Jesus was a libertarian

1. 67

   innersmiffposted 11 years ago

   This is partially a joke - everyone thinks Jesus agrees with them. A question to consider though: although Jesus advocated compassion, charity and liberty, he did not advocate the use of violence to achieve any end, whether it good or bad, i.e. a bad cannot make a good. If we are to believe in the golden rule, and the principle of non-violence, aren't we to reject all war and taxation?
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 91

      Rochelle Frankposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I personally am against war and taxation with a few exceptions:
      1.War may be the only way to defend liberty  and crush despots in extreme cases.
      2. Taxation may be necessary to provide for the common good, but should not go above 10%-- even God doesn't ask for more than that.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Self-defence is of course in keeping with the non-aggression principle, but as far as I'm aware, Christ does not advocate stealing people's 10% from them.

         replyreport
   2. 59

      John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Didn't stop the Christian church from being one of the earliest collectors of taxes!
      And I'm not too sure where he speaks out against taxation.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         What about "Thou shalt not steal"?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            But taxation isn't theft. It is part of the social contract - you live in a country and benefit in many ways, do you expect somebody else to pay for you?
            
            And when ever has a thief given you anything in return and in many cases left you even better off than you would have been had they not stolen off you?

            replyreport
            1. 67

               innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               A contract by definition needs to have at least two consenting parties. If an individual does not consent to the funds being appropriated from them in exchange for whatever service they receive, it has to be considered theft. It's theft even if you're better off. The key word being consent. No consent, no contract.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  OK, move out of the country then.

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     Why should I move out of my own home? You get off my property.

                     replyreport
                     1. 73

                        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        'Cos your home is in a given country, and therefore benefits from the safety, security, infrastructure, and convenience that said country provides. You can say you want to "opt out" all you like, but you're still getting law and order, roads, clean water, an educated populace, the absence of pirates stealing all your stuff and killing you, etc.
                        
                        You can agitate for political change if you don't like the way the government is run, but you gotta pay your taxes if you want to live inside the borders of a given country.
                        
                        Or you could move to a floating island and call it your own country, but then you'll have to defend yourself against any pirates that happen along; don't expect the US Navy (or any other one) to help you out unless you've got some kind of mutual assistance treaty.

                        replyreport
                        1. 67

                           innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                           In order to claim ownership of my property you need to prove that I have consented to it. I have not. This is true, even if you gave me anything I would ever need or want in my entire life in exchange. If I do not consent, you have no right over my property.
                           
                           Furthermore, my presence in a given area is not implicit consent. The government's "right" over this piece of land is illegitimate since it has not bought/homesteaded the land. If the US government wants legitimate control they must buy the land from willing parties, otherwise it has to be considered aggressive. I explicitly state that I do not consent.

                           replyreport
                           1. 73

                              Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                              And yet you remain in the country, and in so doing, you implicitly consent to respect its laws and its government.
                              
                              As for buying/homesteading the land, did you buy yours from a legitimate owner? Unless you bought it from a Native American (or someone who could prove that it was legitimately sold by a Native American, without coercion, in time gone by), nope.
                              
                              So, by your own arguments, you don't have a legitimate claim to any land that you may "own" either.

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                 Actually Jeff, despite his talk of the US government he is as British as I am!

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 73

                                    Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                                    Oh. That's a surprise for me. Then I guess he needs to buy the freehold, right? 'Cos as I understand it, most land in the UK remains the property of either the crown or some peer or other, and is only "sold" for a finite period, like for 100 years, right?
                                    
                                    Maybe he could go to one of those websites that sell "Lordships" to naiive Americans, and buy a whole lot of one-square-foot freeholds from the same peer, and hope that they all happen to be right next to each other on the estate, and then he can own the land independently of the UK?
                                    
                                    The problem with saying that the government doesn't have any rights over a given bit of land because it didn't legitimately buy it is that by that argument, then the "owner" of the land in question also has no rights over it, since the original owner probably had it taken from him by force (by the Roundheads, or the Normans, or the Danes, or the Saxons, or the Romans, or the Britons, even. And therefore you can't legitimately buy it from anyone: nobody legitimately owns any land at all.
                                    
