Pages: 1 [2] 3 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Why a Christian should be a Libertarian (Read 8659 times)
|
|
Reaper
|
So, then would the Christian Reconstructionists have to post warnings signs around the entire perimeter of their "freehold" stating if you enter these properties and violate any rule of our bible you agree, in advance that we have the right to execute you, entry beyond this point constitutes consent and understanding?
What if the poor lost wayfaring individual can't read?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Reaper
Proud member of the FSP's lunatic fringe!
"If we turn from battle because there is little hope of victory, where then would valor be? Let it ever be the goal that stirs us, not the odds."
|
|
|
|
Palindrome
|
People who can't read are eaten by life one way or another in any case. I'm not saying I agree that illiterates should be executed, but ignorance does have a way of creeping up behind you and smacking you over the head with an ax.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Herself
|
Reaper,
What's the modern version of Augstine's plea? "Let me be free from being saved from myself -- but not yet!" Sure, say we'll bail out the illiterate -- and then who next? Maybe those atheists?
There's another way: I think "implied consent" ought to be disallowed. Committing to anything of consequence like a way of life, or a job, or a relationship ought to require some clearly delineated volitional act[1]. (And let us, please, leave freewill vs. determinism to another debate). The stranger who staggers into "CR Park," blind drunk, and passes out on a park bench wearing a wool/acrylic scarf should not be liable. Such are the risks of not maintaining a secure perimeter!
Just like the dadratted beer cans the locals leave in my front yard from time to time; if it bothered me enough, I'd put up a fence.
--Herself
_____________________________
1. "There is no such thing as an unchosen obligation."
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 05, 2003, 09:23:42 pm by Herself »
|
Logged
|
Civilization in the United States ended by 1913.
|
|
|
|
Reaper
|
Okay, so a drunken person wanders into the CR freehold wearing a garment for which their religious rules require the death penalty, they execute him and the state must then try them all for murder.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Reaper
Proud member of the FSP's lunatic fringe!
"If we turn from battle because there is little hope of victory, where then would valor be? Let it ever be the goal that stirs us, not the odds."
|
|
|
|
onyx_goddess
|
My angle on the free-hold/religion/death-penalty is slightly different from what I'm reading.
If all freeholders have bound themselves under a particular contract that has the death penalty for certain things, then fine.
If anyone not under that contract comes into the freehold and "violates the contract" he isn't violating any contract because he never bound himself to it. So, obviously he wouldn't be made to pay the same penalty.
So, unless the members of the freehold want to make a nonsense contract, they would have to recognize the possibility of outsiders stumbling in. If we take a non-religious issue, such as "anyone not bound by our freehold contract that stumbles onto our (unfenced) property will be killed", then you can start debating the merits of that rule.
Of course, that could spawn another interesting objectivist debate, because some do believe that anyone stumbling onto your property can be executed immediately. However, I don't bring that up as a red herring, but just to point out that this is being discussed on a religious/death-penalty angle, but in fact it's more a matter of
- what "laws" can a freehold pass
- what is the nature of private property
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Happiness is fleeting
When your heart is barely beating
|
|
|
|
Herself
|
Onyx,
You and I are of the same mind -- I was probably too cutesey in expressing it:
If one is signatory to a freehold's "contract" or "covenant" or whatever, then one is bound by it; if not, not.
The "risk of an unsecured perimeter" I mentioned is the freehold's, not the unwary transgressor's. Our inebrated avatar awakens surrounded by a crowd of outraged freeholders, and is given the bum's rush. They might want to stone him, but being as good a group of FSPers as any, they refrain. Right?
A useful effect of this notion of having to "sign up"is it defines such communities as groups of people, rather than some set place. Slogans like "Such-and-suchville is a state of mind" could be quite real!
This way of delineating communities that wish to follow their own rules is very like the way the Amish go about it; one can only make the committment after reaching a defined age of consent and even then it is revokable, albeit at a high social price.
--Herself
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Civilization in the United States ended by 1913.
|
|
|
|
RhythmStar
|
If a CR freehold did exist would we allow them to carry out their numerous laws which require the death penalty for persons who have done no harm to person or property?
Or would it be the states responsibility to then prosecute all the members of the CR freehold who participated in the "execution" for murder?
And also to Herself's comments... In the original Freehold posting, I suggested a few guidelines. Among them was the limitation that a core set of State laws would be identified that could not be locally repealed. For those laws, the regular State jurisdiction should apply, although perhaps additional local sanctions could be added. Capital punishment was not among the perogatives of the Freehold in local law enforcement, as it is likewise not for counties and cities today (or is that only custom?). And Freehold children had the right to leave anytime after their age of majority. Also, for non-Freeholders, those who violated local statutes that required imprisonment must be expelled instead. Personally, I tend to agree with Herself that convenant-signers are in for a penny, in for a pound with regard to capital punishment, but I am as ambivalent on this as I am on capital punishment itself. So, however it got decided would be fine by me -- I would be unlikely to visit such a place myself either way, and if I did, I would be very careful indeed not to violate local statutes. RS |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House
|
|
|
|
RhythmStar
|
This way of delineating communities that wish to follow their own rules is very like the way the Amish go about it; one can only make the committment after reaching a defined age of consent and even then it is revokable, albeit at a high social price.
