Republic (or Commowealth) (1649-1660). In more recent history, Juan Carlos I of Spain introduced Reforms which dismantled General Franco's dictatorship and re-introduced Democracy and established a constitutional Monarchy. The reforms of Mihkail Gorbachev were also very dramatic but the shift to "democracy" away from Communist Party rule was an unintended consequences of his reforms.

Well first, I said almost never, and I'll insist that it is rare. Look around the world we have today for examples of benevolent dictators vs the usual. BTW, honorable capitalists are much more common than most leftists will admit to, primarily because socialists don't believe in private capital in the first place.

There are again plenty of examples to contradict the view that power naturally corrupts. The problem is not the evidence but its interpretation and whether corruption by power is the exception or the rule. Many of the arguments for capitalism and freedom are highly selective and what at first is self-evident can later appear MUCH more complex with deeper research.

Again, look around. Oppressive dictatorships, oligarchies and theocracies abound, but the only example of anything like a benevolent dictatorship that I can think of is Oman--and he controls the press and allows torture/inhumane treatment of political prisoners. Your examples span hundreds of years, and how well have you looked in the closets of those countries. Power certainly has a massive advantage over those with power who listen to their conscience.

 

[Laika]

@ThePainefulTruth I don't really want to go much deeper into this subject. Given that several members requested my input, I felt offering some counter-examples in this thread is enough to keep the discisson going and give them something to think about and look into. I strongly expect we could go on for another ten pages and we won't reach a consensus, so I'm more than happy to leave it as it is.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

@ThePainefulTruth I don't really want to go much deeper into this subject. Given that several members requested my input, I felt offering some counter-examples in this thread is enough to keep the discisson going and give them something to think about and look into. I strongly expect we could go on for another ten pages and we won't reach a consensus, so I'm more than happy to leave it as it is.

I'm sure that's gonna come as a great disappointment to those who greatly miss your perspective which was unique to all others on this message board and which you always presented with intelligence, insight and care--to paraphrase.

I hope you don't take this as an insult or an attempt to goad you to keep posting, but if you indeed were a popular figure, it appears less due to any attempt on your part to pursue the Truth and more of an effort at seeking a philosophical balance, which often presents as the appearance of Truth, but is little more than tapping into feelings. That's not a criticism unless the connection there was intended, in which case you'd be a world-class cynic.

As I've said, for me Truth is God. But it's becoming increasingly apparent that for many, balance is God, which is of course worthless for becoming acquainted with Truth.

 

[blue taylor]

....or promotes freedom in general?

Given that the options are some brand of socialism, capitalism, or anarchy, it seems obvious that anarchy would allow (as opposed to promoting) the greatest degree of freedom. But a power vacuum will always be filled--first at the local level, then proceed to an upper national form. Such chaos and lack of structure to engender good order will rarely if ever take a benign form.

Power corrupts, and the greater the concentration of power in government, it will evolve into an inevitably corrupt system which is socialist by any definition. "But wait", you say, "dictatorships and monarchies aren't socialist". Really? What are they if not government control, and the bigger the government, the worse the control. Fascism and National Socialism (Nazism) are merely where government controls business rather than owning it--a distinction without a meaningful difference.

How many capitalist dictators/monarchs are there? While theoretically possible, the answer is zero, keeping in mind that fascism is effectively socialism. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all dictators. George Washington, amazingly, declined to be crowned.

"But wait, but wait", you say, "under capitalism, the corporations are just another form of corrupt government." That's, true, if left to their own devices, but then that isn't capitalism in the first place. Capitalism is where the Rule of Law is administered by the government equally and fairly on both individuals and corporations. A legal double-standard is the root of all evil. If government sells special status, the capitalist system fails. It's not a perfect system either, but it's the easiest to keep watch over. And the tell that it's failing is when economic and religious freedom are increasingly limited, and the aforementioned double-standard increases.

"But wait, but wait, but wait", you say. "What does that have to do with religious freedom?" I only split them up to show that they are two sides of the same coin. One side is labeled socialism, and the other, theocracy. The only difference is the language and the politically correct rationalizations. It doesn't matter what you call it, or the demagoguery you use to sell it, the goal is the same, government control. So you have the elite, the useful idiots (who idiotically believe they're part of the elite), and the rest of us. Who are you?

Libertarianism. Nothing else comes even close.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Libertarianism. Nothing else comes even close.

Well yes, but we all have to come to that conclusion logically. (sigh)

 

[Frank Merton]

Libertarianism has surface appeal to the sophomoric. That is all.

There is no perfect government, and all we can do is try to improve how institutions function. In the US that would involve eliminating all political parties. Put the candidates up on a randomized list and hold a series of elections, each time eliminating all who fall below a certain percent of the vote, until someone gets a majority.

The protection of freedom of religion (and for that matter freedom from religion for those who don't believe) from majority dictatorship requires strong independent courts drawing on a bill of rights much better constructed than the monstrosity that is in the present Constitution. As things are now the Supreme Court has been politicized (the Democrats are responsible for that because of the Bork affair where they rejected a qualified candidate for mainly political reasons). However, the present behavior of the Republicans in not even considering someone who seems eminently qualified is just as bad.

