Secular ethics and libertarianism

[Zay]

Does anyone else think that the failure of Christianity/religion is one of the main reasons libertarianism fails to gain ground? So many charities and aid organizations have a Christian agenda to them that people feel that secular government is the only way to be altruistic. Government is the new god, basically.

[Butcher]

I agree, too many libertarian groups have been transformed into redneck polygamist cults.

[skinny love]

Yes, that would be correct. Humans will require that "source" no matter what, the majority of them. Everything about human nature is disgusting.

beautifully disgusting

[nshanin]

Everything about human nature is disgusting.

That's why I gave up my humanity a long time ago.

[LiquidIce]

That's why I gave up my humanity a long time ago.
What did you get in return?

[nshanin]

What did you get in return?

I gave it up, fuckwad; I didn't trade it!

[Rust]

Does anyone else think that the failure of Christianity/religion is one of the main reasons libertarianism fails to gain ground? So many charities and aid organizations have a Christian agenda to them that people feel that secular government is the only way to be altruistic. Government is the new god, basically.


Huh? Failure of Christianity? We feel secular government is the only way to be altruistic because there are many non-secular charities and aid organizations?

What the fuck?

[Zay]

Huh? Failure of Christianity? We feel secular government is the only way to be altruistic because there are many non-secular charities and aid organizations?

What the fuck?

I'm craaaaazy.

[Vargus]

We

Ohh?!

[Rust]

^ I'm not sure what your point is, but I'm fairly certain it's fucking stupid.

[Vargus]

^ I'm not sure what your point is, but I'm fairly certain it's fucking stupid.

Why so snappy?

[Rust]

I'm glad we both agree that pointing out how the "we" was vague when the term "people" in the post I was replying to was also vague and when the point has basically nothing to do with who that modifies, is incredibly fucking stupid. Thank you.

[Vargus]

I'm glad we both agree that pointing out how the "we" was vague when the term "people" in the post I was replying to was also vague and when the point has basically nothing to do with who that modifies, is incredibly fucking stupid. Thank you.

Well, you posted "failure of Christianity" and then immediately following up with a "We." How do you know my friend We?

[Rust]

He used a plural... Had you bothered reading his post, you'd see I'm pretty much repeating his points with a question mark, asking him how those points make any sense. To make it simple for you:

He: "You guys love Cheese".

Me: "We love Cheese?"

Now that that's explained, you can shut the fuck up.

[nshanin]

Why if it isn't rust.

[Struwwelpeter]

I was actually kidding about what I said earlier but no problem.

[Fightgar]

I would rather worship a possibly-existent God than serve a cruel government.

That means I would rather voluntarily give money to charity than impose taxes on everyone.

I would rather voluntarily go help underprivileged people than impose universal health care on everyone.

Virtues are only virtuous when voluntary.

Religion is voluntary. Government is forced. Which one would you rather serve?

[blue_monday]

Everything about human nature is disgusting.

This is the first thing you've said that isn't butt fucking retarded. +1

[crazzyass]

Does anyone else think that the failure of Christianity/religion is one of the main reasons libertarianism fails to gain ground? So many charities and aid organizations have a Christian agenda to them that people feel that secular government is the only way to be altruistic. Government is the new god, basically.

Yeah, pretty much. The only reason I wouldn't support immediately ending government aid is because I know that all of the charities will be brainwashing them in the process of helping.

Other than that, a libertarian society would be bliss.

[Struwwelpeter]

This is the first thing you've said that isn't butt fucking retarded. +1

I was actually kidding about what I said earlier

Try reading next time, I'm no fan of your Jewish secularist/atheist/secular humanist/humanist bullshit.

[Phlegm!]

I was actually kidding about what I said earlier but no problem.

Hey, aren't you the chap who adores Black people?

[Zay]

Try reading next time, I'm no fan of your Jewish secularist/atheist/secular humanist/humanist bullshit.

I'm working in collaboration with the jews to destroy your culture. Haha, faggot.

[Zay]

Hey, aren't you the chap who adores Black people?

He hates most white people too for disagreeing with him. And he hates jews because every jew out there is ripping him off and controlling his media. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong Il are excellent examples of morals and virtue, however. He hates himself, most of all.

[Zay]

Try reading next time, I'm no fan of your Jewish secularist/atheist/secular humanist/humanist bullshit.

It's about a dilemma facing libertarians. You may want to see charities take over the function of welfare, but if you're not a christian you may not like the fact that stuff like salvation army, alcoholics anonymous, and those "feed an african for 35c a day" usually have christian agendas too them.

Anyways, did your traditionalvalues.kkk shitblogs convince you to stop being atheist/agnostic now? You mentioned you were atheist at some point.

[Butcher]

Triple post ftw.

[Silverfuck]

I would rather worship a possibly-existent God than serve a cruel government.

That means I would rather voluntarily give money to charity than impose taxes on everyone.

I would rather voluntarily go help underprivileged people than impose universal health care on everyone.

Virtues are only virtuous when voluntary.

Religion is voluntary. Government is forced. Which one would you rather serve?

That may be true, but it's simply not practical. If given the choice, do you think most people would voluntarily give money to charity and help the underprivileged? It'd be nice to live in a world where everyone does good and helps others, but that's just not reality, and it seems like it's far better to force everyone to help those who need it equally rather than hope that a few people with good intentions will solve everything. It seems immoral to prop up a fairy-tale kind of system that leaves so many people out in the cold, so to speak.

[Zay]

That may be true, but it's simply not practical. If given the choice, do you think most people would voluntarily give money to charity and help the underprivileged? It'd be nice to live in a world where everyone does good and helps others, but that's just not reality, and it seems like it's far better to force everyone to help those who need it equally rather than hope that a few people with good intentions will solve everything. It seems immoral to prop up a fairy-tale kind of system that leaves so many people out in the cold, so to speak.

Let's be naive here and assume that a democracy represents the will of the people. Therefore, if a democracy decides to fund the poor, then we don't really need a middleman. It is the will of the people to help the poor. Right? Right?

Just make charity popular to san francisco and new york hipsters. The middle class will follow.

[Yggdrasil]

Let's be naive here and assume that a democracy represents the will of the people. Therefore, if a democracy decides to fund the poor, then we don't really need a middleman. It is the will of the people to help the poor. Right? Right?

Just make charity popular to san francisco and new york hipsters. The middle class will follow.

No. Such a system will, by its very nature, leave people disadvantaged. What is necessary for a society with little economic and social inequality is a system of taxation, market regulation, and welfare like that in Sweden and other European countries. The people of Sweden are among the wealthiest, most educated, and equal in the entire world, a standard of living that has been the result of the policies of the democratically elected SAP-majority Swedish Riksdag

[Struwwelpeter]

Zay I'm not an atheist, and atheist is a 12-30 year old child who needs a victim status and something to think about in their free time, something to whine to their parents and their community about, something that makes them feel rebellious. I simply do not believe a God exists, I don't need to tell anyone or label myself based on the fact that I have a particular belief, and lastly let me add that I do not consider other people's opinons nor do I even attempt to learn anything new or read, for at this point I have already reached a level where I do not need to, nor did I ever take anyone's opinion and make it my own, everything I say here came from within me, so your diatribe about me reading "hate websites" "all day long" can come to a hault now, and you can find some other pathetic little scheme to convince yourself that I just copy and paste what I find off of the internet here.

[nshanin]

Does anyone else find it ironic that from the first sentence of most books on ethical theory: "For anyone that cares about ethics", one often finds oneself disagreeing immediately? I for one have yet to hear a convincing argument against moral nihilism.