Christianity and Libertarianism?

[Liberusy]

Well you are using your own definition of Anarchy. I am actually using the widely accepted dictionary definition of Anarchy.

I'm using the definition of anarchy which the anarchists themselves use. I should know as I used to be a council communist and was in the far-left community.

A branch of anarchist use that definition yeah but Ancaps use the dictionary definition.

How would you feel if I started calling myself a Scientific Scholar, [even though I question Evolution and Global Warming] by dictionary definition I am not one, but my own definition I am. Sure I my claim to be but that should have no reasonable standing in a logical argument.

[Ardoki]

You were the one who made the incorrect argument for your faith in natural rights.

Are you saying I can't rebut you claim, since that would involve the use of scientific evidence, which is apparently not welcome in this debate?

Well that would open up a whole new can of worms a some of us don't agree with evolution.

So I'm not allowed to use scientific evidence to support my case in this debate?

[Ardoki]

I'm using the definition of anarchy which the anarchists themselves use. I should know as I used to be a council communist and was in the far-left community.

A branch of anarchist use that definition yeah but Ancaps use the dictionary definition.

How would you feel if I started calling myself a Scientific Scholar, [even though I question Evolution and Global Warming] by dictionary definition I am not one, but my own definition I am. Sure I my claim to be but that should have no reasonable standing in a logical argument.

Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist.

So neither myself or anarchists acknowledge ancaps as actual anarchists.

[Grand Calvert]

Well that would open up a whole new can of worms a some of us don't agree with evolution.

So I'm not allowed to use scientific evidence to support my case in this debate?

Well this is Christianity and libertarianism not Darwinism and libertarianism

[Ardoki]

So I'm not allowed to use scientific evidence to support my case in this debate?

Well this is Christianity and libertarianism not Darwinism and libertarianism

I was using scientific evidence to refute a claim made by someone. I feel that is perfectly acceptable.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

A branch of anarchist use that definition yeah but Ancaps use the dictionary definition.

How would you feel if I started calling myself a Scientific Scholar, [even though I question Evolution and Global Warming] by dictionary definition I am not one, but my own definition I am. Sure I my claim to be but that should have no reasonable standing in a logical argument.

Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist.

So neither myself or anarchists acknowledge ancaps as actual anarchists.

The original anarchists were communists/socialists, most current anarchists are communists/socialists, the most in depth political theorists seem to believe anarchy is anti-capitalists.

"Anarcho-capitalism" is nonexistent. Thank you.

[Grand Calvert]

Well this is Christianity and libertarianism not Darwinism and libertarianism

I was using scientific evidence to refute a claim made by someone. I feel that is perfectly acceptable.

Ok I just want to make sure this doesn't get out of hand

[Liberusy]

an·ar·chism
ˈanərˌkizəm/
noun
belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

Capitalism is force. You are forced to participate in capitalism if it exists. In socialism, you don't have to participate in shit. No one has more authority than you, in any way.

Actually I think you have it backwards in Capitalism no one is forced to do anything. In socialism you are forced to give up your business to society as well as your home [if its to big] and your salary if its over the limit. I am sure there wont be hugs and kisses if you refuse to comply.

So I'm not allowed to use scientific evidence to support my case in this debate?

For the sake of not going off topic I will agree to disagree on the theory of evolution.

[Ardoki]

Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist.

So neither myself or anarchists acknowledge ancaps as actual anarchists.

The original anarchists were communists/socialists, most current anarchists are communists/socialists, the most in depth political theorists seem to believe anarchy is anti-capitalists.

"Anarcho-capitalism" is nonexistent. Thank you.

"Anarcho"-capitalists basically came along in the late 20th Century and hijacked the term 'anarchism' from the actual anarchists.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Christianity is most certainly not libertarianism.

Quite the opposite. Libertarianism advocates for freedom of vice, for hedonism and greed, and capitalism. Such things are not Christian.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I'm arguing with someone who ignores basic science. No wonder this is getting nowhere.

[Grand Calvert]

Christianity is most certainly not libertarianism.

Quite the opposite. Libertarianism advocates for freedom of vice, for hedonism and greed, and capitalism. Such things are not Christian.

No, it's just saying that you shouldn't coerce people in order to do so.

