Anything That's Peaceful

From the same article, the author suggests the following figures are the most accurate:

  • 15% are likely libertarians (conservative on economics and liberal on social issues) LDP, Liberal Party
  • 23% are likely liberals Labor and The Greens
  • 17% are likely conservatives Libs/Nats
  • 8% are communitarians/populists (liberal on economics and very conservative on social issues) Libs/Nats
  • 13% are economic centrists but social liberals Labor, The Greens
  • 24% are economic centrists but lean socially conservative. Labor, Libs/Nats, One Nation
Click to expand...

I've added my thoughts on the leanings of each group politically.

Note that the LDP's policy base is pretty straight forward, as is One Nation's, the major parties' policies tend to spread out across the political sprectrum, which maysbe accounts for the high levels of dissatisfaction among voters.
 
I think a big part of election outcomes is that many people weight issues vastly differently and don't really understand that they can have a political philosphy. In the previous Federal election for example, one person told me very specifically that they voted purely on the basis of a single issue. So even if they did ascribe more generally to a particular philosophy rather than another, they were willing to vote against it.
 
No nice sounding fancy rhyming with words but only a message to do with peace -

"Human of Earth, I wish for you that you always let the necessary prudence prevail on all your ways and that you always strive for love, happiness, peace, good cheer, freedom, joy and harmony, in order to lead your life to true contentment and to be able to share everything with your fellow humans. Therefore, go your good and straight path amid all the din and all the ups and downs of life. Therefore, never let the haste of the world come over you but always be peaceful in all things and practice composure where hecticness threatens. Never speak too much but always think of the value of silence because in this is contained much peace and reflection. Consequently, always thus hold peace within yourself whatever your own views, endeavours, ideas, wishes and fantasies are because, in the noisy chaos of life, your thoughts and feelings quite especially need all of what is good, worth loving, peaceful, free, harmonic, happy and joyful. Always keep in mind that despite all calamities, all grief and all worries and despite all flowing tears everywhere, the world is nevertheless beautiful and wonderful in its and with its entire life even if dreams break here and there and an immense chaos makes all hopes appear as illusion. This, however, should not concern you because the sun rises again every morning and brings new light and new warmth over the world and to all life forms even if it draws its path across the sky behind or above the clouds. And, thus, like the sun shines anew high in the sky every day, openly or covered, you also can shine within yourself and cause your life to shine regardless of whether it becomes outwardly visible or whether it lights you up only within your interior. Live in every circumstance in such a way that you always shine within yourself and that you also can pass on your inner warmth to your fellow human. Also, always live in such a way that you yourself never give up and that you always are a good and valuable example for all your fellow humans with whom you should live in good, connective and honest relationships. Therefore, live in peace with yourself as well as all humans and all creatures that creep and flee there in your vicinity as well as in the wild. And, therefore, live also with Creation in peace and harmony regardless of whatever you imagine by it. And if you live in peace with yourself as well as with your fellow human beings and all life and all that exists in general, then rejoice over all that which you are able to create in ideas and which you are able to plan. And rejoice as much over all your achievements, and always be aware that you alone, through the power of your thoughts and feelings, have the authority to decide on how, what and who you are. And in this sense, remain independent and strong and never let yourself get down."
 
Any Christians out there lured by the rational power of Libertarianism yet concerned that there is no place for such a philosophy within the framework of a churchgoer's life? It is possible to be a Libertarian Christian. :)

Living in Tension as a Libertarian Christian


A “libertarian Christian” might seem like an oxymoron to some Christians.

For Albert Mohler, the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, you cannot be both a faithful Christian and a libertarian. For him, libertarianism is defined only by exaltation of the ego, freedom from all moral restraints, and secular humanism—ideals that are hardly in line with a God-centric faith. The left-leaning Christian political activist Jim Wallis would agree. For Wallis, libertarian political philosophy does not line up with what the Bible says about government authority, and the libertarian’s strong emphasis on individual rights can violate the common good, leaving the poor to fend for themselves.

When I told my conservative Christian parents my political perspective was inching ever closer to libertarianism, they looked at me like they expected me to start defending drug use and prostitution. (I didn’t.)


