Christianity and Libertarianism?

[Pandeeria]

I just don't get the support for socialism here. Capitalism is the reason for all the development we had. Andrew Carnegie, a capitalist, built the cities of America with steel, created great works of architecture as well. John D. Rockefeller, a capitalist, was a devout Christian and gave millions (billions today) in money towards education, and he brought light to all houses in America. Yet, some will still say, capitalism is bad. This is what I tell to every socialist, "If I could work 2 times the other man and get paid the same amount of money, why would I work hard? Now, if I was paid more and promoted,then yes, I would work hard." I also heard someone say on this that factories should be owned by workers. Why should the owner of the factory pay thousands of dollars, do the mental work, struggle to get by and then just lose everything he worked for. When people comment on things like this, they only see the affluence of today, but fail to see the starving and sleep deprivation of the past years.

Capitalism works on the backs of slave labour,

Not really. Actually the most horrible forms of slavery committed throughout history were committed by Mercantilist States (such as the British, French, and Spanish Empires. Don't forget the living hell that was Belgium Congo).

destruction of the environment,

Most modern day first world capitalist states have heavy environmental regulations and protections.

and imperialism.

The empires of the past were Mercantilist or Feudalist. Capitalism actually made Imperialism less profitable.

It creates huge social division and atomizes people.

maybe if you're living in the 1920's. But today literally most first world capitalist states have massive welfare nets and care very well for the poor.

I don't know if socialism is the best antidote, but capitalism is a failure. Maybe instead of a new economic system we need a new way of thinking about ourselves and the world.

Capitalism has been very much successful. And if you don't know if socialism is the answer, the only other true options are Feudalism and Mercantilism.

[The Liberated Territories]

As a Christian Anarchist (of the ill-begotten an-cap variety), not just Libertarian; my faith definitely has influenced my political views and are I would say mostly in sync with one another.

That said, I find over time, Christian ethics makes me move sort of more left-wing on the anarchist scale, Christian ethics are not explicitly anti-property or anti-capitalist, but in Christ's own words for a rich man to get to heaven is like a camel trying to go through the head of a needle; and much of capitalism is a worship of greed, money and things. I'm not immune, and in some ways I like it, and more importantly, I see no reason to stop anyone from liking those things. Yet, I think the superior society is in some ways a less consumerist, more communal one; I'd just rather we reach that point by choice rather than force.

In terms of the anti-government side of anarchism, I feel that Christ is also very clear, the overtones of humble submission to authority is not about consenting to government and least of all leading government, but instead a measure equal to his position of humility in the face of all evil. His preeminent words, "render unto Caesar" have been, misunderstood, but in context it couldn't be more clear, the question is one the Pharisees posed to him to lead him to admit his rebellion so they would have cause against him. So they asked, are we to pay taxes, and his reply "render unto Caesar what is Caesar, and to God what is God" was not a tacit approval of Roman rule, but explicitly calling out the Pharisees for their cooperation with Rome. If you would use Caesar's image on your coins then return the coins to him.

Paul's invocation to submit to authorities, was wise jurisprudence in the tumultuous times of the 1st century, but I have my doubts he meant it as a end-all approval of government, certainly not as the like we have today.

Well said Merch

[Royal Hindustan]

Again, first generation might have lived in bad conditions, but with the money they were able to earn, the second generation was able to make by at least, if not being well off. The reason there were slums is because of America being unprepared for such an influx of immigrants, as opposed to the immigrants lacking money to buy a house.

Actually, the second generation was poor too. And the third. My great grandfather was an immigrant. His kids were poor. Their kids were poor for much of their life.

And no, they couldn't afford to buy houses. Just go read about the Gilded Age somewhere, learn the truth.

Sorry that your family had to endure poverty, but in many cases, second generation immigrants did flourish. Just look at the thousands of successful people today who are of Irish ancestry which came to America during the Gilded Age.

[Grand Calvert]

Well we can tell people that what there doing might be wrong but we shouldn't judge or dictate moral behavior.
"Judge not lest you be judged"


Self defense and the defense of others.