                                    That's what happens when you carry the argument of a libertarian to its logical conclusion: it starts to sound like the rhetoric of a digger or a leveller. Of course, any property that the libertarian himself "owns," well, he legitimately owns that. It's everyone else who has no legitimate claim.

                                    replyreport
   3. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Since this subject is similar, here is a link to a question I posed to you a couple of weeks ago in another thread, and am curious about your answer:
      
      http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/110359? … ost2348960
      
      Part of the reason I am so curious is that I have a friend who is a self-proclaimed libertarian who believes taxation is theft but makes great money (as well as receiving a cadillac health care plan, three weeks' vacation, sick leave, vision and dental care) working for a government agency.  I can't understand how she can do that in good conscience when she professes such revulsion toward government in general and taxation in particular.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         So the question is: "If the government is immoral, is any conceivable involvement with the government, including paying taxes, immoral too?"
         
         To invoke morality there has to be some kind of choice. If someone commands you to commit an immoral act at the point of a gun, we cannot condemn you as much as we could if you did the act voluntarily. Since taxation is theft, and if we don't pay it we go to prison, it is a bit of a stretch to expect libertarians to stop paying taxes as a general rule (unless part of a mass tax revolt maybe). We don't have a real choice. Is it a moral duty for the slave to disobey the slave master when doing so may kill him?
         
         What most libertarians expect of each other is to be consistent in most actions they make. Unless you live in a socialist country it is conceivably possible to avoid government involvement in 95% of your daily-life dealings, but it's even okay to work for the government if part of your mission is to promote liberty. However, I'm not sure, but it doesn't sound like your libertarian friend takes it seriously.

         replyreport
   4. 73

      Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? Show me the coin for the tax.” And they brought him a denarius. And Jesus said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said, “Caesar's.” Then he said to them, “Therefore render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.” When they heard it, they marveled. And they left him and went away.
      
      Now is the part where you marvel and go away.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I guess Jesus wouldn't have minded if the people abandoned Caeser's fake fiat-money and created their own currency then?

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Probably not.

            replyreport
2. 0

   Sooner28posted 11 years ago

   I can accept this in the government realm.  One could say Jesus never advocated the government confiscating taxes to help the poor.  .
   
   However, this doesn't help the christian escape from the other verses Jesus said.  It just means they have to give away all their money voluntarily, rather than vote for a particular party to take it all away, and there is also no libertarian doctrine that claims people should not give to charity .
   
   As for war, I've argued with conservative christians about this forever.  The best answer I got was that in Revelation, Jesus is quite violent when he returns to earth.  Unfortunately, this makes the philosophy of Jesus look incoherent with a heavy side of contradiction.
   
   So it didn't help the christian escape that either!  Almost every single verse in the Gospels where Jesus talks about enemies and retaliation, his advice is love and non-violence. 
   
   So, I think you should write a hub about this.  Jesus may have been a libertarian!

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The contradiction is not at all.
      Scripture foretold before Jesus came and tells in prophecy that He will come and bring judgement when He returns.
      He came and loved and healed and taught. The Jews hated Him partly because they wanted the Jesus of Revelation right then to rid them of Rome.
      
      Now if you want to avoid what He will do when He returns you probably should read His words again and stop trying to attach them to you favorite political party...and that goes for any of them in this world.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Soul Man Boogieposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Happy Easter! He is risen! He will return soon!

         replyreport
      2. 0

         Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Jesus did not say he was going to come about and kill all the bad guys.  Sorry.  Where in the Gospels does he say such a thing?

         replyreport
         1. 61

            Barefootfaeposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I didn't say he was going to come kill all the bad guys.
            Now....did I?
            If you want to know read it. I suggest you pay attention to the words of John the Baptist and read the book of Revelation ALL the way through.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

               When Jesus goes to war against Satan,  there will be a lot of killing.