Finding my way from neo-conservativism to libertarianism didn’t come without many intellectual tensions along the way. Not realizing its niche status, Ayn Rand’s famous atheism and moral philosophy of Objectivism was nearly enough to scare me away from libertarian thought entirely. But the more I explored, the more I found consistency between political liberty and my faith. I also met many other libertarian Christians who were wrestling with the same ideas.
Click to expand...

http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/article/living-tension-libertarian-christian
 
^ Leonard E. Read was a strong Christian and he wrote at least one book on this. Personally I don't get Albert Mohler's point. At heart he says that the Government's responsibility is to get out of the church's way to preach the bible and have separation of church and state and the role of the government should be limited to executing justice (i.e. not to impose morality onto people who are otherwise peaceful). But in saying that he rabbits on for about 5 minutes saying that the Government should be legislating morality (but presumably only the morality that he likes). In essence he's just confused about what the question is.
 
In the article you linked, the author mentions the problem of "Libertine Libertarianism vs. Christian Libertarianism". In essence it's the problem of wanting to live in (or have your kids grow up in) a society that accepts a range of actions as "normal" (i.e. is against the typical vices like drinking, gambling, drugs, prostitution, etc. along with any religion-specific things like sex outside of marriage etc) whilst simultaneously wanting people within the society to be free to choose their own path.

In his book Leonard E. Read broadly characterised this as how to have moral leadership/influencers in a Libertarian world. Unfortunately his answers were fundamentally rooted in religion since he ignorantly believed that atheists can't have an objective meaning/purpose in their lives. (Note: not to be confused with the meaning of life, which is a completely different topic adeptly pursued by the Monthy Python team.)

People having meaning and purpose in life that goes beyond the answers tossed up by the various religions is, I think, an important element of achieving a freer, yet peaceful society that is sustainable. It was the sort of issue I was grappling with a few years ago when I started The Good Person thread. Over the past few months I have started thinking about whether there is a sort of "meta-" answer to how to have meaning/purpose in your life.
 
Maybe Therou's idea that we're not put on this planet to make the world a better place or whatever, but to live life Is the key.

Enjoy the "rich and simple pleasures of life" and don't stand in the way of others doing the same.
 
+1. This is the sort of meta-answer that I have been leaning towards: live your life in a way in conjunction with others such that we are more likely to achieve a harmony of desires. As per David Friedman's ideas, the drive to achieve such a mutual harmony occurs naturally under a voluntarist society. That is, you do not need to know what other people's desires are (or even necessarily what yours are a priori). In a free society if you act in a way that assists others to achieve their desires then your actions will naturally be rewarded (just as you will reward others that act in ways that are desirable to you). Similarly if you act in a way that hurts or hinders others desires you will tend to be punished. (Obviously there is also a marketplace for thinking about which desires should or should not be desirable and these go hand in hand with ideas for how to punish and reward. This, I reckon, is part of many people's desire to delve into spirituality and religion.)
 
Last edited:
bordsilver said:
In a free society if you act in a way that assists others to achieve their desires then your actions will naturally be rewarded (just as you will reward others that act in ways that are desirable to you). Similarly if you act in a way that hurts or hinders others desires you will tend to be punished.
Click to expand...

Karma? And Friedman argues that it would only happen in a voluntary society? That may explain why some arseholes in our society get away with "murder". Somehow the coercive nature if the State impairs justice.
 
1. Rather than karma I like to think it more as "creating value". Creating value can be agnostic about the person's intent whereas I believe that karma is linked to intent.
2. Rather than "only" I think David Freidman's contention is that it is "more likely".
3. Yes. The coercive nature of the state impairs the ability of many victims to achieve proper justice (as well as the perpetrators who bear the brunt of the state's "justice").
 
bordsilver said:
1. Rather than karma I like to think it more as "creating value". Creating value can be agnostic about the person's intent whereas I believe that karma is linked to intent.
Click to expand...

What George Smith in his article on Wilhelm von Humboldt refers to as “the engine of cultural progress” i.e. the “synergistic” relationship between freedom/cultural diversity and individuality.

Humboldt said:
I therefore deduce, as the natural inference from what has been argued, that reason cannot desire for man any other condition than that in which each individual not only enjoys the most absolute freedom of developing himself by his own energies, in his perfect individuality, but in which the external nature itself is left unfashioned by any human agency, but only receives the impress given to it by each individual by himself and of his own free will, according to the measure of his wants and instincts, and restricted only by the limits of his power and his rights.
Click to expand...

Quite relevant to another debate going on at the moment I think. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top