@onefodderunit but was the Bolshevik revolution done in the name of atheism? What i'm trying to say is that atheism does not have a political, social, economic, and judicial system like for example Islam does. So it is not the problem my friend.
War junkies are no friend of mine. Atheism is definitely a problem. Freedom is Divine, Endowed by our Creator. Atheists hate the Creator and nothing is sacred in Atheism.
@onefodderunit You can't hate what you don't believe exists. You should educate yourself on what the term "atheist" actually means. Those who reject the positive claims of gods existing are NOT a homogenous group by any stretch of the imagination. The observable, documented, and undeniable fact that the church has nearly always been decades behind positive shifts in society's morality should tell you something about the fallacy that morality comes from god.
Of all the whacky beliefs of man, the Atheist faith that inanimate matter materialized itself, formed the universe, then animated itself with life, is the stupidest.
Atheists have faith that life is pointless unintended byproduct, but not nearly enough of you idiots are killing yourselves. Selfish pricks.
@onefodderunit Well, your first mistake is that you said Atheist faith. I do not have faith that there is no god. You don't have faith that there is no Zeus. Atheism is not about a claim that there is no god, it is a rejection of the claim that there is.
Life may indeed by an unintended byproduct of chemistry. But that does not mean it is pointless. Life has more meaning than ever to an atheist, which is why we do not go around killing people, but theists do!
When you lie to yourself, you're insulting yourself, and no one else.
You have faith that despite the obvious fact all life is a creation of conscious intent, and only intelligence can design and create; There was was no intelligence or conscious intent involved in the origin of the universe or life.
You can't even admit your Atheist faith that life was never meant to be. That's how messed up your faith is. You have to lie to yourself to keep it.
@onefodderunit well, unfortunately, since you believe I am in some way lying to you, there is no way this conversation can continue.
However, you believe all life had a creator. Fine. So you believe that the same creator that made you also made the parasite that is borrowing into the eye of a young, starving African child at this very moment. You believe that this creator, with all his knowledge, decided to have you breath, talk, and eat through the same orifice, meaning you can choke to death
@onefodderunit Also, you keep calling it faith. It is not faith at all, it is the rejection of your claim. I don't understand how you are not understanding that. Atheism is not a religion in the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby, or not playing football is a sport. Atheism has no dogma, no holy book, no deity, and makes no claims.
Unfortunately, your lie is not just hurting yourself. It is hurting all of humanity.
@onefodderunit Human life is sacred in Secular Humanism, which is a natural progression of Atheism. I wonder where you are getting these opinions. I assume you believe in freedom of religion, yet you seem to be offended by the very notion that some people choose not to participate in your brand of fairy tales.
But you made a claim, that all existence is from a divine creator. Prove it. That is all we ask, that you back up the claim with proof, and stop appealing to authority.
There is no evidence that inanimate matter is self-materializing. There is no evidence that inanimate matter can self-arrange into galaxies, solar systems. There is no evidence that inanimate matter is self animating. Life is a force, not a chemical compound.
You have to be incredibly self-deluding to be convinced that your rejection of intelligence (the only designer & creator) is anything but faith based.
What do you believe is the purpose of the creation of life?
@onefodderunit Your ignorance of science does not mean that we have no evidence for those claims. There is evidence that matter can assemble itself into galaxies, it is called the force of gravity. So far your argument is simply God of the Gaps, but you are citing things already known by science.
I don't believe the universe owes us a purpose. In fact, all evidence points that there is none. We simply make one for ourselves. Your faith really is the denial of evidence against you
Your Atheist faith is that life is purposeless. There is no scientific theory for the asinine belief that inanimate matter turned itself into life, or that inanimate matter self materialized.
You claim you can explain how galaxies were supposedly created by gravity.
@onefodderunit The scientific explanation on how life came from non-life is called abiogenesis. The explanation on how matter can be materialized lies in Quantum Theory. Particles (matter) comes in and out of existence all the time at that small scale.
The idea that galaxies came together from gravity is not a new or radical idea... It has been proven for something like 50 years. Do you even know enough about science to be having this conversation?
There is no example of matter self materializing. Where do you believe energy originates?
Atheism is the asinine faith that matter preceded and created consciousness.
Mind over matter.
There is no "scientific explanation" for the Atheist fantasy called Abiogensis. There isn't even a scientific theory. You cannot begin to rationalize your wish that inanimate matter turned itself into life.
Still waiting for you to explain how you imagine gravity creates galaxies.
@onefodderunit well, I must say this is the end of our conversation. You continue to assert that atheism is a faith, even though you have been shown it is not. You ignore scientific evidence that I have presented to you.
Worst of all however, after doing a bit of research, it appears you are a holocaust denier. I wish I had this information before engaging in conversation with you. It is painfully obvious your mind works only on faith. No amount of evidence will ever open your eyes.
You have demonstrated common Atheist dishonesty regarding your faith that life is a purposeless consequence of a mythical primordial chemical coincidence, and that inanimate matter materialized itself, then became creator of the universe and humanity.
"Curiosity with Stephen Hawking, Did God Create the Universe? "
there. there is my explanation, backed by every form of evidence available. Our depth of knowledge will continue to grow every year.
Now, prove your position. Stop using straw mans, like "life is purposeless". I never said that. No atheist says that. only ignorant theists such as you say that.
@onefodderunit "Atheism kills The Creator in the Declaration of Independence, the guarantee of Liberty"
Roflmao! Something guaranteeing liberty by virtue of it existence either exists or it doesn't. What humans believe about the matter has no impact on that.
In reality, the constitution defines what "liberty" is, by its contents, and it is the support of the constitution in the population in the US that guarantees/defends its values.
@onefodderunit A government of the people, by the people and for the people, in short. Power is derived from man, not gods. That the US constitution is confused about this is merely evidence that political documents are a poor guide to reasoning about the nature of reality, or as you do, try to use political arguments to restrict reasoning about reality.
Atheist, you were born to be someone's punk. You're a power worshiper who believes inanimate matter is your creator. Inanimate matter is inanimate, Atheist.
@onefodderunit The most laughable part of your argument though, is that it's so trivially false. Obviously there is no transcendental guaranteeer of liberty. If there was, slavery and oppression would be impossible to accomplish in the natural world and there would not be any need to even mention liberty in the constitution.
This man has no understanding of what he is arguing.
The fundamental teachings of Christianity(minus Religion) are very libertarian. Free will is one of the core principles of the the New Testament. Even God does not impose his own will, but offers discrete guidance and direction - either through His Word and "revelation," or through a soft, still voice or conviction in one's conscious. The decision, however, is up to each person. Nor does God "punish," but leaves us to reap what we sow.
But he's not talking about "the fundamental teachings of Christianity," he's talking about how religious people frequently impose their religious values upon the rest of society. I don't see how this would even be arguable.
@CajunCoder Oh really? God didn't set the criteria of who is worthy of heaven and who suffers infinite torture? His rules, His responsibility. It's like me holding a gun to your head and saying believe I am the creator of all things and then claiming you have freewill because you don't HAVE to believe it..
i agree in those general terms. of course, if you're reasonable and believe in freedom it's hard not to. i think if one were to talk about socialism and capitalism the analysis requires more depth. i'm an atheist and a libertarian socialist.
As an independent libertarian, and an atheist, I never understood why so many atheists run to the far-left liberal Democratic Party. I always felt that libertarianism was at the core of true atheism, and it's great to hear Sam Harris say it too. It seems to be more of the ANTI-theists that are the liberals and the ones that want to make govt bigger and have more control by forbidding religion altogether. Govt should be small, allowing ppl to believe what they want if it isn't bothering anyone.
Good riddance to the braying jackass Christ' Hitchens who supported the sanctions and the war of pelf against Iraq. [Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"; Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it." — "60 Minutes" (5/12/96)]
My personal libertarianism spawned my atheism. Growing up in a neo-conservative catholic family, my one constant was hating bullies. god, as the ultimate authority figure, is also the ultimate bully (as depicted many times in the old testament.) I also do not believe in the possibility of a benevolent authority. If Ron Paul became the president, many true libertarians, myself included, would immediately trust him less.
@argenta86 Your understanding of term Libertarian is obviously limited in scope to the United States. I'm inferring from the style of your comment that you're trolling.
I'm a Ayn Rand, Austrian Economics, Milton Friedman Libertarian. Free Market Capitalism, Individual Freedom, No Corporativism(thats ruined USA), No War, No FED(main cause of inflation), No Income Tax.
Social Democracy or Wellfare state can work but aren't sustaintable.
@michaelchristopherj it's more than a little strange to hear a self described socialist call themselves a Libertarian. You may want to pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged if you want to understand libertarianism. In other words are radical individualist (anti collectivist) and capitalist. They are on the opposite end of the ideological divide from socialist like yourself. Just thought you should know.