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Unfortunately, it is the followers of Christianity who have done most of the killing, when they believe others are Satan and they stand for Jesus.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     I hope they stop acting insane soon.

                     replyreport
   2. 67

      innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Of course I do expect Christians to be charitable or it's all for nothing. I'm not sure I could write a hub about it seeing as I'm not so knowledgeable on the Bible, but there's a great blog I subscribe to called 'Libertarian Christians' that has many articles on the subject, including debunking the myth that Romans 13 means trust your government no matter what it does.
      
      http://libertarianchristians.com/

      replyreport
3. 59

   John Holdenposted 11 years ago

   BTW what is the difference between a liberal and a libertarian?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Soul Man Boogieposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      A Libertarian is predisposed to neither liberal or conservative ideology or platforms. A Libertarian will approach each issue by itself to find the best possible solution for the benefit of the citizenry. They believe the less government the better.
      
      Now, they are often misrepresented as being some sort of anarchists by conservative and liberal media, but this is a gross exaggeration of their position. They are pragmatic and realize the need for government. They simply want to keep interference in personal living and business to a minimum.
      
      Their views on taxation are not popular with the taxman.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Well, innersmiff calls himself an anarchist and, unless I'm mistaken, believes there is no need for government, ever.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Yeah, Libertarians can be either anarchists or minarchists (minimal government). Rothbardian libertarians, like me, believe that anarcho-capitalism is the fullest expression of liberty. A certain section of libertarians do not like the anarchists too much - not to generalise too much, but they seem to spend most of their time trying to legalise pot than do much else.

            replyreport
         2. 73

            Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            The problem with most libertarians is that they want to benefit from the peace, order, and convenience of civil society without contributing to its maintenance in any way.
            The freeloaders.

            replyreport
            1. 67

               innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Civil society by definition cannot come from aggressive actions, only voluntary ones. Real libertarians want nothing to do with government and the 'services' it claims to provide.

               replyreport
               1. 73

                  Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  So you don't drive on roads, enjoy the absence of roving bandits, expect food and drinking water to be safe without doing your own chemical tests, etc, etc? Okay.

                  replyreport
                  1. 67

                     innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                     None of those services are so complex that private companies could not provide them. However, the government currently holds a violent monopoly over them so it is quite impossible to not use them. But just as you don't expect to be charged by an attractive person for the 'service' of seeing them on the street, one should not be expected to be charged for any other 'service' that you have not consented to and have no control over.

                     replyreport
                     1. 59

                        John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        Easy, just stick to unclassified roads, they aren't paid for by the government. Collect rain water and treat it yourself, Move to somewhere like Moss Side in Manchester where the gangs rule and you can enjoy your libertarian life to the full, untrammelled by any of the accompaniments of civilisation that we pay for.
                        
                        And of course you are free to look at any of the services we provide without charge but just as that attractive person might just want a little more out of you if you wanted to do more than look, so it is with society.

                        replyreport
                     2. 73

                        Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                        You keep insisting that you haven't consented. But living in the society is consent. You're not being violently forced to remain in the UK, are you?
                        
                        Nothing is preventing you from seeking freedom and prosperity in the Somali non-state. Certainly you would be welcomed there with open arms by your fellow lovers of liberty, and nobody would ever try to coerce you into any kind of financial arrangement.

                        replyreport
            2. 74

               Reality Bytesposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               Speaking for myself.  I have no problem with taxation that is consentual.  I happily pay my sales tax.  I pay taxes on the tobacco I buy.  If I operated a motorized vehicle on public roads, I would pay the proper taxes.  It is the confiscation by force that is wrong, immoral, and illegal.

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  But even sales tax is confiscation too - remember, your income is simply a 'sale' or transaction of a different kind, making the income tax and the sales tax essentially indistinguishable.

                  replyreport
   2. 0

      Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Okay this is a tricky issue.  As a philosophy major, I know the way people use political labels in everyday discourse can be highly misleading.
      
      A liberal used to be what conservatives are today, minus the social issues.  They just said government should stay out of the way.  Liberal=liberty.
      
      Somewhere along the way, liberal transformed, at least in the United States, to become what current liberals are.  A libertarian is simply a liberal of old.  Generally they are called "classic liberals" if one insists on using the term liberal to describe them.   In the United States, this isn't done at all.  Anyone who leads towards the classic liberal position is called a conservative or a libertarian.
      