1. Jesus was talking about being humble when he said "Judge not lest you be judged" , I find it extremely hard to believe that he was being a moral relativist. Want proof I found these sources in a quick google search
http://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/misinterpreted/misinterpreted-bible-passages-3-judge-not-lest-you-be-judged/
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/what-did-jesus-mean-when-he-said-not-to-judge-others-10-things-to-know-and

2. Christians will and have used coercion many times as a means to achieve "good" outcomes.

1. We're not implying moral relativism we're just saying coercion is NOT a good way to handle the majority of things

2. Doesn't justify it

[Arana]

Capitalism works on the backs of slave labour,

Not really. Actually the most horrible forms of slavery committed throughout history were committed by Mercantilist States (such as the British, French, and Spanish Empires. Don't forget the living hell that was Belgium Congo).

destruction of the environment,

Most modern day first world capitalist states have heavy environmental regulations and protections.

and imperialism.

The empires of the past were Mercantilist or Feudalist. Capitalism actually made Imperialism less profitable.

It creates huge social division and atomizes people.

maybe if you're living in the 1920's. But today literally most first world capitalist states have massive welfare nets and care very well for the poor.

I don't know if socialism is the best antidote, but capitalism is a failure. Maybe instead of a new economic system we need a new way of thinking about ourselves and the world.

Capitalism has been very much successful. And if you don't know if socialism is the answer, the only other true options are Feudalism and Mercantilism.

Actually, imperialism and capitalism go hand in hand, although mercantilism does benefit from imperialism as well. Many capitalist nations don't have heavy regulation, and welfare nets in capitalist nations are often very small. Unless by this you're referring to European nations, which are far more socialized than nations like the United States.

[The Liberated Territories]

Not really. Actually the most horrible forms of slavery committed throughout history were committed by Mercantilist States (such as the British, French, and Spanish Empires. Don't forget the living hell that was Belgium Congo).
Most modern day first world capitalist states have heavy environmental regulations and protections. The empires of the past were Mercantilist or Feudalist. Capitalism actually made Imperialism less profitable.
maybe if you're living in the 1920's. But today literally most first world capitalist states have massive welfare nets and care very well for the poor.

Capitalism has been very much successful. And if you don't know if socialism is the answer, the only other true options are Feudalism and Mercantilism.

Actually, imperialism and capitalism go hand in hand, although mercantilism does benefit from imperialism as well. Many capitalist nations don't have heavy regulation, and welfare nets in capitalist nations are often very small. Unless by this you're referring to European nations, which are far more socialized than nations like the United States.

Not at all, I think imperialism and the state go hand in hand. It was the state which originally sponsored and subsidized imperialism, which ran on the perverse idea of the white man's burden, which sees people as obstacles and not ends.

Imperialism was also ungodly expensive.

[Pandeeria]

Not really. Actually the most horrible forms of slavery committed throughout history were committed by Mercantilist States (such as the British, French, and Spanish Empires. Don't forget the living hell that was Belgium Congo).
Most modern day first world capitalist states have heavy environmental regulations and protections. The empires of the past were Mercantilist or Feudalist. Capitalism actually made Imperialism less profitable.
maybe if you're living in the 1920's. But today literally most first world capitalist states have massive welfare nets and care very well for the poor.

Capitalism has been very much successful. And if you don't know if socialism is the answer, the only other true options are Feudalism and Mercantilism.

Actually, imperialism and capitalism go hand in hand, although mercantilism does benefit from imperialism as well. Many capitalist nations don't have heavy regulation, and welfare nets in capitalist nations are often very small. Unless by this you're referring to European nations, which are far more socialized than nations like the United States.

If lets say two countries are at war, then 99% of the time there are embargos and business regulations putting heavily strict or complete bans on trading with said company. Under Mercantilism, this wouldn't matter but under Capitalism this would drastically hurt business which hurts both government income via taxes (both direct business taxes and business would pay people less to keep with the same profit margin which means less income tax and a smaller GDP) and the peoples' standard of living. Also in the event of a mandatory war-time economy (IE force businesses to produce war goods) that also hurts the company. One of the biggest reasons Imperialism decreased in the 20th century was because it became increasingly more profitable to simply trade with your neighbours rather than conquer them.

And even the US has massive safety nets compared to other countries. Welfare and centralized universal healthcare are also both very capitalist ideas.

[Kincoboh]

Capitalism works on the backs of slave labour, destruction of the environment, and imperialism. It creates huge social division and atomizes people. I don't know if socialism is the best antidote, but capitalism is a failure. Maybe instead of a new economic system we need a new way of thinking about ourselves and the world.

