almostinsane
Well-known member
Culture ebbs and flows all the time, but you're right. The church needs to grow a spine again. Catholics need a hardass Pope, for example.
Last edited:
United States Why Do Libertarians Always Lose?
- Thread starter The Name of Love
- Start date
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
There are four questions a worldview must answer:
1. Origin.
2. Purpose.
3. Morality.
4. Destiny.
Where do we come from, why are we here, what should we do, and where are we going?
In the West, these used to be answered by Christianity. We were created by God, our purpose is to be in relationship with God and each other, our morality is defined by our God-given value and the example Jesus set for how we should treat each other, and our Destiny is to be found in eternity with God.
There are consequences from removing that basic framework from the culture. One of them is not just that 'something else' will come to take its place, but that literally anything will come to take its place.
Intersectionalism answers all four questions as well.
1: You were created from nothing but dust, and are defined by the sins of your ancestors. If you're white, all the evils in the world were perpetuated by your ancestors, if you're anything else, your ancestors were perfect idealistic people that lived in harmony with the world and their neighbors.
2: Your purpose is to overthrow the evil society we live in.
3: Anything in service of The Cause is right. Your value and worth is defined by how useful you are to the Cause. (Possibly based on the color of your skin.)
4: Your destiny is to live in the perfect utopia we will create once the Patriarchy/Capitalists are overthrown.
This is a very compelling ideological framework, because it's self-serving, and it also accounts for guilt.
Secular Libertarianism has no framework for human value or morality at all. This makes it naturally weak to any worldview that has a framework for morality. Because the libertine Libertarians decided in the mid/late 20th century that the Christian Conservatives trying to exert even social pressure on them to live moral lives was intolerable, many of them decided that Conservatism was the enemy of Libertarianism.
Of course, come the 2010's they finally started to see what it's like when people who have 'by any means necessary' ethics gain control of societal institutions and enough government institutions to start throwing their weight around.
Suddenly, the Conservatives didn't seem so bad anymore. We'll argue with you, not un-person you.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
A hardass “Poor”? You mean Pope
Honestly, I think Pope Francis and others like him are why the Church is dying, they’re indoctrinated into believing that the Government can do all those programs perfectly with zero side effects and are blind to the faults of others
It may have to do with that Soviet plan involving a specific number of “homosexual” men being made priests
OK think of it like a triangle, freedom, equality, stability.
back in the old days the order was the merchant class, church, and nobles who represented the 3 fractions.
Being a member of the merchant class kind of fucking sucked because the nobles would often get too full of themselves and fuck you over and many members of the church thought your 'life style' was sinful and fucked you over and neither of them actually paid taxes so you got stuck holding the bill which sucks balls.
Now imagine that being the case for centuries, oh there were exceptions merchant republics and places like the UK where merchants got a relatively fair shake (later on) but for much of Europe this was the case. Then you had the wars of religion.
Martin Luthor and his crowd have a lot in common results wise (Not philosoically) with the modern progressive movement it was a time of blood shed mayhem and a total fucking nightmare. America was in many ways founded in the aftermath of that disaster and after all of this the merchant classes were just....fucking tired of it.
The American revolution proved that you could run things with out noble assholes winning on a large scale and that you could restrain the power of religion. So it was exported back to Europe and promptly went too far under the French revolution and ended up causing the napolonic wars.
yeah our fuck up their but the result was a more balanced European system where the Nobles were restrained a bit more, the Church wasn't quite so in your face and the merchant class got a fair shake.
The side I identify with fucked up...the gilded age was us drinking too deeply, eating too greedly, and ending up forming the beginings of the forces that would seriously fuck up our shit.
World war 1 took the semi stable situation and wreaked shit, in the aftermath we thought there would be a more free world. The nobles were discredited, religion was on its way out and we thought we have an era of peaceful business. Except that those roles were going to be filled.
The church, chistrianity, religion its an important role and with out them socialism filled the hole left behind and unlike the church they didn't have rules and dogma acting as restraining bolts on their bad behavior. No they could murder millions and sleep soundly at night true fucking monsters.
Now were living in the aftermath of all that religion for all of its faults is gone replaced with some thing much much worse.
Thing is there will be balance and the new religion of socialism is self distructive, they are assholes and the need for Stability and freedom are also core values. So things will get better but by god it is going to suck balls to get from A to B. Hopefully when its over religion will take over its old spot and we will have learned from all of this.
almostinsane
Well-known member
Damn autocorrect.
The Church isn't dying. It will get smaller as the left-leaning Catholics either leave, die, or have children, but there are plenty of conservative Catholics left. To their credit, even bad Popes and bishops haven't changed core teachings.
The Church inevitably goes through periods of corruption and rebirth. We see it with St. Francis and the Franciscan Order rejuvenating a corrupt, divided Church. We see it with the Council of Trent and the Ckunter-Reformation. You see it now where young Catholics turn to the Latin Mass and traditional doctrine.
The Church, I predict, will decrease in number of nominal adherents. But those who remain will be stronger in faith for it and will evangelize and procreate.
Last edited:
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
They maybe a minority, but I think a portion of Muslim "refugees" to Europe actually decided to convert and start filling in the Church as a Church NOT a Mosque
Problem for the West or specifically Europe, is that I'm pretty sure even the recent converts to Islam there, will be more fanatical or obsessed with religion than them
No, it definitely has a morality, envisioned in the NAP. The morality is "Don't hurt people, and don't take their stuff."