      Libertarians, if they are principled and consistent, are not usually pragmatic in the political sense of the word (compromise).  They see almost all taxation as a violation of property rights.  They claim that if people freely enter into contracts with each other, who are we to interfere in their lives? 
      
      Real conservativism usually does not have a specific set of beliefs.  It traces back to Edmund Burke and asserts that we shouldn't change society too quickly, lest we burst at the seams.  Being a conservative does NOT mean one is against universal health care, gay marriage, or anything like that.  It just means change needs to be slow.  Watch every step one takes, and see the consequences, rather than running and not watching what one has run over. 
      
      So for the gay marriage example, a conservative in favor of gay marriage would probably say to leave it to the states until public opinion has changed to the point where  there only a  few stragglers, like Alabama, Mississippi, and Oklahoma, so it wouldn't cause a major backlash to force these states to accept marriage equality.
      
      I understand that's really vague, and for more specific answers to what libertarians say about how to deal with pollution, war, police, etc, I refer you to Miff.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         You've got it there pretty much.

         replyreport
   3. 65

      Marquisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      There isn't much difference, especially with the Left Wing Libertarians. The Liberals and Libertarians are both sick and perverted.

      replyreport
      1. 67

         innersmiffposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         And the libertarian would say: if we are not aggressive, so what if we are sick and perverted? It's none of your business.

         replyreport
      2. 0

         Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I don't know what your argument is.  If you want to suck on your spouses toes and eat their toenails, I may find it disturbing, but I don't want to make it illegal for you to do it.   The action is between two consenting adults and not hurting anyone.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Brenda Durhamposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            No problem.
            But don't steal a label from somewhere else and try to affix it to that;  and don't force everyone else to legally recognize it as legitimate.

            replyreport
            1. 73

               Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               I think you mean: don't try to co-opt the power of the state to irrationally and tyrannically treat it as a "lesser" relationship than that of those who don't engage in such behavior.
               
               It's a perennial chore, correcting your ill-considered pronouncements.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  John Holdenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Thanks Jeff, I was struggling!

                  replyreport
4. 65

   maxoxam41posted 11 years ago

   Jesus doesn't exist in my book, therefore the problem doesn't arise.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Silverspeederposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Was it a problem or an observation made?
      
      I am sure he exsisted but i am unsure as to why Christians (especially those in organised religions) think they own him.
      I am still waiting for the proof of the missing link and shall keep an open mind until, if ever it is found.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Marquisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Well maybe because he died for the sins of many? I am waiting for people like you to understand that fact. And it is not about organized religion either. It is about Jesus.

         replyreport
         1. 87

            Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            The Bible was organized, edited, and butchered by self-interested Romans at the Council of Nicaea, with more than half of every biblical text being excluded from the final product.
            
            That's as "organized religion" as you can possibly get.

            replyreport
            1. 65

               Marquisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

               You have a hard time understanding. It is not about organized religion or the Bible.
               
               It is about JESUS.
               
               Numb skulls like you will never get it.

               replyreport
         2. 58

            A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            We might, if it was indeed a fact, but since it is not a fact, we can ignore it as myth.

            replyreport
         3. 60

            Silverspeederposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I thought he died to set us free from those sins, to offer us the possibility of everlasting life (as was gods original purpose) maybe you missed that point while you were reading one of the doctored organised religions bibles Marquis?

            replyreport
   2. 65

      Marquisposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I hope Satan exist in your book because you exist in his.

      replyreport
      1. 58

         A Troubled Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Could you offer some more Christian bigotry and hatred? Seems there's plenty to go around.

         replyreport
5. 65

   Marquisposted 11 years ago

   Why are people so interested in labeling what Jesus was?
   
   Jesus was here to save souls, that is all.

   replyreport
6. 67

   Cheeky Girlposted 11 years ago

   Sorry, I misread the thread title. Thought Jesus was being touted as a librarian! Holy crap!

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Well, if Jesus is God, and God knows everything, Jesus is kind of like a librarian.

      replyreport
   2. 73

      Jeff Berndtposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
7. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 11 years ago

   http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/06/is-bi … tarians-ha
   
   Bill Maher's new rule:  "Libertarians have to stop ruining Libertarianism"
   
   Both funny and insightful, I think.

   replyreport