I would request you please elaborate on your first sentence.

It's plainly obvious. Today, we live in the neoliberal age, emphasizing deregulation, free trade, lower taxes and privatization in exchange for prosperity for all. But that hasn't happened. Most of the things that we have in core countries are made by people who make very little wages in very poor conditions. Global warming is the best example of why capitalism is a failure, but you'll see how neoliberal policies has affected agriculture in particular. Americans over-consume and the resources that are required to sustain this consumption is unsustainable. Much of these resources are acquired because of neocolonial practices such as structural adjustment programs or through outright military force.

[Arana]

Actually, imperialism and capitalism go hand in hand, although mercantilism does benefit from imperialism as well. Many capitalist nations don't have heavy regulation, and welfare nets in capitalist nations are often very small. Unless by this you're referring to European nations, which are far more socialized than nations like the United States.

If lets say two countries are at war, then 99% of the time there are embargos and business regulations putting heavily strict or complete bans on trading with said company. Under Mercantilism, this wouldn't matter but under Capitalism this would drastically hurt business which hurts both government income via taxes (both direct business taxes and business would pay people less to keep with the same profit margin which means less income tax and a smaller GDP) and the peoples' standard of living. Also in the event of a mandatory war-time economy (IE force businesses to produce war goods) that also hurts the company. One of the biggest reasons Imperialism decreased in the 20th century was because it became increasingly more profitable to simply trade with your neighbours rather than conquer them.

And even the US has massive safety nets compared to other countries. Welfare and centralized universal healthcare are also both very capitalist ideas.

Actually, no, not remotely. If universal healthcare and welfare are so capitalist, why do conservatives attack both of them? Why do they insist we rely on the free market?

[Royal Hindustan]

I would request you please elaborate on your first sentence.

It's plainly obvious. Today, we live in the neoliberal age, emphasizing deregulation, free trade, lower taxes and privatization in exchange for prosperity for all. But that hasn't happened. Most of the things that we have in core countries are made by people who make very little wages in very poor conditions. Global warming is the best example of why capitalism is a failure, but you'll see how neoliberal policies has affected agriculture in particular. Americans over-consume and the resources that are required to sustain this consumption is unsustainable. Much of these resources are acquired because of neocolonial practices such as structural adjustment programs or through outright military force.

I find your blaming of global warming on capitalism quite ironic. I believe so, because China, a country in which many industries are state owned, is the largest polluter in the world.

[New Werpland]

1. Jesus was talking about being humble when he said "Judge not lest you be judged" , I find it extremely hard to believe that he was being a moral relativist. Want proof I found these sources in a quick google search
http://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/misinterpreted/misinterpreted-bible-passages-3-judge-not-lest-you-be-judged/
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/what-did-jesus-mean-when-he-said-not-to-judge-others-10-things-to-know-and

2. Christians will and have used coercion many times as a means to achieve "good" outcomes.

1. We're not implying moral relativism we're just saying coercion is NOT a good way to handle the majority of things

2. Doesn't justify it

1. Saying that you shouldn't judge something is on the line of saying I don't have any values.

2. Does justify it because Christian values are based on Virtue not Deontology.

[Royal Hindustan]

If lets say two countries are at war, then 99% of the time there are embargos and business regulations putting heavily strict or complete bans on trading with said company. Under Mercantilism, this wouldn't matter but under Capitalism this would drastically hurt business which hurts both government income via taxes (both direct business taxes and business would pay people less to keep with the same profit margin which means less income tax and a smaller GDP) and the peoples' standard of living. Also in the event of a mandatory war-time economy (IE force businesses to produce war goods) that also hurts the company. One of the biggest reasons Imperialism decreased in the 20th century was because it became increasingly more profitable to simply trade with your neighbours rather than conquer them.

And even the US has massive safety nets compared to other countries. Welfare and centralized universal healthcare are also both very capitalist ideas.

Actually, no, not remotely. If universal healthcare and welfare are so capitalist, why do conservatives attack both of them? Why do they insist we rely on the free market?

Conservatives aren't capitalists! Some might have free trade ideas, but most of them are simply people with anti-progressive ideas.