This is probably the only one of the four it definitely has. The purpose is what is most lacking, as by definition, libertarianism can't really put a demand on you to do stuff, just to not do stuff. And without a purpose, the destiny isn't really there, either.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
Honestly, that's the saddest implication
Maybe deep down, while conflicting with many people's base desires and ambitions, people want to be "followers" and even have an addiction to be outright fanatics both for theistic and non-religious figures or "movements"
It's a masochistic relationship, plenty of fanatics probably deep down realize how much they would prefer doing something else rather than obsessing over some "righteous cause"
almostinsane
Well-known member
Until, inevitably, Europeans discover their religion again and later generations of Muslims actually read up on their own. It will be a couple decades, but I foresee a shift in attitude there.
The Non-aggression principle is a single moral imperative. It is basic and easy to follow. However, it is easily twisted when inequality is redefined as violence. Then, it's okay to take other people's stuff.
Last edited:
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
Europe is where I get my European Comics from and I can tell, they're gonna start burning em en masse when a sizable portion of those countries get really angry and "prudish" at the same time
Honestly, I almost find it funny that the LibLeft have been spitting on the Church and accusing them of all sorts of things whilst romanticizing and covering up for guys who may as well make even their depictions or thoughts on the Church to be totally innocent and weak by sheer comparison
The latter won't have weakling popes around or take insults and depictions in fiction as lightly
almostinsane
Well-known member
The comic book industry has, unfortunately, brought into PC culture on a global scale. A course correction resulting from longtime fans revolting and SJWs not buying anything is inevitable and, arguably, has already begun.
And, yes, white knighting for Islam while moaning about Christianity is contradictory. It's the source of many redpills inside and outside of Europe.
CarlManvers2019
Writers Blocked Douchebag
Just to make sure, you're also talking about the European comics
Redwin's the most Badass Dwarf I know
I think it's also a cause for the "atheist community" getting split up, as I talked to someone else here before, there are those among them who regret how much they essentially bullied the Church and recognize it at the very least as the lesser of 2 evils
almostinsane
Well-known member
I took your words to mean that those comics were being pressured to change. If they haven't, good for them.
I always find the notion of an atheist community laughable. Atheists often differ on whether you can derive any truth from observation, whether property is good, etc. Absence of belief does not make for a strong foundation for a community when there is no external enemy.
Of course, what the atheists in Europe are finding out is that being preached to is not oppression or an "evil" unless being questioned is evil. Facing violence because you're not part of a certain religion is oppressive and evil. It's unfortunate that they were spoiled by Christianity's peaceful nature. They assumed every religion was just as benevolent.
Sure, but every moral principle is twisted when you redefine what the words mean.
Also, the definition of violence doesn't matter to the NAP. The NAP cares about aggression (not violence), and further flows out of the respect for private property, which defines what aggression is: harming someone else's private property (of course, one's body is one's property).
almostinsane
Well-known member
Yet, that ideal doesn't seem to have the staying power of more complex worldviews. See the Libertarian Party betraying that principle to cater to BLM, which wants to violate the NAP completely through compelled action and speech as well as wealth redistribution.
Politicians not sticking to ideals? I, for one, am shocked.
Meanwhile, the more complex worldviews are violated by its adherents all the time. Libertarianism, by not asking for world shaking demands, actually has a large number of people who meet those demands, and live good lives.
almostinsane
Well-known member
Yet, they haven't been able to fill the void left from the libertinism that often stems from their ideology. It's not that the NAP is a bad ethic. It's that it's incomplete. Without a complementary worldview to accompany it, intersectionality fills the void and subverts libertarianism.
That is why libertarianism is only successful when it becomes part of mainstream conservatism. Whenever it swings over to support the Left, they'll take the support and then turn around and say, "Bake the cake, bigot."
First, you assume that libertinism is inherently immoral in the opinion of libertarianism. I disagree. If you want to buy drugs, and have a ton of sex with willing partners, and add nothing to society, that's fine. You aren't harming people. I'll hold you in a little contempt, as you aren't adding to society much (spending is helping society), but that is your choice.
The immorality of intersectionality isn't their being libertines, its them demanding things of others, trying to force them to give them stuff, and doing unprovoked violence. All of this is incompatible with libertarianism.
Last edited:
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Okay, now define 'hurt,' define 'their stuff,' and explain why it is morally wrong, rather than something you just don't like, from a secular framework.
And here we get to the root of it. Who gets to define that promiscuity isn't harmful? Because even to a secularist, it has demonstrably had ruinous consequences on society at large.
The libertine arm of Libertarianism starts from a position of redefining words and playing games with meanings. They didn't want sexual immorality to be defined as sexual immorality anymore.
The problem is, that once you accept that argument, it can be applied to literally every other kind of morality.
Ultimately, all of libertarianism relies on the axiom that private property matters, just as much as Christian morality depends on god existing.
Don't hurt people and Don't take their stuff is just a simple way of stating the NAP. It of course loses some fidelity by being a quick summary. Really, it has to do with respecting people's private property.
No, we don't have a moral duty to society at large through libertarianism. Libertarianism only concerns itself with the rights of the individual. Society at large has no claim against the individual.
Now I think I should point out that this is my morality, which is different than my politics. Morality, I go near full AnCap. But I realize that practically and politically, that the political system of AnCapdom is nothing more than a pipe dream that cannot last. I also recognize that liberty requires work and society to last, including social cohesion, the rule of law, etc. Hence I end up just a very pro-America libertarian in practice.