www.ditl.org

Teaos wrote:Frankly I say tuff ****. Personal freedom trumps there screwed up beliefs.

Personally, I tend to agree with you. But here's the problems: You (or I, or anyone else) don't get to tell anyone whether their beliefs are "screwed up" or not; and a person's right to believe as they will is in fact one of those personal freedoms you intend on protecting.

This Catch-22, to borrow a phrase from one of my people, is an example of why a decent theoretical idea, such as Teaos' take on libertarianism, falls down in a practical application. To implement it, SOMEONE needs to say which person's freedoms - or which freedoms in particular - are more important or more valid than others... and once you have that, you no longer have the libertarianism you intended. In fact, you have quite the opposite.

But here's the problems: You (or I, or anyone else) don't get to tell anyone whether their beliefs are "screwed up" or not; and a person's right to believe as they will is in fact one of those personal freedoms you intend on protecting.

Actually, you do. It's called 'Freedom of Speech'. Just as they get to tell us we are all evil and are going to hell.
Enforcing your beliefs on them are completely different.

OK, Captain Syntax. Let me revise that:

You (or I, or anyone else) don't get to tell anyone in an official or enforcement capacity whether their beliefs are "screwed up" or not

The point remains valid - who gets to decide which person's freedoms are more valid? Once you have someone deciding that, you no longer have that idyllic libertarianism. I'll say it again: in theory, wonderful; in actual practice, it would be entirely self-defeating.

You (or I, or anyone else) don't get to tell anyone whether their beliefs are "screwed up" or not; and a person's right to believe as they will is in fact one of those personal freedoms you intend on protecting.

I'll let people believe what ever they want but I can still think it is screwed up.

To implement it, SOMEONE needs to say which person's freedoms - or which freedoms in particular - are more important or more valid than others... and once you have that, you no longer have the libertarianism you intended. In fact, you have quite the opposite.

No it doesnt. Libertarianism is the rights of individual freedom so long as they dont infrige on the freedoms of others. I give the the right to do what ever they wish with themselves and the freedom to say anything they like. The however cannot force others to do anything.

I do see the confilict but that is one of the many reasons I hate religion.

If you remember several pages back I said my idea political climate of liberatarian/fuedilisum/metiocratic.

Lets take USA for example.

I would have no laws that spread out over the whole country. Every state would more or less be an independant nation but with open ties with all the rest of them for trade and defence.

Each state can run things in the way the population of that area wants to. All the crazy religious folks can all migrate to Alabama were they can all dress in ugly cloths not have abortions stone Gays to death and generally have a shitty life. All the people like me can move to say... Washington state and have our personal freedom.

The larger an area the harder it is to run and keep people happy. By splintering up can keep the vast majority happy. You dont like all the sinful behavious in you area? Move to Texas. You want more freedom? Move to Nevada.

I realise this will never happen in this extream way but a softer version of this already exists.

I sort of hate to play devil's advocate here, because you're heart is really in the right place, Teaos. First, as an aside, let me say that I appreciate, enjoy, and derive a great positive experience from my religion - and I do not appreciate being referred to as "crazy' simply because I accept a particular faith.

Secondly, a much looser, more decentralized confederation was originally the basis of what became known as the USA. However, the Articles of Federation that were the original plan of the newly-independent colonies were too weak to hold together a group of states with such widely varied interests. However, we are a nation - all the states together - for the same reason that any other nation forms. Even since the American Civil War, there is a history and culture of "Americana" that intertwines this country, and doing anything to divide it amongst itself will be counterproductive at best.

Don't get me wrong - many times I have thought of a more radical group, "Can't we just put them away somewhere where they can keep to themselves?" However, upon cooler analysis, doping so would merely abrogate the principles of federation that were the inception of the US. Would you split up, and declare North and South Islands as independent sovereign states, merely because different people live in each one?

Mikey wrote:I First, as an aside, let me say that I appreciate, enjoy, and derive a great positive experience from my religion - and I do not appreciate being referred to as "crazy' simply because I accept a particular faith.

Mikey is not crazy because he's a jew, mikey is crazy because he's a nutter*, the religion or ancestory is just coincidental




*supports the NY Giants

Thank you for clarifying that.

Each state can run things in the way the population of that area wants to. All the crazy religious folks can all migrate to Alabama were they can all dress in ugly cloths not have abortions stone Gays to death and generally have a shitty life.

Excuse me for saying this, Teaos, but whether or not your heart is in the 'right place,' you're kind of behaving like a bigot here. It's fairly clear that you're just as dogmatic about your atheism as we religious folks are about our religion...but we don't feel the need to take every oppurtunity to declare you a bunch of crazy, unbalanced nutters.
I almost hate to say this, because I agree with you on a lot of things, but your comments here are way, way out of line.

The important thing to note is that that is all diected at the religious people who choose to force their belief or their morals on others.

I truely consider people like that to be evil and if there is a hell I sure as hell hope it is full of people like them.

