Kevin :
This is actually apropos to your e-mail.
Someone I never could stand was William F Buckley. However, he once
did something important that contributed to the successes of the
Conservative
movement. This was back in the 1950s and into the 1960s. All of the fringe
groups that were claiming affiliation with the Republican Party were
summarily disavowed. Including, maybe especially, the Birch people.
The point is that there is such a thing as the mainstream and that is where
elections
are won, not on the margins. Who controls the center, controls.
By this way of thinking, today neither party CAN control the center because
neither
party disavows extreme elements. The public sees this and understands that
their
choice is always some lesser of two evils.
How different is this principle for Libertarians ? Not a problem for
Radical Centrists
so far, the movement is still small and no chance yet for a bandwagon
effect, but
I don't see where we would be immune. As it is, here and there
"anti-Radical Centrists"
have arisen, like a homosexual activist in Iowa, think this is the
location, which recasts
the homosexual cause as RC in nature , which is ridiculous. Much less
negatvely, there
was a journalist in California who rode the coattails of Schwarzenegger's
popularity
and called himself a Radical Centrist for a few years. He actually was
sorta RC,
in fact. But he had no interest in the movement at all, just in
capitalizing
on the then-popularity of the phrase in California.
In the future we can expect this kind of thing many times over.
So, how do we keep RC "pure" ?
Strikes me that the problem for Libertarians is that they are willing to
play ball with various Anarchists. Not that, say, Anarcho-Syndicalists
are bad news, you can make a case for them, maybe also for the
pacifists influenced by Tolstoy-Kropotkin, but beyond that you get
into Never-Never Land territory with all kinds of Anarchist idiots.
The Left has this problem, too, with its own Anarchist faction, the
really violent ones, which are never disavowed either.
-------------------------------------------
About religion,. let me defer comment until Christian believers have
the chance to comment on the Great Commission and the Kingdom.
Billy
==================================================
11/21/2011 5:25:50 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
I think this is correct, Billy - and why Deism by so many other names is
becoming more popular. It is the evangelism/supremacy aspect of all
revealed religion that is most troubling to Deists. Our coupling at A Place
for
Possibilities, classical liberalism and Deism is onto something dontcha
think?
As the article you sent earlier illustrates there was an earlier coupling
of energies at the beginnings of libertarianism. Supremacists and
anarchists found a home. Many of those folks are still around (and attracted
to
Ron Paul). The John Birch'ers for instance are Christian Libertarians for
the most part. The anarchists and anarcho-capitalists, akin to Rothbard are
also attracted to Paul. Objectivists, similarly. Each of these groups
sees Paul as about the best choice out there right now.
I like him because I believe a libertarian sensibility is what we need
right now to unwind the inevitable statist buildup that happens in all systems
over time.
Kevin
Christianity is a missionary religion. This statement ought to be
non-controversial.
Unfortunately, I think because of libertarian influence more than any
other factor,
this viewpoint is denied. That is, at least as I understand it,
Libertarians tell us that
religion should be a private affair, that no-one should seek to convert
others,
and especially should keep their noses out of non-Christian cultures
because
what Muslims or Hindus, etc, may do, is their own business and Christians
should respect their rights to practice their traditional faiths.
Indeed, some ( or most ) Libertarians go further and deny any value to
religion
whatsoever, and hence want religious believers not to proselytize at all.
Murray Rothbard
noted this kind of attitude at one time :
"...I am getting tired of the offhanded smearing of religion that has long
been endemic
to the libertarian movement. Religion is generally dismissed as imbecilic
at best,
inherently evil at worst. The greatest and most creative minds in the
history
of mankind have been deeply and profoundly religious, most of them
Christian.”
At any rate, I have heard the refrain from Libertarians that seeking to
convert others
to one's religion is objectionable. Leaving aside the fact that Buddhism
is also a missionary
religion, as is Islam, the Baha'i Faith, that in the past so was Judaism,
that sometimes
Hinduism has a missionary dimension, etc., this prohibition effects
Christians directly
and is most relevant here.
It so happens, of course, that the New Testament commands believers to
seek to convert
others AND to persuade everyone to follow Biblical morality. Here (
emphasis added )
is the quote :
_Matthew 28:16-20_ (javascript:{})
So the eleven disciples went to Galilee to the mountain Jesus had
designated. When they saw him, they worshiped him, but some doubted. Then
Jesus
came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been
given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them
in
the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to
obey everything I have commanded you. And remember, I am with you always,
to the end of the age”
Libertarians are fond of citing other verses, and while other passages are
clear that people should not be coerced into religion nor in any way
sacrifice their legitimate personal freedoms, the Great Commission carries
special weight. Christians who actually believe in the Bible are supposed to
convert others. Not only this, they are supposed to seek to bring about a
massive social movement that converts the world to Biblical morality. That is,
rather than being "morally libertarian" the New Testament commands
Christians to seek a common morality for everyone.
To make this clear all you need to do is read I Corinthians some time. The
Apostle Paul criticized the Corinthian congregation for tolerating
"anything goes" morality. To Paul such liberty was the exact opposite of what
Chr
istian faith should be all about.
I simply do not see where actual Christian faith, or actual Buddhist
faith, etc., can be compatible with Libertarianism. The foundation of
Libertarianism is anything goes ( minus punching out the other guy ).
The foundation of Christian faith is the over-reaching goal of converting
the world to faith in Christ and to observance of a clearly defined set of
moral principles. It is not OK by this morality to do or favor any number
of things that Libertarians say are perfectly OK. In fact, Christians are
supposed to oppose a number of the things Libertarians advocate.
Such as anti-statism. The great model of society that we are presented
with in the Bible is the Hebrew monarchy, after all. Jesus, furthermore, seeks
to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to the world and partly is justified as
messiah because of his royal lineage, a descendent of King David. The subtext
surely is that any state to which we give authority ought to be as
well-conceived and well-managed as the Kingdom of Israel in Solomonic times.
That,
as model for political order, is a far cry from Libertarian preachments
about a minimalist state with no ( or very little ) centralized authority. The
entire book of Deuteronomy is about the necessity of establishing a
centralized state with a virtuous and strong government.
So it seems to me
Billy
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