@copernicanideas I used to think that socialism and libertarianism were opposites, but I learned some time ago that there's a logical pathway from individualism to antistatist socialism. I personally think there are inconsistencies in the later steps of that pathway, but it is there and I know of an apparently influential person who calls himself a libertarian socialist. People like that think that we (libertarians in favor of capitalism) have hijacked the term "libertarian".
@daobagua No, actually I wasn't referring to him. Does Noam Chomsky call himself a libertarian socialist? I was referring to a guy that calls himself Buddhagem on youtube. I said "apparently influential" because he is a prolific video maker/uploader, and there seem to be a lot discussions he's involved in, and so far as I can tell he has some followers.
@LibertyServer I have heard Chomsky say that he is a libertarian and that the word has been tarnished by us evil right wing libertarians (summarizing of course). I watched a Buddhagem vid last night lol. What a coincidence.
@LibertyServer Hey, anarcho-capitalist here. I do believe that voluntary-socialism is compatible with anti-state-capitalism. I would need a lot of convincing to take part in it though. Maybe you would never convince me and I would never convince you that it is better to consider property as an extension of oneself . I think it would be important t figure out how to co-exist in that case.
@atheistworstenemy Libertarian Socialist means a form of anarchy (no state) but the means of production are controlled by the people democratically instead of by private capitalists. It is not a hard concept to grasp.
@LibertyServer Before there was libertarianism, there was anarchism, which was a coherent political philosophy as voiced by Peter Kropotkin. Kropotkin believed that in the absence of authority, people would naturally understand that it is beneficial to co-operate and help each other, because we have evolved as social animals That is different from individualist libertarianism a la Ayn Rand, which denies that we are social animals. Rand was basically a sociopath.
@gspaulsson "Before there was libertarianism...?" Oh spare me the revisionism which pretends history ended in the 1950s. Don't talk to me about Rand - who wasn't even remotely an anarchist. Talk to me about Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, and Max Stirner. Talk to me about Josiah Warren, William Godwin, and Henry David Thoreau. All of whom were individualist anarchists. Or talk to me about - dare I even suggest it? - Murray Rothbard or David Friedman.
@LibertyServer Semantics. Anarchism goes back at least to Proudhon, long before the word libertarianism was coined, and was originally associated with the left, not the right. Proudhon saw relationships based on property as coercive, where libertarians base their ideas on property rights. Rand was a Nietzschian amoralist and elitist, and advocated unrestricted property rights. These ideas can easily degenerate into fascism; in fact, Mussolini started as an anarcho-syndicalist
@gspaulsson No kidding! Proudhon, of course - no need to even say that. But why are you even talking about Rand? She was not an anarchist.... Nor was she a libertarian. She vehemently rejected libertarianism because it allowed for anarchism. So again, why are you talking about Ayn Rand?
@LibertyServer Libertarian Socialism: Where we are from the government AND free market capitalism. Where the democratic control of the people is taking to its logical conclusion.
@LibertyServer Libertarian Socialism: Where we are FREE from the government AND free market capitalism (coercive wage labor). Where the democratic control of the people is taking to its logical conclusion.
@copernicanideas Libertarian has a different meaning that the way it is commonly used in the US. Libertarian socialism is actually one form of socialism. It is similar to the philosophy Gandhi employed.
@copernicanideas Well, if we accept that Libertarianism consists of the axiom that peaceful law abiding people should be left alone, and that all interactions which are consensual are permissible, then I do not see why a group of Libertarians who wished to engage in a socialist model of economic transactions between themselves somehow forfeit their ability to accurately label themselves as libertarians without dissimulation; so long as they do not demand that others do the same.
@copernicanideas There is a big difference between economic libertarianism, and social libertarianism. I think many liberals, and socialists, can agree on social libertarianism. It basically just means that as long as you do no harm to any other person, you have the right to do as you please.
Of course Harris is commenting purely on the idea of libertarianism here. Not the modern american libertarianism that's been hijacked by uneducated sociopaths.
@Atrocitas6 Oh great, another person who hates the idea of freedom. American libertarians have a different way of looking at morality. Most of them are not "sociopaths" because they do not wish to aggress upon other human beings. An absurd comment. That is the core tenet of "right"-libertarianism.
A good primer on understanding the "right"-lib mindset is to google "the science of libertarian morality".
@BadgeringTheWitness1 In a libertarian free market society, there are winners and losers. Libertarians have a huge hole in their ideology morally when they imply that we do nothing with the ones who dont win the capitalists game. That is where your Ayn Rand absurdities come into question. It is not moral to let people starve, live in extreme poverty, and not afford healthcare. Libertarain morality is simply the absence of morality altogether. aside from some desperate attempts to make anti-moral
@SelfAware1 Really? You seem to be caught in a bit of a performative contradiction here. You realize that there are starving people all across the globe, correct? And assuming you are living above a subsistence level, you have the means to extinguish some of their suffering. Yet you choose not to.
I'm not saying it is moral to let people starve; hardly any libertarian says that. What they do say is that people shouldn't be enslaved in order to further a noble goal.
@michaelchristopherj You waste the same amount of time, if not more, by defining the label because it's already lost all meaning. Better to talk about the issue than the label. This happens in politics all the time and it's why people are so hopelessly confused and ill informed.
@jacksawild Some people understand the definitions though. And for those people, the definitions are very useful. That's like asking to strip all definitions just because some are too ambiguous. There are plenty of people that are ignorant of plenty of definitions, doesn't mean we should toss them. That's their problem.
@michaelchristopherj No, when the majority of your nation is informed by the media who continually skew the definitions then it's everybody's problem. How many wars has America fought based on propagandised labels? Communism, Drugs and Terror are the three big ones which people just do not understand because of the crap they are fed about them in the name of national pride. I have a label for you: jingoism.
I'm a libertarian atheist. To say that libertarians are "conservative" on economic issues is just awful and in many cases not true (I hope). If you're interested, read Roderick Long's article "Wild Cards" for a quick discussion why libertarians are neither liberal nor conservative.
A very even-handed response by Sam Harris. It's absolutely worth noting that libertarians have valid opinions based on their values - doesn't mean we should change the rest of society on their behalf, but they do occasionally bring up good points.
I am a libertarian atheist. I believe consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want without the governent getting in the way. As long as that doesn't directly hurt anyone else.
@skepticalmannn Labels are important or else we wouldn't know what we are. Classical liberalism has a slightly different definition than libertarianism. I'm not a fascist or a Republican because I know what the labels means. I don't see your point.
I've thought about that as well. It's interesting though, I would call myself a libertarian, but I'm more of a Milton Friedman libertarian not a Noam Chomsky libertarian.
@michaelchristopherj Well I agree with you that socialism isn't the opposite of libertarianism, but please tell me of a society that doesn't use government to institute socialism. I agree with people co-owning things privately (because of consent) but using government to bring down rich bastards and make a safety net for dumb ass poor people isn't very libertarian.
I think most atheists are libertarians, albeit libertarian in its original sense (not the American Ron Paul economic Libertarian Party libertarianism). Libertarianism is neither left nor right, but rather down (opposite of authoritarian. I'd say most atheists are probably socially libertarian and economically left. As a socialist, I have no problem calling myself a libertarian.
@michaelchristopherj In trying to meet libertarians and atheists, my wife and I, and other friends, have decided that we're more likely to meet atheists among libertarians rather than libertarians among atheists. How is "socially libertarian and economically left" different than "socially liberal and economically left"? That's just called liberalism, because social issues are where libertarians and liberals tend to agree anyway.
@michaelchristopherj Last I knew (although the poll is rather dated), about 2/3 of American Libertarians believe that government has legitimate uses. But you specified "socially libertarian", which eliminates the biggest issues libertarians and liberals disagree on.
The economic left isn't a gang of organized thugs stealing from people. I believe you've mistaken it for the economic right, which allows organized thugs (corporations) to steal from people.
@michaelchristopherj I oppose corporate welfare with the same veracity I oppose all welfare (or slightly more). As for labor being exploitation, I've mostly heard this argument from anarcho-socialists; it's a pain getting them to back it up in certain terms and I take it to be a very silly proposition.
@michaelchristopherj I dunno. Ron Paul is. I think that's a bit of a loaded question; I don't believe the government should prohibit me from giving my money to certain candidates or limit my political speech (money is not political speech; making political movies is, which is what Citizens United was actually about).
@michaelchristopherj Modern Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Someone that's socially libertarian and economically left is just your average liberal. You are not a libertarian.
@meloveanna Well, not quite. You're talking about the American Libertarian Party, which was created around 1980. I'm talking about libertarianism as in political theory. In political theory it has nothing to do with economics, which is left (liberal) or right (conservative). Libertarian is down, opposite of authoritarian. To make my point, there is such thing as libertarian socialism, which existed long before the Libertarian Party was even thought of. You should read more.
