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
