Why Does Atheism and Left-Wing Politics Usually Go Together?

[Tiberius]

Oh look, another person who doesn't understand Libertarianism.

then please explain. for that is the image i have of almoust every european liberterian party.

It makes no sense. Presuming the lifeguard represents a Libertarian government, or even a Libertarian society, at no point would such a government or society simply stand idly by and let people die. Libertarianism is about letting people make their own choices, not about abandoning all levels of protection in society.

In short, the only way that image makes any sense in the Libertarian political ideology is if every single drowned person had gone up to the lifeguard prior to drowning and said "I'm going to commit suicide in this pool; please don't try and save me." A Libertarian society would honour a person's wish to kill themselves, but would never simply watch as innocent people drowned.

[Darth]

Hold up, let's make sure we're on the same page . 'Libertarian' means something different in europe does it not? Are you, me and Tiberius, and those European Libertarian Parties all talking about the same thing? (I don't think its an issue, but we're talking about libertarianism in the american sense yeah?)

also,
- The lifeguard would presumably be contracted to dive in and save people
- It's not helping that libertarians have an issue with, it's coercion.

[will_alltogether]

I think the easiest way to describe libertarianism is the quote "one man's freedom extends as far as the next man's nose." It's simply a philosophy of governance which maximizes person liberties while minimizing the amount people can use their liberties to harm other people. It implies a legislative balancing act, which is complicated, but theoretically does the best possible job at performing governments 2 basic functions - keeping people safe from internal and external threats while allowing people to exercise personal freedom to the fullest extent so long as it doesn't harm others.

On a side note, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is a fantastic book, and if you haven't read it, do.

[cratehorus]

and some poor families could live off the state but choose to go to work and try to get their children in work. I'm not saying that people tend towards laziness in communism...just that communism rewards laziness.

and what are they rewarded with? AND WHAT MAKES A PERSON LAZY? Why are you not lazy? do you attribute it to your race your upbringing, your nation's culture? What is it that seperates YOU from THEM, what makes you a better person from birth?

Evidently you aren't aware of the number of consumers that get pissed off whenever a union organises a strike. Unions in this country are greedy and ruin the economy. Even the Labour party (the major union supporting party) are turning against them!

if it wasn't for your country's "labour party" you'd be your king's personal slave............

........... libertarians beleive everyone should have the "freedom" to be a slave

Wrong. A "communist state" is an oxymoron. Look up the difference between a state and a nation. A nation is not a political term; it's at a basic level the same as a collection of communities. You can have communist communities; a collection of communist communities would be a communist nation.

since you seem to know more about communism than karl marx why don't you explain what a "successful" communist nation would look like, how would you measure its success, would you measure by how much natural resources that coountry has? how much capital it has?

As a US citizen, you can buy oil from foreign countries if you so wish.

no you cannot if your country has embrago placed on it it's citizen cannot purchase whatever is a part of that embargo.

That means the US government does not have complete control over the US economy. Government control of an economy only relates to the internal and internal -> external transactions of that economy. Of course, no government can have complete control over which entities decide to trade with them, but that is irrelevant when discussing communist control of an economy. Government control affects the government's citizens. In North Korea, the government controls the entire economy, fact.

so let's say I go your house with a gun and force you family to not eat food for 3 days.......... then I call the neighbor's and tell them "look at how horrible this man treats his family look there starving!" then you say "hey you held us hostage and forced us to starve at gun point", and all the neighbor's do is call you a liar.

The US is still at war with North Korea, why don't you put down, the ron paul youtube conspiracy video's and do some actual research about global politics

The American Libertarian movement is a white supremacist movement, I've told you this, I've shown you a mountain evidence, and you still REFUSE to beleive. Why?.....and don't ask me for more fucking evidence

[Tiberius]

and what are they rewarded with? AND WHAT MAKES A PERSON LAZY? Why are you not lazy? do you attribute it to your race your upbringing, your nation's culture? What is it that seperates YOU from THEM, what makes you a better person from birth?

In a communist society, those that refuse to work are still looked after by the society. They are rewarded with food, etc. A person can quite happily do nothing and still get to eat, since the distribution of food and supplies in communism is based on needs, not on who has earned it.

In capitalism, the distribution is based on how much work you put in. Work hard, and you get more. Be successful, and you get more. The only help that slackers get would be from charities (though I suspect not many charities would support known work-avoiders).

What makes a person lazy? No idea. I'm not including people with mental health problems who are made lazy by their illness. I'm talking about people who make an active choice not to go and work.

Why am I not lazy? A few reasons:
- I don't like having to depend on other people (I'd rather help myself).
- I like working.
- I like enjoying things, which in this society requires money, and work gets me money.