The people who just go to church and go on living their lives with out trying to be humanities moral police officers are fine.

There is a huge difference in having something that you believe and let it be a moral compass for your own life and the people who try to make it be a moral compass for EVERYONE.

The one thing that you all probably realise by now is my utter support for personal freedom... thus my complete hatred for those extream religious folk.

But to be totally honest I dont really like religion in general and think we would be better off with out it. But I would NOT ever stop someone from being religious even if I could.

Teaos wrote:The people who just go to church and go on living their lives with out trying to be humanities moral police officers are fine.

As much as I agree with you, there are religions out there - mainstream ones, mind - which include "sharing" their beliefs as one of their tenets.

In other words, for an example, Catholic dogma is strongly against artificial birth control. However, the Catholic belief is not just that THEY shouldn't use it - it is that NO ONE should use it. I disagree, and I don't want anyone forcing their opinions on me, but denying them the opportunity is, in fact, denying them their right to practice their religion.

The important thing to note is that that is all diected at the religious people who choose to force their belief or their morals on others.

So what would you define as 'forcing' beliefs? A mandatory Church-attendance law we can both agree would be way out of line...but other than that most of the morals that religious people believe in are basically the same as those non-religious people believe in...its just that we actually take them seriously. You can't exactly fault people for that.

But to be totally honest I dont really like religion in general and think we would be better off with out it. But I would NOT ever stop someone from being religious even if I could.

Well, gee; that's awfully kind of you. So we're all deluded maniacs, but we can be deluded maniacs if we want, so long as we don't annoy you. Let's try something-- imagine for a moment that one religion is ultimately correct...say Judaism. Now if there's really a God up there, wouldn't that fact be important enough to risk offending some people? You don't believe in God, and so you think Him unimportant; but you can't fault people who believe in God for thinking Him and His dictates worth doing something about.

So what would you define as 'forcing' beliefs?

Making it law. Some religious people claim the bible says homosexuality is wrong thus they want it against the law for homosexuals to Marry or adopt or even in extream cases to live.

By teaching it in school were the children have no option but to listen to it.

I dont give a crap what anyone says or thinks. But the second they MAKE someone else follow their beliefs or moral code I take exeption.

but other than that most of the morals that religious people believe in are basically the same as those non-religious people believe in

As I said I support freedom of religion. But the thing is a increasing number of people are taking rather hard line views on things like abortion and euthinasia and sexual freedoms. So no religious and non religious folks do not on average have the same moral codes.

Well, gee; that's awfully kind of you. So we're all deluded maniacs, but we can be deluded maniacs if we want, so long as we don't annoy you.

Pretty much.

Now if there's really a God up there, wouldn't that fact be important enough to risk offending some people?

No it wouldnt. I doubt there are very many people at all in western civilisation who dont have at least a decent level of understanding of the major religions. Thus they are free to make their own decisions in life with out being mandated by other how to live.

If there is a God up there I could very well end up going to hell. But thats a risk I am willing to take to enjoy my own personal freedoms while alive.

As much as I agree with you, there are religions out there - mainstream ones, mind - which include "sharing" their beliefs as one of their tenets.

Yeah I know there is pretty much no way of not pissing people like this off with the whole personal freedom thing. The only way I can see them being happy is if they live in their own state were they can live under their moral codes and the same with everyone around them.

Once you have states based on religious/ideological criteria, then you invite warfare based on those same ideas. Our best modern day example is of course Israel - in one instance, six Arab nations attacked Israel on the most solemn holy day of the Jewish calendar, yet were still defeated - soundly. In later years, the Israelis returned all of the land that they had won from the Arabs (in a war that the Arabs had begun) yet nothing has changed - because there is no rational peaceful conculsion to a jihad.

Again, make no mistake - I don't have a problem with your idea per se, Teaos - the problem is that it necessarily would have to be employed by imperfect people - us.

Yeah I know it can never work in practical application.

I read a really good paper about a year ago by a French political scientist about the realationship between religion and Liberatarians... basically that they can never really go together.

But Israel is a poor example as that is hardly just a religious war. It has so many levels and causes that saying it is a Jihad is hardly fitting.

But looking at the USA again you pretty much do have a mini version of religious seperation. Your "bible belt" actracts a lot of the hardcore religious people while your more free states like California get the liberals. While it isnt a perfect seperation it shows that it does happen naturally and people can be quite happy living in their own communites.

Don't bet on a state with Arnold Scwarzenegger as governor being only a home for liberals.

While there is somewhat of a natural division here in the States, it is more because of the slow familial drift in those areas than anything else. I imagine you must have an idea how an American would react if you told him, "Well, you're a Southern Baptist, so you have to stay in Alabama."

Plus, with the influx of Latino immigration, groups like the Adventists adn Pentecostals are found in increasingly large numbers in the metropolitan corridors, which were traditionally Catholic, Jewish, Eastern Orthodox, and the more conservative Protestant sects - Episcopalian, Lutheran, and Presbyterian.