@IrishLibertyLover In fact he's far more correct then you'd imagine, the first use of 'libertarian' was used by the European anarchist socialist types to describe their ideology, but like most words describing ideologies, the US (especially the right) seems to have changed them all, making it quite hard to describe your position in the spectrum over there.
@Coolguyrob2006 the word libertarian is derived from the Latin word liber, which means free. Considering socialism is slavery, it would be quite incorrect to use the word libertarian to describe a socialist.
@IrishLibertyLover I don't see how slavery could occur in an ideology that promotes radical egalitarianism and participatory democracy over all else, I'm referring to the 'anarchist socialist' ideology here not the Bolshevik corruption of the communist movement.
@Coolguyrob2006 How do propose to have radical egalitarianism without force? How can you have equality without forcing people to work for others needs (i.e slavery)? Democracy is merely a fancy word for saying the majority shall now oppress the minority. How will socialism work without the force of the state?
@IrishLibertyLover Democracy can be a case where the majority oppress the minority, but that's why the Anarchist Socialist support a PARTICIPATORY democracy, and any decision that infringes on another's rights is not allowed as it would break the law. I'm not an anarchist socialist by the way but I find it an interesting ideology, and without seeming like a propaganda peddler there's a short video that expresses the idea it better than I can. g3YLmtQ5roQ
@IrishLibertyLover Also it's not a welfare state, so you are not forced to pay for another's needs. The only thing that's taken with force would be the idea of private ownership of land, which anarchists usually agree was taken with force in the first place (for example, in the UK 69% of the land is still owned by 0.6, the landed gentry whose ancestors got the land from taking it from others in conquest) , however that's not to say that your house is now suspect to all the homeless masses.
@Coolguyrob2006 If your not forced to pay for another's needs how is it socialism? If the land is not in private ownership then how is somebody supposed to build on it? It's actually 50% of the land that they own.
@IrishLibertyLover It's socialism in the sense of worker owned industry which was the original definition, welfare is more accurately social democracy. The problem is though you can't really have this society if everyone thinks like competitive capitalists, so some selflessness and compassion is required, buildings would be built where the community as a whole would benefit, but the assumption is that people won't be dicks and stop a hospital being built because it spoils there view etc.
@Coolguyrob2006 What if the worker decides not too own the industry because he can get more money working for somebody else? By "thinking like competitive capitalists" you mean thinking like a normal human being? You can also have compassion in a capitalist system, if not more compassion. How do we decide where to build landfills, power plants and factories then? Who is going to pay for them to be built?
@IrishLibertyLover By 'competitive capitalist' I'm referring to the Homo Economimus, which is the model which capitalist theory is based on, while the socialists might see Homo Reciprocans instead. I'm not an expert (or town planner) so I can't tell you much more and I'm not going to pretend it's a perfect theory either, hence why I don't follow it (although is any?). I was just standing up for it as best I could, after I felt you were giving it a bad rep that it's an oppressive ideology.
@Coolguyrob2006 Much capitalist theory was devised before Homo Economicus was. Most of the work done after was done by the Austrian School, which devises it's theory from the study of human nature. Well any ideology that forces somebody to use their mind and body towards an end they do not want is oppressive. What I have said about socialism has been entirely truthful.
@michaelchristopherj I am an atheist libertarian. I am curious as to how you can identify as being a libertarian while believing that the state should own all capital and the factors of production etc. It seems to me to be a non-sequitur. I mean no disrespect. I am a capitalist in the Austrian tradition.
@dacrunkqb11 Well, there is a slight hypocracy in the thought that a corporation owning all the capital and means of production, including labor, would be more democratic or at the very least more beneficial to society as a whole (Non business owners, ecology, etc). I feel as though the only truly free way of society would be libertarian socialism, in which, the people would own their own means of production AND capital, as opposed to some distant managerial class ( Gov. or Corporate).
@normalkuriboh People already own their own capital. I just don't own yours and you don't own mine. I'm still not getting it. Would you be willing to tell me more?
@normalkuriboh Do not the laborers who receive wages own whatever they choose to buy with their wages? Including any "capital" they may wish to acquire?
@dacrunkqb11 Yes, but they do not own the factory in which they work. None of the factory workers do; a man wearing a fine Italian suit sitting in a skyscraper located in uptown New York owns it, and every dime created in it. He then pays the workers the smallest wages he is legally obligated and keeps the rest for himself, basically. Why is he necessary? Why is the Board of Directors necessary? Why does his son get to inherit his Corporation when he dies?
-They do have the capability to own the factory, or perhaps a different factory, all the while providing employment and wages for other people he/she hires.
-An owner must exist since it was he/she that built and funds the operations of the factory. A board of directors exists since, depending on the size of a company, overseeing is a big job, too much for one person sometimes.
-Factory workers have a great deal to worry about, I'm not sure they all have the means to chase their dreams of owning a factory. I'm sure a factory worker is also perfectly capable of competing with a multinational conglomerates in the factory business.
-Who brought up minimum wage?
-You have apparently never heard of a workers council. How can you call yourself a lover of liberty, then defend someones right to own others. The only liberty is democracy.
-The government imposes minimum wage laws. And imposes a single fiat currency that hurts the poor and middle class by way of inflation.
-I adhere to the idea that an individual owns him/herself and can do with their selves what they please. The government, or the majority, do not own you.
-Democracy equates to 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what's for dinner. Democracy is anti-liberty for the dissenting minority.
@RunLiberty "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers." Representative Ron Paul, The War on Religion. Happy?
@yellowkrux You're taking that way out of context. He also wrote "Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government." And "Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance". Where's your evidence that Ron Paul wants to use government to push religion on people? I don't think you have any.
@yellowkrux "Read above"...? How illuminating! I pointed out how you took the quote from Ron Paul out of context. Nothing I see above shows that Ron Paul wants to use government to push religion on people. If he really wanted to do that, surely you could find something more convincing.
@LibertyServer No you stated it was taken out of context. However the fact that I didn't post the entire book does not change the meaning of the statement.
" Nothing I see above shows that Ron Paul wants to use government to push religion on people"
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers." Representative Ron Paul, The War on Religion.
@yellowkrux I definitely have problems with his religiosity and his view of the USA as a christian rather than a secular nation. But that is a far cry from claiming that he wants to shove religion down our throats through government force. He doesn't want others shoving atheism down people's throats through government force either.
@LibertyServer So you accept that he openly admits to believing that the government of the United States of America is Christian, yet you claim he has no intention of using the government to shove religion down peoples throats? So why does he claim what is demonstrably untrue? Could it be because it would allow the Government to do something he wants? Like I don't know, shove religion down peoples throats? Is there any other reason you can think of?
@yellowkrux No, it's not a christian government and he doesn't say so. He thinks it's a christian nation, which is not the same. Now, you guess that his reason for not thinking the USA constitution creates a rigid separation is because of something he wants government to do. But maybe he simply has read the constitution and a lot of writings from the founders, and honestly concludes that they didn't intend to create a *rigid* separation. I agree with that conclusion.
@LibertyServer You're right those aren't the same thing Paul how ever does honestly believe that the founders intended a christian government (that allows for other religions). Now he does honestly believe this as do you, however ALL EVIDENCE IS TO THE CONTRARY. I never said he/you didn't believe it, only that it's verifiable untrue.. SO why do YOU believe what is demonstrably untrue? Do you intend to use the government to shove religion down peoples throats? The answer is of course yes.
@yellowkrux That is laughable. If you bother to look at my other videos you will see that I am an atheist. In fact I have always been an atheist. You claim Paul believes the founders intended a christian government. I definitely don't believe that, and I'd like to see any evidence you have that Paul believes it, if you have any.
@yellowkrux Clarification. I just checked and there is only one video I made relating to my atheism. You might easily have missed it. Yet it's there watch?v=XDrrn9k87-Y
@yellowkrux You wrote "Do you intend to use the government to shove religion down peoples throats? The answer is of course yes." That is what's laughable.
@yellowkrux If I didn't give a shit, I wouldn't be discussing this with you. What you claim is evidence just doesn't prove what you seem to think it proves. If you asked me for evidence that the sun is 93 million miles away and I said I cannot reach it even by stretching my arms as high above my head as I can, that would be as good as your so-called "evidence".
@RunLiberty Harris is definitely a statist. He has stated publicly that he is in favor of raising taxes on the rich, and a list of other things that put him squarely in the modern liberal camp.
after this, we can pretty much conclude S harris, doesn't know that much more than the layman about libertarianism. he was caught of gurad with this one.
i am an atheist, and i think being a libertarian is a far greater issue than being an atheist. people's personal views are for them to decide. but when these views infringe on your freedom, then its a real problem
The state itself is just a belief. It is not a physical entity or a consequence of a natural la, the very existence of the state is build on "superstition". If your argument against libertarianism is just saying it is "childish" to believe that the education system should be privatized than please start reading on the material. At least you can add some value in comments.