Nothing to do with race, culture, or my upbringing (no race or culture survives if it is inherently lazy). I never said I was a better person from birth. A person may become lazy over time.

if it wasn't for your country's "labour party" you'd be your king's personal slave............

Explain...

........... libertarians beleive everyone should have the "freedom" to be a slave

Indeed, if the slave in question actively chose to be a slave, then Libertarianism would allow it. There is a massive difference between these kinds of slaves and the traditional image of slavery. Any slave under a Libertarian government would still hold all their rights, and would at any time be able to stop being a slave if they changed their mind. In reality, they are a slave in name only. The state would always support the right to own your own body, so even if you state that it is owned by another person, the state would support you if you wanted to own your own body again.

since you seem to know more about communism than karl marx why don't you explain what a "successful" communist nation would look like, how would you measure its success, would you measure by how much natural resources that coountry has? how much capital it has?

I never said I know more about communism than karl marx. Indeed, I thought the entire point of this conversation was for you to convince me of communism? Anyway, a "successful" communist nation would be one which adheres to the ideology of communism. It would be classless, moneyless, and stateless.

no you cannot if your country has embrago placed on it it's citizen cannot purchase whatever is a part of that embargo.

I'm talking about in general, a US citizen is allowed to buy a barrel of oil. The same cannot be said for North Koreans. Government control over an economy can be measured by how many restrictions a government places on its own citizens in terms of what they can buy. The trade decisions of other nations does not form part of the measurement.

so let's say I go your house with a gun and force you family to not eat food for 3 days.......... then I call the neighbor's and tell them "look at how horrible this man treats his family look there starving!" then you say "hey you held us hostage and forced us to starve at gun point", and all the neighbor's do is call you a liar.

Not sure I understand what your analogy is even meant to be about. Please explain.

The US is still at war with North Korea, why don't you put down, the ron paul youtube conspiracy video's and do some actual research about global politics

Ok, first off I'm not watching ron paul conspiracy videos. I do my own research into global politics. Whether the US is still at war with North Korea is complete irrelevant to the fact that North Korea's economy is government controlled.

The American Libertarian movement is a white supremacist movement, I've told you this, I've shown you a mountain evidence, and you still REFUSE to beleive. Why?.....and don't ask me for more fucking evidence

Oh, you mean the mountain of evidence which you promised but were never able to actually present? Your evidence involved equating "Ron Paul" with "every Libertarian", and "Neo-confederates" with "White supremacists". Both are false equivocations; definitions are not so black and white.

You have yet to present actual evidence of Ron Paul speaking at that Nazi rally which you promised repeatedly. All you did was present videos of him speaking about state's rights to secede (in itself, not a racist thing at all). On the other hand, I can present numerous videos of Ron Paul talking about the unfair discrimination against black people, and how as President he would help, as well as testimony from black and interracial couples whom he helped whilst he was a doctor.

So, why do I still refuse to believe? Because you haven't actually presented any evidence that validates your claim. Your claim is that Ron Paul and the Libertarian movement is a white supremacist movement. Evidence that validated that claim would show directly that this was the case. Showing that Ron Paul will stand for photos with racists, even assuming he knew how they were, is not evidence of that. Showing that Ron Paul will talk about state's rights to succede in front of neo-confederates, is not evidence of that either. Provide the evidence you promised and I'll believe you.

[jonb]

I think there might be a problem with the practicality of your argument Tiberius. A society which does not directly support those at the bottom, tends to have large sections of population predisposed to crime. As such it can cost far more to secure your property, and your ability to make money than would be the case if you supported that population directly through a taxation system. As such It is often harder in such an environment to establish yourself than it is in a European liberal democracy. So the way you have expressed your case it would seem to work against those who wish to establish themselves when starting from a relatively a low position.

[frankiej]

In capitalism, the distribution is based on how much work you put in. Work hard, and you get more. Be successful, and you get more.

Well, that just isn't true...

[Something completely different]

It makes no sense. Presuming the lifeguard represents a Libertarian government, or even a Libertarian society, at no point would such a government or society simply stand idly by and let people die. Libertarianism is about letting people make their own choices, not about abandoning all levels of protection in society.

In short, the only way that image makes any sense in the Libertarian political ideology is if every single drowned person had gone up to the lifeguard prior to drowning and said "I'm going to commit suicide in this pool; please don't try and save me." A Libertarian society would honour a person's wish to kill themselves, but would never simply watch as innocent people drowned.

