[688] in libertarians
Re: The Religious Right - Threat, Menace, or ...?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kathryn Moakler )
Tue Feb 14 16:41:45 1995
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 16:37:17 EST
From: moakler@ICD.teradyne.com (Kathryn Moakler )
To: moakler@ICD.teradyne.com, tjic@ICD.teradyne.com
Cc: libertarians@MIT.EDU, rosed@world.std.com, lfb@panix.com,
Todd_Seavey@kaplan.com, libernet@dartmouth.edu
> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 14:35:52 EST
> From: tjic@difrel (Travis Corcoran)
>
> > Date: Tue, 14 Feb 95 14:03:11 EST
> > From: moakler@difrel (Kathryn Moakler )
> >
> >
> > But these _aren't_ libertarian means... Traditionalist ends (meaning
> > 'family values' etc) are exclusive of personal liberties (meaning, freedom
> > to have an abortion, use birth control, be a single parent, be gay, etc.).
>
> > If the Libertarian party endorses traditionalist values in personal lives,
> > then how is it different than the GOP?
>
> I think you're missing the point here. The original article was not
> arguing that the LP, Cato, or any other Libertarian group should
> espouse "traditional" values, but that those with traditional values
> saw that they could achive some measure of success in spreading those
> values in a free society. This seems correct to me: The Moral
> Majority, Green Peace, The Boy Scouts of America, etc. can all work
> towards their goals in a free society by trying to convince
> individuals of their positions.
I'm not convinced that these people aren't using Libertarianism as a stepping
stone to GOP Traditionalism. I don't trust them. If they truly believe their
morals are 'right' they will try to enforce them on others, whether through
converting those others to christianity or enforcing those values through
government (or shooting at abortion clinics, in some cases). To me, the fact
that they single out divorced people, and do endorse school prayer, shows
that they do not advocate the separation of church values and the role of the
state. I see them as dangerous to what I think are the libertarian goals.
> To recap: noone said the LP should endorse the values;
I understand. I just think the LP should be wary of members with hidden
motives. I think it should be more active in endorsing personal freedom.
> > I don't understand why anyone would fight for the rights to keep
> > their own earnings from the government's re-distribution plan, just
> > so they could forfeit them to some religious organization's
> > re-distribution plan.
>
> I think this is pretty easy: a lot of people are willing to take
> actions of their own free will that they would not want to take if
> compelled by others to take. I've bought a copy of _The Communist
> Manifesto_ with my own hard-earned dollars, but I'd be pissed if the
> government said that I had to spend the $$ to buy the book.
Of course, you bought it because you wanted it. If you bought it because
you thought it was the morally correct thing for people to do, you would
think the world would be a better place if everyone did the correct thing,
and you would convince enough people of this view, to pass a law mandating
that people buy this book.
In summary, you did it for selfish reasons, not altruistic. If you thought
that altruism was morally correct, and selfishness was morally wrong,
you'd encourage people to be altruistic, and altruists would eventually
resent selfish people, and eventually demand the sacrifice of the
selfish people.
> A few decades ago blacks protested in the South that they were being
> forced to sit in the backs of busses. This does not mean that once
> they won acknowledgment of their right to sit in the fronts of busses
> that they chose to do so; I'm sure many continued to sit in the back.
Of course. It's wrong to be denied a seat. It's not necessarily
wrong not to take that seat if one doesn't want it. Again, its
wrong to be forced to sacrifice that seat in an altruistic way, to
whites. It is not wrong not sit there for selfish reasons.
Christians typically believe (and encourage others to believe) in
altruism as a the morally correct way to live. This is what I'm
afraid of.
> As a final point, it does not matter whether or not *you* understand
> why someone would fight against the government taking their earnings,
> then turn around and give some of that $$ away - the decision to do so
> rests soley with the earner, who is not compelled to either explain
> himself to you, or to act in a rational manner (this reminds me of the
> endless debate against guns: "I don't understand why you need a
> semi-auto rifle for <given purpose>"...it doesn't matter if someone
> else understand the motives, only that the individual making the
> decision does so of his own free will...).
I guess I don't consider being guilted into altruism by religious people
free will.
> > > Therefore, anything that reduces the role of the Washington
> > > bureacracy in the lives of families is a step in the right direction."
> >
> > Yes, so the churches can step in and take over that role ...
>
> The difference between the US government and the church down the
> street is that the government arrogates to itself a monopoly of force,
> and (theoretically) maintains that private individuals and
> organizations may not initiate use of force between themselves to
> compell behavior. If the government stops telling me to get married
> (with the force of tax laws, and therefore guns, to back it up), the
> church can start printing up pamphlets, but it can not compell me to
> listen, the way a government can.
The church down the street instead arrogates to itself a monopoly on God,
and maintains that private individuals won't get into heaven if they don't
follow the altruistic rules of the church. Since there are several
different churches out there, _some_ of them have to be wrong in their
beliefs. You're right, no one's forcing anyone to believe in God, and
play by these rules yet, but they sure do try to scare you into it...
> > > 4. secure religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all citizens,
> > > including voluntary school prayer and the right to freely express ones
> > > faith in public places.
> >
> > This really shows their hidden agenda in its true colors... Any type of
> > school prayer is the government endorsing religious values for everyone.
> > The government's role should not be to endorse anything. Period.
>
> I personally think that the *mandatory* ( not optional ) lessons in
> school on environmental concerns and current day politics constitute
> far more government endorsement of idealogical positions than school
> prayer does - by (a) cloaking themselves in the arguments of logic and
> science (although rarely actually being rigorous examples of such );
> and (b) being covered for a large amount of time they can convince
> those who are not cynical enough to do further research.
>
> The entire debate over prayer in school is an artifact of the current
> system wherein all the tax payers are forced to support the education
> of all the kids. There is no fundamental reason that prayer should be
> banned from schools. I went to a Catholic high school ( based on the
> decisions of myself and my parents ) where there was daily prayer and
> it worked out OK for me. My youngest brother went to a public school
> that did not have prayer, and it worked out OK for him. As long as no
> one is being forced to support education that they do not agree with,
> there seems to be no problem.
I think we agree here. I personally want my kids to learn the effects of
pollution, so they won't pollute. I particularly want them to learn not
to pollute _others'_ land/air/soil/water/whatever. I'd _almost_ argue for
teaching these as respect for property rights, in public schools if there
are to be such things. However, I do NOT want school prayer or altruism
endorsed in public schools, with my tax dollars. This is basically
irrelevant though, since I don't even think education should be public.
With private education, you could have your kids taught whatever the hell
you want them to be taught, be it how to pray, how to fix cars, or how to
use birth control.
By the way altruism _is_ encouraged in public schools currently. When
a teacher tells the smarter kid to let the other kids answer, they're
teaching the kid to sacrifice his intellectual stimulation for their
educational needs. Just an aside.
Kathryn
opinions(Kathryn) != opinions(TJIC) != opinions(employer(TJIC))
