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
==================================================
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
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 Christian
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
