Officially, I've been a card carrying, big L Libertarian since December 28, 2008. But as I suddenly look back, I'm wondering how deep my libertarian roots go.
Back when I was a grad assistant, I taught Philosophy and Public Affair 2005 and 2006, and very quickly I discovered one of my favorite questions to ask was, "What exactly makes X wrong?" Very often I would find that the answer was, nothing. I spent semesters making my students think about why these things were considered wrong, and trying to discover any truth in this wrongness, and often finding nothing inherently wrong in so many things people thought were inherently wrong. And in the process, I realized the same; it was a glorious experience.
It's so strange to compare myself to the person I was 10 years ago. I made a few really big mistakes, but all in all I was what most would consider a good kid. I lived my rules of behavior that most in the rather conservative (note little c) community and college considered proper and correct. Looking back now, I really do wish I hadn't. Like Huxley's John Savage, I wish I had claimed the pain and suffering that freedom can allow, instead of repressing it for safety's sake. It took a year of walking away from all of the assumptions I hadn't even known I had to discover who I was. The first set of revelations frightened me; now, I find I discovered things that I gratefully accept now as excellent parts of me. On a side note, yes, Rene Descartes is my favorite philosopher.
I've spent so long on a wonderful journey of discovery, and I think libertarianism is exactly where I belong. I think so many more people would discover the same, if they were to break the character foundation society, culture, and even upbringing created for them, and build their own foundation on what they then find.
(Originally posted on reddit.com/r/libertarian)
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Friday, June 17, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
How to be a Libertarian and a Christian
Browsing the Internet a few days ago, I found a blog called LibertarianChristians.com. I found that odd for a brief amount of time. I had always thought that there was at least some tension between the two things: after all, God set down very strict rules of behavior, while Libertarians tend to think as long as no one is harmed, all is fair. The prevailing opinions within the Church are that abortion and homosexuality are wrong; Libertarians disagree.
But then, a strange thought came to me. Prayer seems a beautifully non-interventionist way to strive for results. Who is truly harmed by a prayer that the rebels will succeed in Libya, or that the money an underprivileged family needs to buy food comes their way? No one. This is not any human government deciding it knows better than its citizens what they need and what must be done on their behalf. This is a petition to the One who truly does know better.
What, then, of the rules set down? Well, those who include the New Testament believe that large portions of that Mosaic law have since been rescinded, replaced by commandments to love your God and your neighbor, sentiments that do seem to jibe well with the belief that anything goes as long as picked pockets and broken legs do not result. In fact, one of my concerns with Libertarians -- the right to be selfish -- is assuaged by folding in those two commandments. As for abortion, that is more at the philosophical level: a question of the rights a fetus has. Those who say a fetus is a human being easily condemn abortion under the commandment saying thou shalt not kill. If a fetus has no such rights and is not a human being, then the commandment does not apply. Plenty of Libertarians are anti-abortion, because they fall on the former side, not the latter. And as for homosexuality, it may be as simple as God loves all, no matter. Maybe it's something like being an alcoholic or having a roving eye, just something to be controlled. Or maybe, it's a portion of the Law that was rolled back as well, and all the condemnations you find in the Word are cultural, not universal.
Just my thoughts. Whether they have merit, I leave to you.
But then, a strange thought came to me. Prayer seems a beautifully non-interventionist way to strive for results. Who is truly harmed by a prayer that the rebels will succeed in Libya, or that the money an underprivileged family needs to buy food comes their way? No one. This is not any human government deciding it knows better than its citizens what they need and what must be done on their behalf. This is a petition to the One who truly does know better.
What, then, of the rules set down? Well, those who include the New Testament believe that large portions of that Mosaic law have since been rescinded, replaced by commandments to love your God and your neighbor, sentiments that do seem to jibe well with the belief that anything goes as long as picked pockets and broken legs do not result. In fact, one of my concerns with Libertarians -- the right to be selfish -- is assuaged by folding in those two commandments. As for abortion, that is more at the philosophical level: a question of the rights a fetus has. Those who say a fetus is a human being easily condemn abortion under the commandment saying thou shalt not kill. If a fetus has no such rights and is not a human being, then the commandment does not apply. Plenty of Libertarians are anti-abortion, because they fall on the former side, not the latter. And as for homosexuality, it may be as simple as God loves all, no matter. Maybe it's something like being an alcoholic or having a roving eye, just something to be controlled. Or maybe, it's a portion of the Law that was rolled back as well, and all the condemnations you find in the Word are cultural, not universal.