[Arana]

It's plainly obvious. Today, we live in the neoliberal age, emphasizing deregulation, free trade, lower taxes and privatization in exchange for prosperity for all. But that hasn't happened. Most of the things that we have in core countries are made by people who make very little wages in very poor conditions. Global warming is the best example of why capitalism is a failure, but you'll see how neoliberal policies has affected agriculture in particular. Americans over-consume and the resources that are required to sustain this consumption is unsustainable. Much of these resources are acquired because of neocolonial practices such as structural adjustment programs or through outright military force.

I find your blaming of global warming on capitalism quite ironic. I believe so, because China, a country in which many industries are state owned, is the largest polluter in the world.

Without a doubt. However, China is more state capitalist than socialist these days. Regardless, that's largely due to the fact that they still use coal, rather than oil or natural gas. But keep in mind, the US is also one of the largest polluters in the world, as is India, another capitalist nation.

[Confederate Ramenia]

I remember Putin implied something about how moral libertarianism and Christianity are incompatible when he said the west was becoming atheistic, though that was only moral libertarianism.

[Pandeeria]

If lets say two countries are at war, then 99% of the time there are embargos and business regulations putting heavily strict or complete bans on trading with said company. Under Mercantilism, this wouldn't matter but under Capitalism this would drastically hurt business which hurts both government income via taxes (both direct business taxes and business would pay people less to keep with the same profit margin which means less income tax and a smaller GDP) and the peoples' standard of living. Also in the event of a mandatory war-time economy (IE force businesses to produce war goods) that also hurts the company. One of the biggest reasons Imperialism decreased in the 20th century was because it became increasingly more profitable to simply trade with your neighbours rather than conquer them.

And even the US has massive safety nets compared to other countries. Welfare and centralized universal healthcare are also both very capitalist ideas.

Actually, no, not remotely. If universal health care and welfare are so capitalist, why do conservatives attack both of them? Why do they insist we rely on the free market?

A. Welfare and Centralized Universal health Care are both not necessary under a socialist/communist society. Boom, capitalist.

B. The idea of a centralized welfare and healthcare plan that the government controls goes against the very ideal of the worker's controlling the means of production (since the State is running it). Boom, capitalist.

C. Centralization goes against Communism. Communism is a massive form of decentralization, each commune being able to rule itself as it sees fit. With a centralized national program like universal health or welfare, that causes centralization and therefores goes against the ideal communism. Boom, capitalist.

D. Romney/the Republicans had their own version of Universal healthcare that was strikingly similar to ObamaCare. Though since ObamaCare gained far more popularity, and Obama was the opponent, ObamaCare had to be attacked and universal health care has to be opposed. Boom, capitalist.

E. Virtually all universal healthcare and mass welfare states today are extremly capitalist. Boom, capitalist.

Also, it should be noted one of the major reasons why the US today has such a stigma torwards uniserval healthcare is because the USSR actually had massive healthcare programs. And they were the destined enemy of the US, so we opposed their ideals to.

[Royal Hindustan]

I find your blaming of global warming on capitalism quite ironic. I believe so, because China, a country in which many industries are state owned, is the largest polluter in the world.

Without a doubt. However, China is more state capitalist than socialist these days. Regardless, that's largely due to the fact that they still use coal, rather than oil or natural gas. But keep in mind, the US is also one of the largest polluters in the world, as is India, another capitalist nation.

China is classified as authoritarian capitalist, but authoritarian capitalist does not mean capitalist. It simply means the government is industrialist and intent on growing its market an economy. A better comparison for authoritarian capitalism would be mercantilism.

[Skrepetopia]

As a fellow Reformed Baptist, I'd say that while I have an affinity for the libertarian stance, I personally am probably too conservative to call myself one. Likewise I'd say that while a lot of my Christian friends who claim to be libertarians are probably in the same boat.

[New Werpland]

I remember Putin implied something about how moral libertarianism and Christianity are incompatible when he said the west was becoming atheistic, though that was only moral libertarianism.

Putin is a medieval age Tsar menace.

[Arana]

Actually, no, not remotely. If universal healthcare and welfare are so capitalist, why do conservatives attack both of them? Why do they insist we rely on the free market?

A. Welfare and Centralized Universal health Care are both not necessary under a socialist/communist society. Boom, capitalist.