Somehow I doubt Sam Harris is a libertarian. He's too smart for that garbage.
Privatizing the education system--my cat is smarter than that. I myself am a Socialist Libertarian....it's only because of the rise of America's right wing Libertarian party that we even have to specify "Socialist", but it originally meant Anti-Statist Communist/Socialists. Somewhere along the line the word became bastardized to refer to a silly little party run by a senile leprachaun named Ron Paul.
You are correct. Sam Harris is on record as saying that he believes in consequentialist morality. Libertarians believe that rights are inviolable, and that exceptions ought not to be made without the consent of all effected. These two points of view are in opposition to one another.
Beyond that....the Conservative Libertarian/American Libertarian Party's agendas are completely impractical, sociopathic, and would lead a likely _very_ bloody overthrow of the government if they ever came to power.
They worship the Free Market as if it were a benevolent, all-correcting deity with just as much fervor as do the most repugnant of Southern Baptists, really.
Privatization is their cure-all to all of society's woes. And this is just a childish perception
@Eldeecue I'm a libertarian (not affiliated with the party though). The term "free market" refers to non-violent social situations in which exchanges take place. Choosing which spouse you want, choosing what food you want to buy, etc, are all examples of free market decisions. No one is forced to marry at gunpoint, at least in the West.
So there's nothing to worship. It's the idea that non-violence is preferable to violence when interacting with others. You either agree or not.
@Prytanus Fuck that. I'm a consequentalist, if I feel like thinking in terms of ethics at all. Economists solely make consequentalist arguments - you can argue pretty much anything purely on consequentalist grounds. Ultimately consequentalism leads to some mild form of nihilism, since our abilities of calculation are so very limited. Rights may be a practical simplification and good to appeal to personal values (which is what most morals come down to),
@Eldeecue Wow. Best argument I ever heard surely must be "now that's just stupid". Although I admit, I often use it when thinking of statist fantasies...
Private education is the only form of education. Period.
Look at what schools have done to our children. They are about obedience, not about knowledge. If you want to learn something, do something.
If you want to memorize half truths, go to school.
Indeed. Libertarianism has many rules of thumb by which I aspire to live my life. That being said, when someone tries to make these very useful rules of thumb into absolute rights which ought not to be infringed...well we're right back to have problems due to fanaticism.
If you take away the temporal parochialism associated with the word 'conservatism' as it is right now, it is clear that right-libertarianism or, as I like to call, American-libertarianism is inherently conservative. In in its consequentialist form (the only one to be taken seriously) libertarianism has a very negative view about human motivations and rationality and a very narrow description of desert.
I'm not sure I would call libertarianism in any way "conservative" since the conservatives are more nationalistic, love mercantilism, and have nothing to do with freedom of association.
Libertarians tend to agree with conservatives on economic issues, and tend to agree with liberals on personal or social issues. Nationalism: so libertarians tend not to agree with conservatives on that issues, although some do. Mercantilism: most conservatives don't love mercantilism, and when they do almost all libertarians disagree with them. Freedom of Association: many (possibly most) conservatives strongly believe in freedom of association.
I was responding to VisitingXenoc133, who commented on nationalism, mercantilism, and freedom of association. For each subject, I labelled it before a colon and place my comment after the colon.
I agree with you, libertarianism and nationalism are not very compatible - some would even say they are polar opposites.
Our certain, unalienable "right to be left alone" in the USofA is endowed by our Creator according to the Declaration of Independence.
onefodderunit 1 month ago
Bolsheviks were Atheist and most Atheists lean to the left of Freedom.
Darwinism is about to go down for good, this year, 2012, the year of the Electric Universe.
onefodderunit 1 month ago
@onefodderunit but was the Bolshevik revolution done in the name of atheism? What i'm trying to say is that atheism does not have a political, social, economic, and judicial system like for example Islam does. So it is not the problem my friend.
44warjunkie 1 month ago
@44warjunkie
War junkies are no friend of mine. Atheism is definitely a problem. Freedom is Divine, Endowed by our Creator. Atheists hate the Creator and nothing is sacred in Atheism.
onefodderunit 1 month ago
@onefodderunit You can't hate what you don't believe exists. You should educate yourself on what the term "atheist" actually means. Those who reject the positive claims of gods existing are NOT a homogenous group by any stretch of the imagination. The observable, documented, and undeniable fact that the church has nearly always been decades behind positive shifts in society's morality should tell you something about the fallacy that morality comes from god.
VanDammesCokeDealer 1 month ago
@VanDammesCokeDealer
Of all the whacky beliefs of man, the Atheist faith that inanimate matter materialized itself, formed the universe, then animated itself with life, is the stupidest.
Atheists have faith that life is pointless unintended byproduct, but not nearly enough of you idiots are killing yourselves. Selfish pricks.
onefodderunit 1 month ago
@onefodderunit Well, your first mistake is that you said Atheist faith. I do not have faith that there is no god. You don't have faith that there is no Zeus. Atheism is not about a claim that there is no god, it is a rejection of the claim that there is.
Life may indeed by an unintended byproduct of chemistry. But that does not mean it is pointless. Life has more meaning than ever to an atheist, which is why we do not go around killing people, but theists do!
newageathey 1 month ago
@newageathey
When you lie to yourself, you're insulting yourself, and no one else.
You have faith that despite the obvious fact all life is a creation of conscious intent, and only intelligence can design and create; There was was no intelligence or conscious intent involved in the origin of the universe or life.
You can't even admit your Atheist faith that life was never meant to be. That's how messed up your faith is. You have to lie to yourself to keep it.
What is the intent
onefodderunit 1 month ago
@onefodderunit well, unfortunately, since you believe I am in some way lying to you, there is no way this conversation can continue.
However, you believe all life had a creator. Fine. So you believe that the same creator that made you also made the parasite that is borrowing into the eye of a young, starving African child at this very moment. You believe that this creator, with all his knowledge, decided to have you breath, talk, and eat through the same orifice, meaning you can choke to death
newageathey 1 month ago
@onefodderunit Also, you keep calling it faith. It is not faith at all, it is the rejection of your claim. I don't understand how you are not understanding that. Atheism is not a religion in the same way not collecting stamps is a hobby, or not playing football is a sport. Atheism has no dogma, no holy book, no deity, and makes no claims.
Unfortunately, your lie is not just hurting yourself. It is hurting all of humanity.
newageathey 1 month ago
@onefodderunit Human life is sacred in Secular Humanism, which is a natural progression of Atheism. I wonder where you are getting these opinions. I assume you believe in freedom of religion, yet you seem to be offended by the very notion that some people choose not to participate in your brand of fairy tales.
But you made a claim, that all existence is from a divine creator. Prove it. That is all we ask, that you back up the claim with proof, and stop appealing to authority.
newageathey 1 month ago
@newageathey
There is no evidence that inanimate matter is self-materializing. There is no evidence that inanimate matter can self-arrange into galaxies, solar systems. There is no evidence that inanimate matter is self animating. Life is a force, not a chemical compound.
You have to be incredibly self-deluding to be convinced that your rejection of intelligence (the only designer & creator) is anything but faith based.
What do you believe is the purpose of the creation of life?
onefodderunit 1 month ago
@onefodderunit Your ignorance of science does not mean that we have no evidence for those claims. There is evidence that matter can assemble itself into galaxies, it is called the force of gravity. So far your argument is simply God of the Gaps, but you are citing things already known by science.
I don't believe the universe owes us a purpose. In fact, all evidence points that there is none. We simply make one for ourselves. Your faith really is the denial of evidence against you
newageathey 1 month ago
@newageathey
Your Atheist faith is that life is purposeless. There is no scientific theory for the asinine belief that inanimate matter turned itself into life, or that inanimate matter self materialized.
You claim you can explain how galaxies were supposedly created by gravity.
Do it, Atheist.
onefodderunit 1 month ago
@onefodderunit The scientific explanation on how life came from non-life is called abiogenesis. The explanation on how matter can be materialized lies in Quantum Theory. Particles (matter) comes in and out of existence all the time at that small scale.
The idea that galaxies came together from gravity is not a new or radical idea... It has been proven for something like 50 years. Do you even know enough about science to be having this conversation?
newageathey 1 month ago
@newageathey
There is no example of matter self materializing. Where do you believe energy originates?
Atheism is the asinine faith that matter preceded and created consciousness.
Mind over matter.
There is no "scientific explanation" for the Atheist fantasy called Abiogensis. There isn't even a scientific theory. You cannot begin to rationalize your wish that inanimate matter turned itself into life.
