Christianity and Libertarianism?

[Liberusy]

Not forced to do anything.

So what happens if you don't work in a socialist society?

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

Alright but what if the majority of the people in that business decide they don't like because your are gay or because you are black, should you be restricted from working there?

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.

You do have to work for food that's right but under a capitalist society the state doesn't force you to work, if you can find an alternative way to get food [like having a rich Uncle] good for you. It is socialism where you are required to work to achieve life's necessities though.
Edited: How to edit it because I didn't have it cosmetically as intended.

[Mysterious Stranger]

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

LIbertarianism is just calling for an end to coercion. I don't see how that's incompatible with Christianity.

[Mysterious Stranger]

Not forced to do anything.

You do have to work for food that's right but under a capitalist society the state doesn't force you to work, if you can find an alternative way to get food [like having a rich Uncle] good for you. It is socialism where you are required to work to achieve life's necessities though.

The state doesn't force you to work in socialism either. Is your objection to socialism really the fact that if you don't work, you starve? I thought that would be the part you approved of most.
I guess you could set up a charity for people who didn't work with what you personally produced, if it matters that much to you. Nobody's gonna stop you from doing that.

[Liberusy]

You do have to work for food that's right but under a capitalist society the state doesn't force you to work, if you can find an alternative way to get food [like having a rich Uncle] good for you. It is socialism where you are required to work to achieve life's necessities though.

The state doesn't force you to work in socialism either. Is your objection to socialism really the fact that if you don't work, you starve? I thought that would be the part you approved of most.
I guess you could set up a charity for people who didn't work with what you personally produced, if it matters that much to you. Nobody's gonna stop you from doing that.

My problem is that you are putting a monopoly on the hiring business, combined with the fact that now if you don't work [you are probably put in a jail cell or] starved.

[Mysterious Stranger]

The state doesn't force you to work in socialism either. Is your objection to socialism really the fact that if you don't work, you starve? I thought that would be the part you approved of most.
I guess you could set up a charity for people who didn't work with what you personally produced, if it matters that much to you. Nobody's gonna stop you from doing that.

My problem is that you are putting a monopoly on the hiring business, combined with the fact that now if you don't work [you are probably put in a jail cell or] starved.

What monopoly would that be? And you wouldn't be put in a jail cell, though I suppose you might starve.

[Liberusy]

My problem is that you are putting a monopoly on the hiring business, combined with the fact that now if you don't work [you are probably put in a jail cell or] starved.

What monopoly would that be? And you wouldn't be put in a jail cell, though I suppose you might starve.

Government [or as you guys like to falsely call it the people] If they decide [as they have in the past] nobody can hire Jews. Then Jews wont be hired and because they have no other way of getting food, they will starve. In a capitalist society this could never happen considering the basic fact that government is not the one who dictates who businesses hire, the business owners are.

[Mysterious Stranger]

What monopoly would that be? And you wouldn't be put in a jail cell, though I suppose you might starve.

Government [or as you guys like to falsely call it the people] If they decide [as they have in the past] nobody can hire Jews. Then Jews wont be hired and because they have no other way of getting food, they will starve. In a capitalist society this could never happen considering the basic fact that government is not the one who dictates who businesses hire, the business owners are.

But the government doesn't control hiring or any other aspect of business in libertarian socialism. The workers of those businesses do. Half of these ideologies don't even have a government.

[Liberusy]

Government [or as you guys like to falsely call it the people] If they decide [as they have in the past] nobody can hire Jews. Then Jews wont be hired and because they have no other way of getting food, they will starve. In a capitalist society this could never happen considering the basic fact that government is not the one who dictates who businesses hire, the business owners are.

But the government doesn't control hiring or any other aspect of business in libertarian socialism. The workers of those businesses do. Half of these ideologies don't even have a government.

Alright. What if I am a Muslim Doctor in Redneck Texas and I go apply for a job at the hospital but I can't find a job within the state because no majority of people in businesses want to let me work with them? Am I expected to starve?

[Mysterious Stranger]

But the government doesn't control hiring or any other aspect of business in libertarian socialism. The workers of those businesses do. Half of these ideologies don't even have a government.

Alright. What if I am a Muslim Doctor in Redneck Texas and I go apply for a job at the hospital but I can't find a job within the state because no majority of people in businesses want to let me work with them? Am I expected to starve?