--Herself
It was the Amish who gave me the idea to begin with.  RS |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House
|
|
|
|
Reaper
|
Were the Reconstructionists willing to limit their murders to signed in members of their own little society that would be compatible with a libertarian society.
However, it is my opinion having read the essay which ProfG linked (which I am forbidden under penalty of post deletion to quote and refute) that this is not the case.
They clearly make no exceptions for members of other faiths, atheists or homosexuals anywhere, under any circumstances, and not just on their own property either. It's a case of either convert & obey, pretend to convert & obey or be "executed". Please do correct me if I'm wrong here, ProfG.
I do not see how such can be considered to be compatible with a libertarian state by any stretch of the imagination.
I hate to tell you this but not all churches which claim the title "christian" are friendly, nice and caring. There are some (and yes, thankfully in the US they are a minority) that are blatantly violently murderous.
Well, my 2 cents. Here's to hoping it doesn't get deleted for daring to say that not all Christian churches are the nicest people on earth.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Reaper
Proud member of the FSP's lunatic fringe!
"If we turn from battle because there is little hope of victory, where then would valor be? Let it ever be the goal that stirs us, not the odds."
|
|
|
|
Stumpy
|
It will not.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Libertarianitis - A disease where one is incapable of doing anything other than debate. The sufferer is rendered totally incapable of being constructive and constantly marginalizes him or herself by displays of extreme negativity, bitterness and intransigence.
|
|
|
|
onyx_goddess
|
Reaper,
While your post may not get deleted, it was odd in that it seemed like its main purpose was to give you a chance to vent your hate. I don't know why you may have been deleted in the past, but I recommend avoiding the logical fallacies (strawmen), and hateful rhetoric that we've all heard so many times, and stick to discussing the topic at hand. However, I'm going to try and respond to your post as if it didn't suffer from those problems.
I agree with you that if Christians wanted to create their own freehold where "their murders" (i.e. capital punishment) would be self-contained, then that would be totally exceptable.
I think your post touches on the fact that there's a big big difference between a universal government and free-hold contracts. Which is why anarchy appeals to some libertarians. If you don't like the government you're currently under, you should be free to change to another government without having to move to another continent. Any government that doesn't have any sort of opt-out method has this problem whether it's Christian or libertarian.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Happiness is fleeting
When your heart is barely beating
|
|
|
|
Reaper
|
Me venting? Surely you jest!  Okay, seriously, as I stated. If I'm wrong about the objective of the RC then I would hope someone would correct me. We've had RC members post here before, in abundance back when the forums weren't moderated. I am basing my statements on those posts as well as several RC web sites I have visited researching the topic. Apparently "Reconstructionist" refers to their objective to "reconstruct" the old testament style bible government throughout America and ultimately the world. You know, back to the days of the Pharisies (sp?)and Sadduces (sp?) as well as public stonings for all the "crimes" for which the bible indicates such is the proper punishment like adultery, believing in a different or no god, homosexuality, being a rebellious teenager, and many, many more. So because I am an atheist and state so publicly their belief system demands my death, whether I agree/consent or not. Now, why would I be upset about that?  As I said before, please someone "in the know" with RC political thought please do correct me if I'm wrong. I'm not trying to spread false information, this is what I have found in my brief research of the web and the few RC members who used to post here frequently. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Reaper
Proud member of the FSP's lunatic fringe!
"If we turn from battle because there is little hope of victory, where then would valor be? Let it ever be the goal that stirs us, not the odds."
|
|
|
|
onyx_goddess
|
I just don't think the issue of whether a particular government is compatible with libertarianism is an interesting discussion, because in 90% of the cases, the answer is an obvious no.
More interesting questions to me are:
- If a freehold wants to establish a system that has the death penalty, should that be their right?
- If it is their right to enact the death penalty, then under what circumstances can the enclosing state restrict that right?
- What type of opt-out laws should a state have in regards to freeholds?
I personally am not at all offended by other people's belief system that demands my death. I just demand my right to not participate in that belief system in any way.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Happiness is fleeting
When your heart is barely beating
|
|
|
|
RhythmStar
|
FWIW, just last night it occurred to me (yes, I'm suprisingly slow sometimes) that what this concept actually does is introduce the Free Market to systems of governance. Properly applied and practiced, any group without a crying need to dominate all others should be staunch supporters, as it gives them the ability to live in their own ways, without undue friction with the local jurisdiction. In evidence of this, I recently read of the plight of some Amish folk who had bought a house. Local zoning prohibited farm animals, but many Amish had lived in the zone and the custom had been to grant them exemptions for 'religious use' of horses (Amish cannot use cars). Due to changes in local politics, the exemption was denied this homeowner, who now owns a house he cannot reasonably live in. Gee, if we were to make a Free State out of a state with some farming land and pass the freehold laws, we might end up being a haven for religious groups like the Amish, who simply want to find their own brand of freedom in the modern world. I know, it's awfully romantic, but I guess I'm kind of a romanticist at heart. RS |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Irony is the innate perversity of circumstance. -- William House
|
|
|
|
Reaper
|
Yes, and I think that would be good.
The Amish, so far as I have been able to discern, have no desire to force their ways on anyone. They would be excellent additions to a free state.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Reaper
Proud member of the FSP's lunatic fringe!
"If we turn from battle because there is little hope of victory, where then would valor be? Let it ever be the goal that stirs us, not the odds."
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 
|
|
|
 |
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