[Ardoki]

an·ar·chism
ˈanərˌkizəm/
noun
belief in the abolition of all government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion.

Capitalism is force. You are forced to participate in capitalism if it exists. In socialism, you don't have to participate in shit. No one has more authority than you, in any way.

Actually I think you have it backwards in Capitalism no one is forced to do anything. In socialism you are forced to give up your business to society as well as your home [if its to big] and your salary if its over the limit. I am sure there wont be hugs and kisses if you refuse to comply.

In capitalism you are forced to work, often for substandard wages as corporations care only for profit.

There is no choice under capitalism; there is either wage slavery or death.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Actually I think you have it backwards in Capitalism no one is forced to do anything. In socialism you are forced to give up your business to society as well as your home [if its to big] and your salary if its over the limit. I am sure there wont be hugs and kisses if you refuse to comply.

In capitalism you are forced to work, often for substandard wages as corporations care only for profit.

There is no choice under capitalism; there is either wage slavery or death.

Exactly what I was about to say.

[Liberusy]

A branch of anarchist use that definition yeah but Ancaps use the dictionary definition.

How would you feel if I started calling myself a Scientific Scholar, [even though I question Evolution and Global Warming] by dictionary definition I am not one, but my own definition I am. Sure I my claim to be but that should have no reasonable standing in a logical argument.

Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist.

So neither myself or anarchists acknowledge ancaps as actual anarchists.

Anarchy is actually pro individualism [Individual rights put before the rights of the state].
Therefore I [as a voluntarist] and my anarchist friends refuse to recognize Commies as Anarchist.

[Grand Calvert]

Actually I think you have it backwards in Capitalism no one is forced to do anything. In socialism you are forced to give up your business to society as well as your home [if its to big] and your salary if its over the limit. I am sure there wont be hugs and kisses if you refuse to comply.

In capitalism you are forced to work, often for substandard wages as corporations care only for profit.

There is no choice under capitalism; there is either wage slavery or death.

In capitalism you can just quit and start your own business.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Anarchism is inherently anti-capitalist.

So neither myself or anarchists acknowledge ancaps as actual anarchists.

Anarchy is actually pro individualism [Individual rights put before the rights of the state].
Therefore I [as a voluntarist] and my anarchist friends refuse to recognize Commies as Anarchist.

And you're wrong, according to actual political theory and every actual anarchist since the beginning of history. Ayn Rand was just a selfish, stupid, psycho bitch.

[Mysterious Stranger]

Seriously, read the relevant verses in their context.
"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience." Romans
"Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God's slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor. Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. "He himself bore our sins" in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; "by his wounds you have been healed."For "you were like sheep going astray," but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls." 1 Peter 2
"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." Ephesians
"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. "Honor your father and mother"--which is the first commandment with a promise--"so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth."" Ephesians
""You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matthew

When you keep reading the rest of the letters, Paul's theology becomes much more clear. Yeah, he totally thought that people should submit to the authorities, and said exactly what he meant. But reading the full context, we see that he thinks that on ground that also imply that slaves should submit to their masters, wives to their husbands, and children to their parents. That's every group that, in fact, has power over another group in the ancient Roman empire; in other words, their oppressors. Paul makes it explicit that he's advocating submission, as opposed to rebellion, as an application of Jesus' commandment to turn the other cheek. And his justification for that is, consistently, because they can't do anything to you outside of God's control, and they're acting as intermediaries for God. Why would he think that? Because of his audience. Paul's whole point is that if you have faithfulness (fealty, loyalty, obedience, ect.) to God, (which it's only possible to have because of Jesus) then God is in control of your life. And he's in control of your life irrespective of the actions of others. Why? Because he can recontextualize what would otherwise be harm (including intense persecution and, in the cases of 11 out of the 12 apostles, martyrdom) as benefit by making it an opportunity to increase in the extremity of your devotion. Since this process is what defines your experience, not only is there no benefit to be gained from killing your oppressors, but it would be harmful to you, because Jesus taught love for enemies. Responding to violence with violence doesn't help your soul, but responding to violence with nonviolence because of Jesus does help your soul. So what Paul's arguing for here is clearly nonviolence.
But Paul also breaks Roman law by preaching the gospel over and over again. And in the end, he is executed by the government for breaking its laws. Specifically, he was crucified upside down. And yet he insisted that his followers refuse to resist the government: while committing a capital crime. What was his understanding of submission, then? Judging by his writings, it seems to be extreme, over the top compassion specifically for those who persecute you, involving praying for them, forgiving them, refusing to take revenge, and generally treating them like real people, in fact treating them like you are their servant and their benefit is your only goal. In light of how Paul describes submission, we can see that nonviolence is an important part of it. We see that not only was Paul persecuted a ridiculous amount, but he was eventually crucified upside down by the government; and he never once took up arms against it. He chose to willingly allow himself to be killed rather than kill. This is not a natural human response, it would have taken an incredible amount of urging to convince a minority undergoing horrific persecution not to launch a violent rebellion. Paul refused to let that happen. Because he was a pacifist. One of the most extreme pacifists on the historical record. He was also the disciple of an anarchist, and a criminal himself. The significance of Romans 13 in a discussion on revolutionary tactics is all-encompassing, it changes everything. It demands a revolution without blood, and it demands that the revolution be about love for everyone, even and especially our enemies, even the rulers we're deposing. If you're going to criticize Christianity from an anarchist standpoint, do it on that basis: because it's so damn pacifist. But no more of this shit about fascism being compatible with Christianity.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