Still waiting for you to explain how you imagine gravity creates galaxies.
onefodderunit 1 month ago
@onefodderunit well, I must say this is the end of our conversation. You continue to assert that atheism is a faith, even though you have been shown it is not. You ignore scientific evidence that I have presented to you.
Worst of all however, after doing a bit of research, it appears you are a holocaust denier. I wish I had this information before engaging in conversation with you. It is painfully obvious your mind works only on faith. No amount of evidence will ever open your eyes.
newageathey 1 month ago 4
@newageathey
You have demonstrated common Atheist dishonesty regarding your faith that life is a purposeless consequence of a mythical primordial chemical coincidence, and that inanimate matter materialized itself, then became creator of the universe and humanity.
onefodderunit 1 month ago
@onefodderunit Look up a few things.
"a Universe from Nothing" from Laurence Krauss
and
"Curiosity with Stephen Hawking, Did God Create the Universe? "
there. there is my explanation, backed by every form of evidence available. Our depth of knowledge will continue to grow every year.
Now, prove your position. Stop using straw mans, like "life is purposeless". I never said that. No atheist says that. only ignorant theists such as you say that.
newageathey 1 month ago
@newageathey
Truth will make you free. The universe and consciousness are electric energy. Atoms are as well. Energy is infinite.
Only Atheists argue that life was never meant to be.
onefodderunit 1 month ago
Atheism kills The Creator in the Declaration of Independence, the guarantee of Liberty
onefodderunit 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@onefodderunit "Atheism kills The Creator in the Declaration of Independence, the guarantee of Liberty"
Roflmao! Something guaranteeing liberty by virtue of it existence either exists or it doesn't. What humans believe about the matter has no impact on that.
In reality, the constitution defines what "liberty" is, by its contents, and it is the support of the constitution in the population in the US that guarantees/defends its values.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@onefodderunit A government of the people, by the people and for the people, in short. Power is derived from man, not gods. That the US constitution is confused about this is merely evidence that political documents are a poor guide to reasoning about the nature of reality, or as you do, try to use political arguments to restrict reasoning about reality.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
@Gnomefro
Atheist, you were born to be someone's punk. You're a power worshiper who believes inanimate matter is your creator. Inanimate matter is inanimate, Atheist.
onefodderunit 1 month ago
@onefodderunit The most laughable part of your argument though, is that it's so trivially false. Obviously there is no transcendental guaranteeer of liberty. If there was, slavery and oppression would be impossible to accomplish in the natural world and there would not be any need to even mention liberty in the constitution.
Gnomefro 1 month ago
This man has no understanding of what he is arguing.
The fundamental teachings of Christianity(minus Religion) are very libertarian. Free will is one of the core principles of the the New Testament. Even God does not impose his own will, but offers discrete guidance and direction - either through His Word and "revelation," or through a soft, still voice or conviction in one's conscious. The decision, however, is up to each person. Nor does God "punish," but leaves us to reap what we sow.
CajunCoder 1 month ago
@CajunCoder
But he's not talking about "the fundamental teachings of Christianity," he's talking about how religious people frequently impose their religious values upon the rest of society. I don't see how this would even be arguable.
ultramerton 1 month ago
@CajunCoder Oh really? God didn't set the criteria of who is worthy of heaven and who suffers infinite torture? His rules, His responsibility. It's like me holding a gun to your head and saying believe I am the creator of all things and then claiming you have freewill because you don't HAVE to believe it..
1992jamo 1 month ago
i agree in those general terms. of course, if you're reasonable and believe in freedom it's hard not to. i think if one were to talk about socialism and capitalism the analysis requires more depth. i'm an atheist and a libertarian socialist.
fede2 2 months ago
As an independent libertarian, and an atheist, I never understood why so many atheists run to the far-left liberal Democratic Party. I always felt that libertarianism was at the core of true atheism, and it's great to hear Sam Harris say it too. It seems to be more of the ANTI-theists that are the liberals and the ones that want to make govt bigger and have more control by forbidding religion altogether. Govt should be small, allowing ppl to believe what they want if it isn't bothering anyone.
TaskmasterX 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Good riddance to the braying jackass Christ' Hitchens who supported the sanctions and the war of pelf against Iraq. [Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"; Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it." — "60 Minutes" (5/12/96)]
IconsOfTeleplay 2 months ago
My personal libertarianism spawned my atheism. Growing up in a neo-conservative catholic family, my one constant was hating bullies. god, as the ultimate authority figure, is also the ultimate bully (as depicted many times in the old testament.) I also do not believe in the possibility of a benevolent authority. If Ron Paul became the president, many true libertarians, myself included, would immediately trust him less.
badkarma52 2 months ago
fucking retards....Libertharianism is PRO-CAPITALISM, FREE-MARKETS ALL THE WAY..... Fuck the Left all the way!!!
argenta86 2 months ago
@argenta86 Your understanding of term Libertarian is obviously limited in scope to the United States. I'm inferring from the style of your comment that you're trolling.
LBRTRN89 2 months ago
@LBRTRN89 libertarian socialism my ass! Libertarian Austrian School ALL THE WAY
argenta86 2 months ago
@argenta86 Terrible argument.
SelfAware1 2 months ago
@LBRTRN89 exactly right. Libertarian socialism is not a contradiction anywhere in the world but here apparently.
SelfAware1 2 months ago
A summary of libertarian socialism- 'liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality' Bakunin.
fistfulofknowledge 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm a Ayn Rand, Austrian Economics, Milton Friedman Libertarian. Free Market Capitalism, Individual Freedom, No Corporativism(thats ruined USA), No War, No FED(main cause of inflation), No Income Tax.
Social Democracy or Wellfare state can work but aren't sustaintable.
argenta86 5 months ago
Comment removed
argenta86 5 months ago
@michaelchristopherj it's more than a little strange to hear a self described socialist call themselves a Libertarian. You may want to pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged if you want to understand libertarianism. In other words are radical individualist (anti collectivist) and capitalist. They are on the opposite end of the ideological divide from socialist like yourself. Just thought you should know.
copernicanideas 5 months ago
@copernicanideas I used to think that socialism and libertarianism were opposites, but I learned some time ago that there's a logical pathway from individualism to antistatist socialism. I personally think there are inconsistencies in the later steps of that pathway, but it is there and I know of an apparently influential person who calls himself a libertarian socialist. People like that think that we (libertarians in favor of capitalism) have hijacked the term "libertarian".
LibertyServer 5 months ago 9
@LibertyServer Referring to Chomsky?
daobagua 5 months ago
@daobagua No, actually I wasn't referring to him. Does Noam Chomsky call himself a libertarian socialist? I was referring to a guy that calls himself Buddhagem on youtube. I said "apparently influential" because he is a prolific video maker/uploader, and there seem to be a lot discussions he's involved in, and so far as I can tell he has some followers.
LibertyServer 5 months ago 2
@LibertyServer I have heard Chomsky say that he is a libertarian and that the word has been tarnished by us evil right wing libertarians (summarizing of course). I watched a Buddhagem vid last night lol. What a coincidence.
Well Cheers
daobagua 5 months ago
@LibertyServer Hey, anarcho-capitalist here. I do believe that voluntary-socialism is compatible with anti-state-capitalism. I would need a lot of convincing to take part in it though. Maybe you would never convince me and I would never convince you that it is better to consider property as an extension of oneself . I think it would be important t figure out how to co-exist in that case.
LatteJonny 4 months ago
@LibertyServer Yes, Naom Chomsky is a 'libertarian socialist', whatever that really means.
atheistworstenemy 3 months ago
@atheistworstenemy Libertarian Socialist means a form of anarchy (no state) but the means of production are controlled by the people democratically instead of by private capitalists. It is not a hard concept to grasp.
SelfAware1 2 months ago
@LibertyServer Chomsky is also a Libertarian Socialist.
SelfAware1 2 months ago
@LibertyServer Before there was libertarianism, there was anarchism, which was a coherent political philosophy as voiced by Peter Kropotkin. Kropotkin believed that in the absence of authority, people would naturally understand that it is beneficial to co-operate and help each other, because we have evolved as social animals That is different from individualist libertarianism a la Ayn Rand, which denies that we are social animals. Rand was basically a sociopath.
gspaulsson 1 month ago
@gspaulsson "Before there was libertarianism...?" Oh spare me the revisionism which pretends history ended in the 1950s. Don't talk to me about Rand - who wasn't even remotely an anarchist. Talk to me about Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, and Max Stirner. Talk to me about Josiah Warren, William Godwin, and Henry David Thoreau. All of whom were individualist anarchists. Or talk to me about - dare I even suggest it? - Murray Rothbard or David Friedman.