B. The idea of a centralized welfare and healthcare plan that the government controls goes against the very ideal of the worker's controlling the means of production (since the State is running it). Boom, capitalism.

C. Centralization goes against Communism. Communism is a massive form of decentralization, each commune being bale to rule itself as it sees fit. With a centralized national program like universal health or welfare, that causes centralization and therefores goes against the ideal communism. Boom, capitalist.

D. Romney/the Republicans had their own version of Universal healthcare that was strikingly similar to ObamaCare. Though since ObamaCare gained far more popularity, and Obama was the opponent, ObamaCare had to be attacked and universal health care has to be opposed. Boom, capitalist.

A) Socialist society, they are necessary. Communist society, they're not, although no communist society has ever existed.

B) It goes against libertarian socialism, yes. But not other forms of socialism, called "socialism from above," in which case the government is responsible for creation of a socialist society.

C) Capitalism is also against centralization.

D) So... opposing something for no other reason than it's from the opposing party is capitalist?

[Grand Calvert]

As a fellow Reformed Baptist, I'd say that while I have an affinity for the libertarian stance, I personally am probably too conservative to call myself one. Likewise I'd say that while a lot of my Christian friends who claim to be libertarians are probably in the same boat.

Good to see another like-minded (theologically) person! I used to be politically authoritarian, but I began to view taxation as a form of extortion. This led to me wanting extremely small government...

[Confederate Ramenia]

I remember Putin implied something about how moral libertarianism and Christianity are incompatible when he said the west was becoming atheistic, though that was only moral libertarianism.

Putin is a medieval age Tsar menace.

Well that's a strong opinion. Got anything supporting it?

[Kincoboh]

Capitalism has been very much successful. And if you don't know if socialism is the answer, the only other true options are Feudalism and Mercantilism.

My main criticism of socialism stems from centralization of power in a state apparatus as an entry to a stateless, classless society. People who have power do not want to give it up, as we saw the the Bolsheviks. That's sort of why I tend toward more of an anarchist perspective. In general, I like what a lot of Christianity has to say, minus the dogma and patriarchy. That's why I like the Quakers and other sort of Christian anarchists and liberation theologians.

[Pandeeria]

A. Welfare and Centralized Universal health Care are both not necessary under a socialist/communist society. Boom, capitalist.

B. The idea of a centralized welfare and healthcare plan that the government controls goes against the very ideal of the worker's controlling the means of production (since the State is running it). Boom, capitalism.

C. Centralization goes against Communism. Communism is a massive form of decentralization, each commune being bale to rule itself as it sees fit. With a centralized national program like universal health or welfare, that causes centralization and therefores goes against the ideal communism. Boom, capitalist.

D. Romney/the Republicans had their own version of Universal healthcare that was strikingly similar to ObamaCare. Though since ObamaCare gained far more popularity, and Obama was the opponent, ObamaCare had to be attacked and universal health care has to be opposed. Boom, capitalist.

A) Socialist society, they are necessary. Communist society, they're not, although no communist society has ever existed.

B) It goes against libertarian socialism, yes. But not other forms of socialism, called "socialism from above," in which case the government is responsible for creation of a socialist society.

C) Capitalism is also against centralization.

D) So... opposing something for no other reason than it's from the opposing party is capitalist?

A. Socialism doesn't call for centralized universal health care. It wants the workers to control their own healthcare system via regulation and more so democratic workplaces. That is extremely different from capitalism.

B. Under a communist society, there is no central government. The goal of socialism is to liquate a national, centralized government. So nope, incorrect.

C. Not nearly as much as Socialism and full out communism.

D. No, that's more basic human mentality. The US once considering homosexuality and race-mixed marriage to be strong signs of a Communist. Do you consider them to be strong signs of a communist?

[Haktiva]

(Image)

this made my day

In all seriousness though, mixing religion and politics never turns out well. That being said, I don't really think Christianity and Libertarianism mix that well, unless your government is secular since religion in general teaches submission to a higher authority(you know the one I'm talking about). Not really a problem unless the religion is that system of government and the "leader" says they're the Lord's representative or some such nonsense.

[New Werpland]

Putin is a medieval age Tsar menace.

Well that's a strong opinion. Got anything supporting it?

He puts people in jail because they don't like him, and bans gays and foreigners from corrupting the youth. What more is there to say?