 

[blue taylor]

Libertarianism has surface appeal to the sophomoric. That is all.

There is no perfect government, and all we can do is try to improve how institutions function. In the US that would involve eliminating all political parties. Put the candidates up on a randomized list and hold a series of elections, each time eliminating all who fall below a certain percent of the vote, until someone gets a majority.

The protection of freedom of religion (and for that matter freedom from religion for those who don't believe) from majority dictatorship requires strong independent courts drawing on a bill of rights much better constructed than the monstrosity that is in the present Constitution. As things are now the Supreme Court has been politicized (the Democrats are responsible for that because of the Bork affair where they rejected a qualified candidate for mainly political reasons). However, the present behavior of the Republicans in not even considering someone who seems eminently qualified is just as bad.

Libertarianism is flexible. The goal is the smallest government possible and the most freedom possible. It's just a goal, never to be a reality.

 

[Frank Merton]

Libertarianism is flexible. The goal is the smallest government possible and the most freedom possible. It's just a goal, never to be a reality.

The smallest government possible and the most freedom possible. What does that mean? It is a slogan, not a policy.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Libertarianism has surface appeal to the sophomoric. That is all.

Well, I'm glad we settled that.

There is no perfect government, and all we can do is try to improve how institutions function.

The key problem is the electorate, which for any benevolent system to work, has to have integrity--instead of selling out for bread and circuses and wallowing in class hatred/warfare/jealousy.

 

[Laika]

I'm sure that's gonna come as a great disappointment to those who greatly miss your perspective which was unique to all others on this message board and which you always presented with intelligence, insight and care--to paraphrase.

I hope you don't take this as an insult or an attempt to goad you to keep posting, but if you indeed were a popular figure, it appears less due to any attempt on your part to pursue the Truth and more of an effort at seeking a philosophical balance, which often presents as the appearance of Truth, but is little more than tapping into feelings. That's not a criticism unless the connection there was intended, in which case you'd be a world-class cynic.

As I've said, for me Truth is God. But it's becoming increasingly apparent that for many, balance is God, which is of course worthless for becoming acquainted with Truth.

see you round.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Was that Marxist-Leninist thing there before? I can't believe I missed it. Nice pic btw--cynicism personified. He hasn't got a genuine bone in his body, except in his asides to the audience. The polar opposite of your avatar. More balance I guess.

 

[Frank Merton]

Was that Marxist-Leninist thing there before? I can't believe I missed it. Nice pic btw--cynicism personified. He hasn't got a genuine bone in his body, except when he's talking to the audience. The polar opposite of your avatar. More balance I guess.

I think I'm a Leninist of sorts but not a Marxist. Marx was an economic philosopher with the mistaken idea that if you raise people in an ideal economic system they will be generous and not greedy. Lenin was a political philosopher who believed the best government was, after the Platonic idea, one of a special few who all know each other personally and who are carefully selected from among the educated and the loyal. China and Vietnam today have abandoned Marxism (at least for the time being) but are both Leninist. They both have the problem that the select few who govern (party members) are not from the best but a self-serving aristocracy determined to hold power rather than really serve.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I think I'm a Leninist of sorts but not a Marxist. Marx was an economic philosopher with the mistaken idea that if you raise people in an ideal economic system they will be generous and not greedy. Lenin was a political philosopher who believed the best government was, after the Platonic idea, one of a special few who all know each other personally and who are carefully selected from among the educated and the loyal. China and Vietnam today have abandoned Marxism (at least for the time being) but are both Leninist. They both have the problem that the select few who govern (party members) are not from the best but a self-serving aristocracy determined to hold power rather than really serve.

An excellent description of an elite class with its inevitable legal/moral double standards. That's the bane of every government, from a one world government all the way down to the tribe. Yes, as I've pointed out, China had to finally acknowledge the necessity of protecting property rights--odd since that goes against the core principle of Marxism on the road to utopia. And Lenin's reliance on a double-standard elite actually keeps the worst of both worlds. Lenin's cynicism undermined whatever he might have accomplished. The useful idiot is ascribed to him, even though such record of his reference to same has been "lost". It's still indicated by its legendary attribution, and the fact that we can't find an alternative author. And oh yeah, it fits.

 

[blue taylor]

The smallest government possible and the most freedom possible. What does that mean? It is a slogan, not a policy.

It means exactly what it says. Less control, more freedom. Not always great, but you are free to believe what you want and to join others like you.

 

[Frank Merton]

It means exactly what it says. Less control, more freedom. Not always great, but you are free to believe what you want and to join others like you.

There are many levels of "freedom" and what you say strikes me as too simple. First, there are freedoms we might like to have but are not possible, such as the ability to see through solid walls, or to fly without technology, or the ability to touch someone and heal their sicknesses. This shows that complete "freedom" is not possible in a physical setting.

Second, there are freedoms that society tries to prevent, such as crimes and public nuisances.