LibertyServer 1 month ago
@LibertyServer Semantics. Anarchism goes back at least to Proudhon, long before the word libertarianism was coined, and was originally associated with the left, not the right. Proudhon saw relationships based on property as coercive, where libertarians base their ideas on property rights. Rand was a Nietzschian amoralist and elitist, and advocated unrestricted property rights. These ideas can easily degenerate into fascism; in fact, Mussolini started as an anarcho-syndicalist
gspaulsson 1 month ago
@gspaulsson No kidding! Proudhon, of course - no need to even say that. But why are you even talking about Rand? She was not an anarchist.... Nor was she a libertarian. She vehemently rejected libertarianism because it allowed for anarchism. So again, why are you talking about Ayn Rand?
LibertyServer 1 month ago
@LibertyServer Libertarian Socialism: Where we are from the government AND free market capitalism. Where the democratic control of the people is taking to its logical conclusion.
SelfAware1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LibertyServer Libertarian Socialism: Where we are FREE from the government AND free market capitalism (coercive wage labor). Where the democratic control of the people is taking to its logical conclusion.
SelfAware1 3 weeks ago
@LibertyServer
You are talking about Noam Chomsky, am I right?:)
TheSaltyAdmiral 2 weeks ago
@copernicanideas lololol atlas shrugged
atheistworstenemy 3 months ago
@copernicanideas Libertarian has a different meaning that the way it is commonly used in the US. Libertarian socialism is actually one form of socialism. It is similar to the philosophy Gandhi employed.
Mysteryskatin 2 months ago
@copernicanideas Well, if we accept that Libertarianism consists of the axiom that peaceful law abiding people should be left alone, and that all interactions which are consensual are permissible, then I do not see why a group of Libertarians who wished to engage in a socialist model of economic transactions between themselves somehow forfeit their ability to accurately label themselves as libertarians without dissimulation; so long as they do not demand that others do the same.
HighPriestofLemuria 2 months ago
@copernicanideas There is a big difference between economic libertarianism, and social libertarianism. I think many liberals, and socialists, can agree on social libertarianism. It basically just means that as long as you do no harm to any other person, you have the right to do as you please.
Gonzotabb 1 month ago
Of course Harris is commenting purely on the idea of libertarianism here. Not the modern american libertarianism that's been hijacked by uneducated sociopaths.
Atrocitas6 5 months ago
@Atrocitas6 Oh great, another person who hates the idea of freedom. American libertarians have a different way of looking at morality. Most of them are not "sociopaths" because they do not wish to aggress upon other human beings. An absurd comment. That is the core tenet of "right"-libertarianism.
A good primer on understanding the "right"-lib mindset is to google "the science of libertarian morality".
BadgeringTheWitness1 2 months ago
@BadgeringTheWitness1 In a libertarian free market society, there are winners and losers. Libertarians have a huge hole in their ideology morally when they imply that we do nothing with the ones who dont win the capitalists game. That is where your Ayn Rand absurdities come into question. It is not moral to let people starve, live in extreme poverty, and not afford healthcare. Libertarain morality is simply the absence of morality altogether. aside from some desperate attempts to make anti-moral
SelfAware1 2 months ago
@SelfAware1 Really? You seem to be caught in a bit of a performative contradiction here. You realize that there are starving people all across the globe, correct? And assuming you are living above a subsistence level, you have the means to extinguish some of their suffering. Yet you choose not to.
I'm not saying it is moral to let people starve; hardly any libertarian says that. What they do say is that people shouldn't be enslaved in order to further a noble goal.
BadgeringTheWitness1 3 weeks ago
@BadgeringTheWitness1 anti-morality appear to be moral in and of itself.
SelfAware1 2 months ago
i am an atheist, but it makes it so difficult to communicate with other atheists when they're libtards as well.
redarmyjay 6 months ago
Why do American's constantly argue about labels until they lose all meaning? I am in favour of liberty and I don't care what that makes me.
jacksawild 6 months ago 2
@jacksawild You should, because otherwise you'll waste 5 minutes every conversation explaining what you believe in.
michaelchristopherj 6 months ago
@michaelchristopherj You waste the same amount of time, if not more, by defining the label because it's already lost all meaning. Better to talk about the issue than the label. This happens in politics all the time and it's why people are so hopelessly confused and ill informed.
jacksawild 6 months ago
@jacksawild Some people understand the definitions though. And for those people, the definitions are very useful. That's like asking to strip all definitions just because some are too ambiguous. There are plenty of people that are ignorant of plenty of definitions, doesn't mean we should toss them. That's their problem.
michaelchristopherj 6 months ago
@michaelchristopherj No, when the majority of your nation is informed by the media who continually skew the definitions then it's everybody's problem. How many wars has America fought based on propagandised labels? Communism, Drugs and Terror are the three big ones which people just do not understand because of the crap they are fed about them in the name of national pride. I have a label for you: jingoism.
jacksawild 6 months ago
I'm a libertarian atheist. To say that libertarians are "conservative" on economic issues is just awful and in many cases not true (I hope). If you're interested, read Roderick Long's article "Wild Cards" for a quick discussion why libertarians are neither liberal nor conservative.
SirTenenbaum 6 months ago
@SirTenenbaum Roderick Long is a living legend :D
Madfoot713 6 months ago
A very even-handed response by Sam Harris. It's absolutely worth noting that libertarians have valid opinions based on their values - doesn't mean we should change the rest of society on their behalf, but they do occasionally bring up good points.
Sorenzo 6 months ago
I am a libertarian atheist. I believe consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want without the governent getting in the way. As long as that doesn't directly hurt anyone else.
skeptictom818 6 months ago
@skepticalmannn Labels are important or else we wouldn't know what we are. Classical liberalism has a slightly different definition than libertarianism. I'm not a fascist or a Republican because I know what the labels means. I don't see your point.
michaelchristopherj 7 months ago
@michaelchristopherjr
I've thought about that as well. It's interesting though, I would call myself a libertarian, but I'm more of a Milton Friedman libertarian not a Noam Chomsky libertarian.
sellsjeeps 7 months ago
@michaelchristopherj Well I agree with you that socialism isn't the opposite of libertarianism, but please tell me of a society that doesn't use government to institute socialism. I agree with people co-owning things privately (because of consent) but using government to bring down rich bastards and make a safety net for dumb ass poor people isn't very libertarian.
IceCreamRueckert 7 months ago
I think most atheists are libertarians, albeit libertarian in its original sense (not the American Ron Paul economic Libertarian Party libertarianism). Libertarianism is neither left nor right, but rather down (opposite of authoritarian. I'd say most atheists are probably socially libertarian and economically left. As a socialist, I have no problem calling myself a libertarian.
michaelchristopherj 8 months ago 26
@michaelchristopherj In trying to meet libertarians and atheists, my wife and I, and other friends, have decided that we're more likely to meet atheists among libertarians rather than libertarians among atheists. How is "socially libertarian and economically left" different than "socially liberal and economically left"? That's just called liberalism, because social issues are where libertarians and liberals tend to agree anyway.
LibertyServer 7 months ago
@LibertyServer Well, liberal typically has to do with one that believes the government has legitimate uses. The term differs from libertarian.
michaelchristopherj 7 months ago
@michaelchristopherj Last I knew (although the poll is rather dated), about 2/3 of American Libertarians believe that government has legitimate uses. But you specified "socially libertarian", which eliminates the biggest issues libertarians and liberals disagree on.
LibertyServer 7 months ago
@LibertyServer The main purpose of American Libertarians is to shrink the government. Especially its involvement within an economy.
michaelchristopherj 7 months ago
@michaelchristopherj "I'd say most atheists are probably socially libertarian and economically left."
How does that work? Libertarian, but no problem with a gang of organized thugs stealing from people?
Madfoot713 6 months ago
The economic left isn't a gang of organized thugs stealing from people. I believe you've mistaken it for the economic right, which allows organized thugs (corporations) to steal from people.
michaelchristopherj 6 months ago
@michaelchristopherj How do corporations steal from people? They can't touch my money unless I give it to them.
Madfoot713 6 months ago
@Madfoot713 They steal labor through exploitation. And in many cases they steal from people literally.
michaelchristopherj 6 months ago
@michaelchristopherj Lmfao. Giving people money in exchange for services is not stealing.
Madfoot713 6 months ago
@Madfoot713 Exploitation of one's labor is. And does corporate welfare mean anything to you?
michaelchristopherj 6 months ago
@michaelchristopherj I oppose corporate welfare with the same veracity I oppose all welfare (or slightly more). As for labor being exploitation, I've mostly heard this argument from anarcho-socialists; it's a pain getting them to back it up in certain terms and I take it to be a very silly proposition.