Just my thoughts. Whether they have merit, I leave to you.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Libya
Let's start with a burning question: what in the hell are we doing in Libya?
Let's answer that. We are getting involved, which is what America does, for some reason I can't put my finger on. We are bombing a country which we have not declared war upon -- although AP News did make mention of the Libya war in a story today. We are stretching our forces to the breaking point, when they are already engaged in one official war and one that's allegedly over, despite all indications. We are trying to be the police of the world, trying to make the world one big happy democratic family.
I am so very tired of this.
Can we not just offer moral support and some decent weapons to the rebels? Do we really need to create a no-fly zone and bomb aircraft that are on the ground and thus, technically, not flying and thus not in violation of this arbitrary no-fly zone?
And while we're at it, can we also just get out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Please?
Let's answer that. We are getting involved, which is what America does, for some reason I can't put my finger on. We are bombing a country which we have not declared war upon -- although AP News did make mention of the Libya war in a story today. We are stretching our forces to the breaking point, when they are already engaged in one official war and one that's allegedly over, despite all indications. We are trying to be the police of the world, trying to make the world one big happy democratic family.
I am so very tired of this.
Can we not just offer moral support and some decent weapons to the rebels? Do we really need to create a no-fly zone and bomb aircraft that are on the ground and thus, technically, not flying and thus not in violation of this arbitrary no-fly zone?
And while we're at it, can we also just get out of Iraq and Afghanistan? Please?
Return of the Rant
Well, I started this so I could rant for a while. Then I calmed down again.
Now I'm pissed again, so I'm back.
Now I'm pissed again, so I'm back.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Twelve Days of Christmas
I just received an email from my church office, letting me know a fascinating fact: that the classic Christmas song "Twelve Days of Christmas" actually encoded some of the basics of the Christian faith.
My BS meter immediately started ticking.
So I went to that bastion of truth and otherwise, Snopes.com. Thirty seconds of research -- more accurately, typing into a search bar and pressing send -- proved my meter was well-calibrated.
This shows either that we Christians blindly accept anything that comes our way without analysis, or we knowingly sacrifice truth for the sake of a good and uplifting story. Either is utterly unacceptable.
My BS meter immediately started ticking.
So I went to that bastion of truth and otherwise, Snopes.com. Thirty seconds of research -- more accurately, typing into a search bar and pressing send -- proved my meter was well-calibrated.
This shows either that we Christians blindly accept anything that comes our way without analysis, or we knowingly sacrifice truth for the sake of a good and uplifting story. Either is utterly unacceptable.
Four thirty-five
About a year ago, I discovered a site called thirty-thousand.org. It was basically a site focusing on how those who considered and wrote the Constitution of the United States intended there to be a Representative for every thirty thousand citizens. One does wonder if they ever pictured the United States having three hundred million citizens, thus requiring ten thousand members in the House. But even that aside, it also pointed out the gross discrepancies between House districts, where some actually have twice the residents of others.
Flash forward to 2010. The Supreme Court just denied an appeal aiming to double or even quadruple the number of Representatives. One of the stated reasons for this original appeal was to more fairly divide the existing districts.
Unfortunately, everywhere I look I find only the same three or four brief paragraphs on this. It seems to be treated as a non-issue, when I personally feel it's anything but. The choice to have 435 Representatives -- no more, no less -- seems nothing but arbitrary to me, and though I don't deem 10,000 Representatives necessary, an expansion to make the picture of the American people the House is supposed to be less grainy seems anything but a bad idea to me. Maybe I'm missing something. I hope it's not just a dedication to a needless status quo that caused the Court to deny it.
Flash forward to 2010. The Supreme Court just denied an appeal aiming to double or even quadruple the number of Representatives. One of the stated reasons for this original appeal was to more fairly divide the existing districts.
Unfortunately, everywhere I look I find only the same three or four brief paragraphs on this. It seems to be treated as a non-issue, when I personally feel it's anything but. The choice to have 435 Representatives -- no more, no less -- seems nothing but arbitrary to me, and though I don't deem 10,000 Representatives necessary, an expansion to make the picture of the American people the House is supposed to be less grainy seems anything but a bad idea to me. Maybe I'm missing something. I hope it's not just a dedication to a needless status quo that caused the Court to deny it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)