Third, there are freedoms we are allowed but for our own ethical reasons we refrain from, such as smoking in public or using a hand phone at the opera. I even go so far as to take an antihistamine before going to any public event so that I won't cough.

Freedom of opinion, including freedom of religion, is generally tolerated in modern secular societies, although one risks one's life to have the "wrong" opinions in many Muslim countries. Acting on those opinions or beliefs, however, is another matter. The most extreme example would be a belief in human sacrifice, something no modern society would tolerate (at least I would hope), and even animal sacrifices are now considered unacceptable. There are many other beliefs, such as denying health care to a child, that more and more the state feels it has a right to interfere with.

My biggest problem with libertarianism, however, is that it is isolationist, and I think no nation today can be an entity to itself and that all are morally obliged to do what they can to prevent brutal government and other international evils. I have similar negative feelings about libertarianism's opposition to foreign aid (although of course it could be a lot more intelligently done). It's economic attitudes toward the domestic poor is another problem. This is a difficult thing, since of course welfare builds dependency, but a doctrinaire opposition to all welfare is to me wrong.

 

[blue taylor]

There are many levels of "freedom" and what you say strikes me as too simple. First, there are freedoms we might like to have but are not possible, such as the ability to see through solid walls, or to fly without technology, or the ability to touch someone and heal their sicknesses. This shows that complete "freedom" is not possible in a physical setting.

Second, there are freedoms that society tries to prevent, such as crimes and public nuisances.

Third, there are freedoms we are allowed but for our own ethical reasons we refrain from, such as smoking in public or using a hand phone at the opera. I even go so far as to take an antihistamine before going to any public event so that I won't cough.

Freedom of opinion, including freedom of religion, is generally tolerated in modern secular societies, although one risks one's life to have the "wrong" opinions in many Muslim countries. Acting on those opinions or beliefs, however, is another matter. The most extreme example would be a belief in human sacrifice, something no modern society would tolerate (at least I would hope), and even animal sacrifices are now considered unacceptable. There are many other beliefs, such as denying health care to a child, that more and more the state feels it has a right to interfere with.

My biggest problem with libertarianism, however, is that it is isolationist, and I think no nation today can be an entity to itself and that all are morally obliged to do what they can to prevent brutal government and other international evils. I have similar negative feelings about libertarianism's opposition to foreign aid (although of course it could be a lot more intelligently done). It's economic attitudes toward the domestic poor is another problem. This is a difficult thing, since of course welfare builds dependency, but a doctrinaire opposition to all welfare is to me wrong.

To each their own. I didn't advocate libertarianism, I just answered the thread.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

There are many levels of "freedom" and what you say strikes me as too simple. First, there are freedoms we might like to have but are not possible, such as the ability to see through solid walls, or to fly without technology, or the ability to touch someone and heal their sicknesses. This shows that complete "freedom" is not possible in a physical setting.

Second, there are freedoms that society tries to prevent, such as crimes and public nuisances.

The freedom specified is that provided by a government to protect the equal rights of all to life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud. That's it, nothing more, and citizens can't demand more.

Third, there are freedoms we are allowed but for our own ethical reasons we refrain from, such as smoking in public or using a hand phone at the opera. I even go so far as to take an antihistamine before going to any public event so that I won't cough.

Antihistamines don't relieve chest congestion. And we can't legislate against all obnoxious behavior. Non moral issues such as those are ones of virtue, to which social pressure, or other measures (such as tghe oper officials ejecting the cougher), can be liberally applied

Freedom of opinion, including freedom of religion, is generally tolerated in modern secular societies, although one risks one's life to have the "wrong" opinions in many Muslim countries.

Then you agree that Sharia Law makes Islam, which requires its adherents to support its institution, morally unacceptable.

Acting on those opinions or beliefs, however, is another matter

Sharia Law isn't an opinion.

The most extreme example would be a belief in human sacrifice, something no modern society would tolerate (at least I would hope), and even animal sacrifices are now considered unacceptable. There are many other beliefs, such as denying health care to a child, that more and more the state feels it has a right to interfere with.

Neither individual, corporation, government nor religion can involuntarily violate those inherent rights I listed above.

My biggest problem with libertarianism, however, is that it is isolationist, and I think no nation today can be an entity to itself and that all are morally obliged to do what they can to prevent brutal government and other international evils.

I agree on the isolationism, the world is too small today, and we've become too vulnerable. S'why I'm not a big L libertarian. But there are also limitations on being the world's police force, the first of which is monetary assets. And the second is all those moral relativists that say genocide is ok because who is anyone else to say they are wrong.

I have similar negative feelings about libertarianism's opposition to foreign aid (although of course it could be a lot more intelligently done). It's economic attitudes toward the domestic poor is another problem. This is a difficult thing, since of course welfare builds dependency, but a doctrinaire opposition to all welfare is to me wrong.

I agree there too except about the poor, at least in the US, where there are only those who are voluntarily poor. The average welfare queen, with all the luxuries she has, is very wealthy in the eyes of genuinely poor in the world who often don't even know where their next drink of clean water is coming from. And aid often gets hijacked by the country's corrupt (socialist) elite.