Madfoot713 6 months ago
@Madfoot713 Well, I am not an anarcho-socialist nor is that relevant to the argument. Are you at least against corporate personhood?
michaelchristopherj 6 months ago
@michaelchristopherj I dunno. Ron Paul is. I think that's a bit of a loaded question; I don't believe the government should prohibit me from giving my money to certain candidates or limit my political speech (money is not political speech; making political movies is, which is what Citizens United was actually about).
Madfoot713 6 months ago
@michaelchristopherj Modern Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Someone that's socially libertarian and economically left is just your average liberal. You are not a libertarian.
meloveanna 6 months ago
@meloveanna Well, not quite. You're talking about the American Libertarian Party, which was created around 1980. I'm talking about libertarianism as in political theory. In political theory it has nothing to do with economics, which is left (liberal) or right (conservative). Libertarian is down, opposite of authoritarian. To make my point, there is such thing as libertarian socialism, which existed long before the Libertarian Party was even thought of. You should read more.
michaelchristopherj 6 months ago
@michaelchristopherj You might have no problem calling yourself a libertarian but you are incorrect to do so.
IrishLibertyLover 6 months ago
@IrishLibertyLover In fact he's far more correct then you'd imagine, the first use of 'libertarian' was used by the European anarchist socialist types to describe their ideology, but like most words describing ideologies, the US (especially the right) seems to have changed them all, making it quite hard to describe your position in the spectrum over there.
Coolguyrob2006 5 months ago
@Coolguyrob2006 the word libertarian is derived from the Latin word liber, which means free. Considering socialism is slavery, it would be quite incorrect to use the word libertarian to describe a socialist.
IrishLibertyLover 5 months ago
@IrishLibertyLover I don't see how slavery could occur in an ideology that promotes radical egalitarianism and participatory democracy over all else, I'm referring to the 'anarchist socialist' ideology here not the Bolshevik corruption of the communist movement.
Coolguyrob2006 5 months ago
@Coolguyrob2006 How do propose to have radical egalitarianism without force? How can you have equality without forcing people to work for others needs (i.e slavery)? Democracy is merely a fancy word for saying the majority shall now oppress the minority. How will socialism work without the force of the state?
IrishLibertyLover 5 months ago
@IrishLibertyLover Democracy can be a case where the majority oppress the minority, but that's why the Anarchist Socialist support a PARTICIPATORY democracy, and any decision that infringes on another's rights is not allowed as it would break the law. I'm not an anarchist socialist by the way but I find it an interesting ideology, and without seeming like a propaganda peddler there's a short video that expresses the idea it better than I can. g3YLmtQ5roQ
Coolguyrob2006 5 months ago
@IrishLibertyLover Also it's not a welfare state, so you are not forced to pay for another's needs. The only thing that's taken with force would be the idea of private ownership of land, which anarchists usually agree was taken with force in the first place (for example, in the UK 69% of the land is still owned by 0.6, the landed gentry whose ancestors got the land from taking it from others in conquest) , however that's not to say that your house is now suspect to all the homeless masses.
Coolguyrob2006 5 months ago
@Coolguyrob2006 If your not forced to pay for another's needs how is it socialism? If the land is not in private ownership then how is somebody supposed to build on it? It's actually 50% of the land that they own.
IrishLibertyLover 5 months ago
@IrishLibertyLover It's socialism in the sense of worker owned industry which was the original definition, welfare is more accurately social democracy. The problem is though you can't really have this society if everyone thinks like competitive capitalists, so some selflessness and compassion is required, buildings would be built where the community as a whole would benefit, but the assumption is that people won't be dicks and stop a hospital being built because it spoils there view etc.
Coolguyrob2006 5 months ago
@Coolguyrob2006 What if the worker decides not too own the industry because he can get more money working for somebody else? By "thinking like competitive capitalists" you mean thinking like a normal human being? You can also have compassion in a capitalist system, if not more compassion. How do we decide where to build landfills, power plants and factories then? Who is going to pay for them to be built?
IrishLibertyLover 5 months ago
@IrishLibertyLover By 'competitive capitalist' I'm referring to the Homo Economimus, which is the model which capitalist theory is based on, while the socialists might see Homo Reciprocans instead. I'm not an expert (or town planner) so I can't tell you much more and I'm not going to pretend it's a perfect theory either, hence why I don't follow it (although is any?). I was just standing up for it as best I could, after I felt you were giving it a bad rep that it's an oppressive ideology.
Coolguyrob2006 5 months ago
@Coolguyrob2006 Much capitalist theory was devised before Homo Economicus was. Most of the work done after was done by the Austrian School, which devises it's theory from the study of human nature. Well any ideology that forces somebody to use their mind and body towards an end they do not want is oppressive. What I have said about socialism has been entirely truthful.
IrishLibertyLover 5 months ago
@michaelchristopherj yeah, like Noam Chomsky
trtnec 5 months ago
@michaelchristopherj I am an atheist libertarian. I am curious as to how you can identify as being a libertarian while believing that the state should own all capital and the factors of production etc. It seems to me to be a non-sequitur. I mean no disrespect. I am a capitalist in the Austrian tradition.
dacrunkqb11 3 months ago
@dacrunkqb11 Do you still not understand libertarian socialism? Should I explain it?
normalkuriboh 2 months ago
@normalkuriboh Please. I would be quite interested. Thanks.
dacrunkqb11 2 months ago
@dacrunkqb11 Well, there is a slight hypocracy in the thought that a corporation owning all the capital and means of production, including labor, would be more democratic or at the very least more beneficial to society as a whole (Non business owners, ecology, etc). I feel as though the only truly free way of society would be libertarian socialism, in which, the people would own their own means of production AND capital, as opposed to some distant managerial class ( Gov. or Corporate).
normalkuriboh 2 months ago
@normalkuriboh People already own their own capital. I just don't own yours and you don't own mine. I'm still not getting it. Would you be willing to tell me more?
dacrunkqb11 2 months ago
@dacrunkqb11 Wage labor is not owning capital. Not even close.
normalkuriboh 2 months ago
@normalkuriboh Do not the laborers who receive wages own whatever they choose to buy with their wages? Including any "capital" they may wish to acquire?
dacrunkqb11 2 months ago
@dacrunkqb11 Yes, but they do not own the factory in which they work. None of the factory workers do; a man wearing a fine Italian suit sitting in a skyscraper located in uptown New York owns it, and every dime created in it. He then pays the workers the smallest wages he is legally obligated and keeps the rest for himself, basically. Why is he necessary? Why is the Board of Directors necessary? Why does his son get to inherit his Corporation when he dies?
normalkuriboh 2 months ago
@normalkuriboh
-They do have the capability to own the factory, or perhaps a different factory, all the while providing employment and wages for other people he/she hires.
-Minimum wage laws keep unemployment high, productivity low, and prices high.
-An owner must exist since it was he/she that built and funds the operations of the factory. A board of directors exists since, depending on the size of a company, overseeing is a big job, too much for one person sometimes.
dacrunkqb11 2 months ago
@dacrunkqb11
-Factory workers have a great deal to worry about, I'm not sure they all have the means to chase their dreams of owning a factory. I'm sure a factory worker is also perfectly capable of competing with a multinational conglomerates in the factory business.
-Who brought up minimum wage?
-You have apparently never heard of a workers council. How can you call yourself a lover of liberty, then defend someones right to own others. The only liberty is democracy.
normalkuriboh 2 months ago
@normalkuriboh
-Everyone worries. Such is the human condition.
-The government imposes minimum wage laws. And imposes a single fiat currency that hurts the poor and middle class by way of inflation.
-I adhere to the idea that an individual owns him/herself and can do with their selves what they please. The government, or the majority, do not own you.
-Democracy equates to 2 wolves and 1 sheep deciding what's for dinner. Democracy is anti-liberty for the dissenting minority.
dacrunkqb11 2 months ago
@michaelchristopherj huh...Interesting.
Jeffersonwazright 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheReasonParty 8 months ago
Harris has never heard on Ron Paul and probably
hasn't studied the issue I bet Harris is statist on economic
issues
RunLiberty 9 months ago
@RunLiberty Ron Paul is one of the people who wants to use the government to push religion on people. He is NOT a libertarian understand?
yellowkrux 9 months ago
@yellowkrux Evidence please-Ron Paul is about education and tolerance
he is the ultimate libertarian just look at his voting record and actions
Obama is an atheist socialist like Clinton/Bush neocons
RunLiberty 9 months ago
@RunLiberty "The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers." Representative Ron Paul, The War on Religion. Happy?
yellowkrux 9 months ago
@yellowkrux You're taking that way out of context. He also wrote "Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government." And "Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance". Where's your evidence that Ron Paul wants to use government to push religion on people? I don't think you have any.
LibertyServer 7 months ago
@LibertyServer Read above.