So the liberterian wouldn`t question a induviduals decision to commit suicide? I do believe in euthenasia as it is legal as for example in the Netherlands (and if i`m not wrong the states of Oregon and Washington in the USA), but I dont think i actualy need a statistic to prove, and can actualy assume that most suicides are the result of depression. Depression I believe, and probably most of the sane world would believe, is a illness, and in most cases - a mental illness - wich concludes that the patient might not eaven be certifiably sane, and requires medical treatment through therapy rather than letting the patient end his life. Depression can have various causes wich lead to that state and proposing to let these people simply commit suicide to me comes awfully close to proposing a eugenic sociaty.

On a other note.
Am I wrong with my assumtion that libertarians propose the abolishment of all social services and security nets provided by a goverment?

[Darth]

On a other note.
Am I wrong with my assumtion that libertarians propose the abolishment of all social services and security nets provided by a goverment?

On security nets and social services:
You're right in that there is opposition to most of what government does including welfare (and the opposition can be due to moral arguments, consequentialist arguments, or both), but the proposed solutions for welfare and social services are often more sophisticated than simply 'abolish all of it'. After all, what is to be done with people who have paid into it their whole lives and are now dependant on it? What about children? Those who enter adulthood with severe illnesses? I believe Ron Paul was talking about wanting to allow people to opt out of social security, rather than simply 'abolishing all of it'.

Certainly, the more extreme you get, the more of government you would want to cut, I understand 'Minarchy' to be pretty much just national defence as well as law and order. It's pretty much as far as you can go (except for anarcho-capitalism, they are the ones who want rid of all government), so yes, the minarchists would want to abolish it (perhaps not immediately though). But yeah, it would be a mistake to lump all the libertarians into one group and say they all want absolutely none of something. I'd say that all would want reductions (perhaps drastic reductions, depends on your point of view), and some would want to abolish (and of those, many would want a phasing out).

(Damn spell check keeps turning minarchist into monarchist =P)

[Something completely different]

On security nets:
You're right in that there is a lot of opposition to most of what government does, but the proposed solutions are often more sophisticated than to simply 'abolish all of it'. After all, what is to be done with people who have paid into it their whole lives and are now dependant on it? What about children? Those who enter adulthood with severe illnesses? I believe Ron Paul was talking about wanting to allow people to opt out of social security, rather than simply 'abolishing all of it'.

So would you simply abolish a security network after all it`s users have past away, after previously forbidding to newly join in?
I can assume that people who enter adulthood with servere illness will almoust certainly join a social security network - but what if theoreticaly all those who could opt-out and are in good healt (meaning: pay more in, than recieve) would opt out, wouldn`t that leave a bankroupt system wich couldn`t provide the nececery care wich some desperatly need? That would then automaticaly lead to it`s abolishemnt and leave those in need on the road? A percentage of a sociaty of each nation is poor or ill and I do believe that if it were only optional to help those it woud almoust certainly result in the noninterest to help, by those who aren`t that bad off.
What would be your solution for those who have opt-out and fall ill but cannot afford the nececery care? (I assume you have been asked this question very frequently)
What about social responsibility? I have very frequently heared the argument that a social network leads to public lazyness - before that comes up i`d like to state that:
In Germany with have pubic healthcare system - wich requires people to work in order to gain it`s benefits - if you have been unemployed for more than 3 years and in that time rejected jobproposals recieved, you opt-out of social healthceare. (strawman not intended)

Our social network is designed as a saftynet - you are incouraged to work, make a new contract with a other insurance company and basicaly live your life as independant as possible. Should your life enter severe diffulties through healthissues, poverty or other the saftynet is supposed to catch you before you hit sociatys rockbottom.

Certainly, the more extreme you get, the more of government would want to cut, 'Minarchy' I believe is just national defence as well as law and order. It's pretty much as far as you can go (except for anarcho-capitalism, they are the ones who want rid of all government). It would be a mistake to lump all the libertarians into one group and say they all want absolutely none of something. Lots would advocate for reductions (perhaps drastic reductions), rather than outright abolishment of many services.

When confronted with the carricatur i stated that I "assume" that that is how all libertariens were like, I generaly dont use assumptions for political arguments but try to come to facts on wich base I can make an argument.
So I did not "throw all libertarians into a bag" (strawman from your side probably not intended). The libertariens I have been confronted with is the german libertarian party of wich I have a claer opinion on - but refused to judge all on behalf of them.
If you want to further the debate on the base of your personal liberterian opinion:
Can you explain to me wich parts of deffense and law and order you would like to cut? I am generaly not satisfied with simple statements.

Libertarians actually do want SOME government services, including the defence of the nation, protecting individuals from aggression and fraud, and the court system.

So in short: the basic things wich differ us from Somalia?