In capitalism you are forced to work, often for substandard wages as corporations care only for profit.

There is no choice under capitalism; there is either wage slavery or death.

In capitalism you can just quit and start your own business.

No, you fucking can't. Maybe you're in a different situation, but I can work sixty hour weeks and not be able to fucking do that.

[Ardoki]

In capitalism you are forced to work, often for substandard wages as corporations care only for profit.

There is no choice under capitalism; there is either wage slavery or death.

Exactly what I was about to say.

Luckily much of the developed world has regulations in place to limit and offset the damages capitalism naturally causes; the Nordic countries are a good example of what can be achieved, there is room for improvement though.

Unfortunately much of the developed world is not so safe from capitalism. predatory multinational corporations ruthlessly extract the resources and labour of those countries in the quest for maximum profit.

[Ardoki]

In capitalism you are forced to work, often for substandard wages as corporations care only for profit.

There is no choice under capitalism; there is either wage slavery or death.

In capitalism you can just quit and start your own business.

Not in the countries where capitalism is stronger.

[Liberusy]

Actually I think you have it backwards in Capitalism no one is forced to do anything. In socialism you are forced to give up your business to society as well as your home [if its to big] and your salary if its over the limit. I am sure there wont be hugs and kisses if you refuse to comply.

In capitalism you are forced to work, often for substandard wages as corporations care only for profit.

There is no choice under capitalism; there is either wage slavery or death.

Again you are getting Capitalism and Socialism mixed up. Under Socialism you are literally FORCED to work and there s only one owner of ever business [Society]. Under Capitalism you have many options you can have your rich uncle give you money, you can scavenge or hunt for food, you can become an entrepreneur you can beg for food, or you can go out and get a job [and if for some reason you have a problem with your boss find then you can find someone else to work for.]

I'm arguing with someone who ignores basic science. No wonder this is getting nowhere.

Make a thread and I will debate Evolution with you, otherwise stick to the forum topic.

[Mysterious Stranger]

In capitalism you are forced to work, often for substandard wages as corporations care only for profit.

There is no choice under capitalism; there is either wage slavery or death.

Again you are getting Capitalism and Socialism mixed up. Under Socialism you are literally FORCED

Not forced to do anything.

to work and there s only one owner of ever business [Society].

Businesses are owned by the people who work for them, not society.

Under Capitalism you have many options you can have your rich uncle give you money, you can scavenge or hunt for food, you can become an entrepreneur you can beg for food, or you can go out and get a job [and if for some reason you have a problem with your boss find then you can find someone else to work for.

In capitalism you're coerced by the state into giving most of what you produce to the owners of the means of production. If you try to take food without working they call you a thief and arrest you, and if you try to work without giving most of what you produce to the owners, they call you a thief and arrest you.

[Bachmann America]

Libertarianism is incompatible with christianity because social liberalism is incompatible with Christianity.

[Grand Calvert]

Libertarianism is incompatible with christianity because social liberalism is incompatible with Christianity.

Why?