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux "Read above"...? How illuminating! I pointed out how you took the quote from Ron Paul out of context. Nothing I see above shows that Ron Paul wants to use government to push religion on people. If he really wanted to do that, surely you could find something more convincing.
LibertyServer 7 months ago
@LibertyServer No you stated it was taken out of context. However the fact that I didn't post the entire book does not change the meaning of the statement.
" Nothing I see above shows that Ron Paul wants to use government to push religion on people"
"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers." Representative Ron Paul, The War on Religion.
Paultards, denying every problem as usual.
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux I definitely have problems with his religiosity and his view of the USA as a christian rather than a secular nation. But that is a far cry from claiming that he wants to shove religion down our throats through government force. He doesn't want others shoving atheism down people's throats through government force either.
LibertyServer 7 months ago
@LibertyServer So you accept that he openly admits to believing that the government of the United States of America is Christian, yet you claim he has no intention of using the government to shove religion down peoples throats? So why does he claim what is demonstrably untrue? Could it be because it would allow the Government to do something he wants? Like I don't know, shove religion down peoples throats? Is there any other reason you can think of?
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux No, it's not a christian government and he doesn't say so. He thinks it's a christian nation, which is not the same. Now, you guess that his reason for not thinking the USA constitution creates a rigid separation is because of something he wants government to do. But maybe he simply has read the constitution and a lot of writings from the founders, and honestly concludes that they didn't intend to create a *rigid* separation. I agree with that conclusion.
LibertyServer 7 months ago
@LibertyServer You're right those aren't the same thing Paul how ever does honestly believe that the founders intended a christian government (that allows for other religions). Now he does honestly believe this as do you, however ALL EVIDENCE IS TO THE CONTRARY. I never said he/you didn't believe it, only that it's verifiable untrue.. SO why do YOU believe what is demonstrably untrue? Do you intend to use the government to shove religion down peoples throats? The answer is of course yes.
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux That is laughable. If you bother to look at my other videos you will see that I am an atheist. In fact I have always been an atheist. You claim Paul believes the founders intended a christian government. I definitely don't believe that, and I'd like to see any evidence you have that Paul believes it, if you have any.
LibertyServer 7 months ago
@yellowkrux Clarification. I just checked and there is only one video I made relating to my atheism. You might easily have missed it. Yet it's there watch?v=XDrrn9k87-Y
LibertyServer 7 months ago
@LibertyServer What's laughable? & How is your believing in gods an issue? & I already gave you evidence you just didn't give a shit.
yellowkrux 7 months ago
@yellowkrux You wrote "Do you intend to use the government to shove religion down peoples throats? The answer is of course yes." That is what's laughable.
LibertyServer 7 months ago
@yellowkrux If I didn't give a shit, I wouldn't be discussing this with you. What you claim is evidence just doesn't prove what you seem to think it proves. If you asked me for evidence that the sun is 93 million miles away and I said I cannot reach it even by stretching my arms as high above my head as I can, that would be as good as your so-called "evidence".
LibertyServer 7 months ago
@RunLiberty Holy shit Did you call Bush a socialist? Put the crack pipe down.
yellowkrux 9 months ago
@RunLiberty Harris is definitely a statist. He has stated publicly that he is in favor of raising taxes on the rich, and a list of other things that put him squarely in the modern liberal camp.
LibertyServer 7 months ago
after this, we can pretty much conclude S harris, doesn't know that much more than the layman about libertarianism. he was caught of gurad with this one.
i am an atheist, and i think being a libertarian is a far greater issue than being an atheist. people's personal views are for them to decide. but when these views infringe on your freedom, then its a real problem
100CommonCents 11 months ago
@100CommonCents Looks like you've painted yourself into a corner there...
IamLiterallyRetarded 11 months ago
@IamLiterallyRetarded loool
100CommonCents 10 months ago
@100CommonCents Harris doesn't know much about libertarianism? I thought his comments, limited as they were, were spot on.
LibertyServer 7 months ago
Very true! I tend to like what Sam Harris has to say.
spartacandream 1 year ago
The state itself is just a belief. It is not a physical entity or a consequence of a natural la, the very existence of the state is build on "superstition". If your argument against libertarianism is just saying it is "childish" to believe that the education system should be privatized than please start reading on the material. At least you can add some value in comments.
jvizkeleti 1 year ago 4
Somehow I doubt Sam Harris is a libertarian. He's too smart for that garbage.
Privatizing the education system--my cat is smarter than that. I myself am a Socialist Libertarian....it's only because of the rise of America's right wing Libertarian party that we even have to specify "Socialist", but it originally meant Anti-Statist Communist/Socialists. Somewhere along the line the word became bastardized to refer to a silly little party run by a senile leprachaun named Ron Paul.
Eldeecue 1 year ago
You are correct. Sam Harris is on record as saying that he believes in consequentialist morality. Libertarians believe that rights are inviolable, and that exceptions ought not to be made without the consent of all effected. These two points of view are in opposition to one another.
Prytanus 1 year ago
@Prytanus
Beyond that....the Conservative Libertarian/American Libertarian Party's agendas are completely impractical, sociopathic, and would lead a likely _very_ bloody overthrow of the government if they ever came to power.
They worship the Free Market as if it were a benevolent, all-correcting deity with just as much fervor as do the most repugnant of Southern Baptists, really.
Privatization is their cure-all to all of society's woes. And this is just a childish perception
Eldeecue 1 year ago 2
@Eldeecue I'm a libertarian (not affiliated with the party though). The term "free market" refers to non-violent social situations in which exchanges take place. Choosing which spouse you want, choosing what food you want to buy, etc, are all examples of free market decisions. No one is forced to marry at gunpoint, at least in the West.
So there's nothing to worship. It's the idea that non-violence is preferable to violence when interacting with others. You either agree or not.
andrewh817 1 year ago
@Prytanus Fuck that. I'm a consequentalist, if I feel like thinking in terms of ethics at all. Economists solely make consequentalist arguments - you can argue pretty much anything purely on consequentalist grounds. Ultimately consequentalism leads to some mild form of nihilism, since our abilities of calculation are so very limited. Rights may be a practical simplification and good to appeal to personal values (which is what most morals come down to),
but they cannot be objective.
tpsisokayiguess 1 year ago
@Eldeecue Wow. Best argument I ever heard surely must be "now that's just stupid". Although I admit, I often use it when thinking of statist fantasies...
Private education is the only form of education. Period.
Look at what schools have done to our children. They are about obedience, not about knowledge. If you want to learn something, do something.
If you want to memorize half truths, go to school.
tpsisokayiguess 1 year ago
Great question, I've found that Atheism has led me to support many Libertarianism principles.
Jimpsterr 2 years ago
Indeed. Libertarianism has many rules of thumb by which I aspire to live my life. That being said, when someone tries to make these very useful rules of thumb into absolute rights which ought not to be infringed...well we're right back to have problems due to fanaticism.
Prytanus 1 year ago
If you take away the temporal parochialism associated with the word 'conservatism' as it is right now, it is clear that right-libertarianism or, as I like to call, American-libertarianism is inherently conservative. In in its consequentialist form (the only one to be taken seriously) libertarianism has a very negative view about human motivations and rationality and a very narrow description of desert.
Jayban123 2 years ago
I'm not sure I would call libertarianism in any way "conservative" since the conservatives are more nationalistic, love mercantilism, and have nothing to do with freedom of association.
VisitingXenoc133 2 years ago 12
Libertarians tend to agree with conservatives on economic issues, and tend to agree with liberals on personal or social issues. Nationalism: so libertarians tend not to agree with conservatives on that issues, although some do. Mercantilism: most conservatives don't love mercantilism, and when they do almost all libertarians disagree with them. Freedom of Association: many (possibly most) conservatives strongly believe in freedom of association.
LibertyServer 2 years ago
Liberty,
I fail to see how a Libertarian could relate to a Nationalist.
Libertarianism is about reducing the influence of government and facilitating personal freedom.
Nationalism is about sacrificing personal freedom to do what is best for the, so called, "Nation".
Jimpsterr 2 years ago 2
I was responding to VisitingXenoc133, who commented on nationalism, mercantilism, and freedom of association. For each subject, I labelled it before a colon and place my comment after the colon.
I agree with you, libertarianism and nationalism are not very compatible - some would even say they are polar opposites.
LibertyServer 2 years ago
@LibertyServer They're compatable with nationalism in the form of national pride, but you guys are right, not nationalism in general
spartacandream 1 year ago
@VisitingXenoc133 Conservative TM isn't really conservative, its a knickname of the republicans/neocons who are in no way conservative.
spartacandream 1 year ago
@VisitingXenoc133 Right. Libertarian means one who prefers choice to non-choice.
andrewh817 1 year ago
@VisitingXenoc133 There is a clear difference between being socially liberal and socially libertarian. The liberals require approval of va