Well, I suppose you have a couple of options. Your best one would probably be to use the fact that it's a democracy to secure minority rights the same way minority groups in political democracies always have. As a professional doctor in Texas, you'll have some degree of control over how doctors' shops in Texas are run, that's kind of the point. This would probably happen through a union.
(Also, there's something between getting a job as a doctor and starving to death, you could just work a different job. Or leave redneck Texas.)

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

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

Why?

Because social liberalism = abortion, euthanasia, promiscuity, etc.

[Mysterious Stranger]

Why?

Because social liberalism = abortion, euthanasia, promiscuity, etc.

A lot of libertarians don't support those things, they just don't think those things justify a police state or that authoritarianism is even an effective way of decreasing them.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Because social liberalism = abortion, euthanasia, promiscuity, etc.

A lot of libertarians don't support those things, they just don't think those things justify a police state or that authoritarianism is even an effective way of decreasing them.

Maybe not, but they still support unregulated capitalism, which is really bad.

[Mysterious Stranger]

A lot of libertarians don't support those things, they just don't think those things justify a police state or that authoritarianism is even an effective way of decreasing them.

Maybe not, but they still support unregulated capitalism, which is really bad.

Libertarianism was founded by socialists and the vast majority of libertarians internationally are socialists. Capitalist libertarianism is really just an American phenomenon created by a couple cranks like Rand. We've also spent this whole thread trying to show them that libertarianism implies socialism.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

now you're confusing me

[Mysterious Stranger]

now you're confusing me

Which part?

[Pope Joan]

Traditionally, the priest or shaman and the belief system he represented worked to support and legitimize the tribal chieftain and the political order. Walter Burkert in his study of the evolutionary (biological) roots of religion, says it is basically a conservative force, Shoring up the status quo.

Of course there have always been reformers, prophets, but they stood outside the system and critiqued it.

So I suppose what I support and try to follow is a less institutional form of religion. Something more local or spontaneous, and not bureaucratic.

[Grand Calvert]

Why?

Because social liberalism = abortion, euthanasia, promiscuity, etc.

Well abortion and euthanasia should be illegal because it's killing a human being. Promiscuity and the like is definitely wrong, but it isn't aggression of one individual towards another so it shouldn't be illegal.

[New Werpland]

Does anyone remember that meme Murkwood used as his flag for a bit?

"I like own my body" " #thingsjesusneversaid"
Well that illustrates how true Christianity would oppose libertarianism.

[New Werpland]

The whole Christianity=libertarianism crap, was something specific to Protestants and was deeply encouraged by rich free marketeers. There is nothing voluntary about Christianity, it's based on platonism, not some liberal Renaissance bull.

[Grand Calvert]

Does anyone remember that meme Murkwood used as his flag for a bit?

"I like own my body" " #thingsjesusneversaid"
Well that illustrates how true Christianity would oppose libertarianism.

How is using government as a tool to coerce people to act like you a Christian idea?

[New Werpland]

Does anyone remember that meme Murkwood used as his flag for a bit?

"I like own my body" " #thingsjesusneversaid"
Well that illustrates how true Christianity would oppose libertarianism.

How is using government as a tool to coerce people to act like you a Christian idea?

Let me remind you that Christianity was developed before people began to say "baaw govt be taking mah freedom" which was something that emerged after the Renaissance. Back in the time of Jesus and Plato people thought government was essential, and that people are just parts of society and not so atomistic, basically they were what we would today call communitarians.

[New Werpland]

and this

13 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. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 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. 4 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. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

[Ashmoria]

Hello NS! I was thinking about this for awhile and the question is; what do you guys think about Christianity and Libertarianism? Do they go together? Or does Christianity preach Socialism instead?

As a Reformed Baptist who is also a conservative libertarian, my answer is obviously that Christians should be libertarians. That isn't to say that the Bible's point is to preach libertarianism (I'd never say that), but just that things like obeying God, charity, etc. aren't things that humans should coerce each other into doing via government, but should do voluntarily. The God commands us to do good and guide others to Him, not that we should coerce people to obey Him and force people to "accept" Him. But enough about me: what do you think?

I suppose it might make sense for Calvinists and their ilk but for the rest of Christians I think moderate socialism (or well regulated caplitalism) is a better fit.

[CTALNH]

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

LIbertarianism is just calling for an end to coercion. I don't see how that's incompatible with Christianity.

You mean coercion TM?

[Grand Calvert]

and this

13 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. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 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. 4 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. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

A few pages ago I explained the meaning of this passage