As organizer of a few Atheists groups in the DC area, I frequently get Libertarians into the group. After finding most of them unrealistic, I did some research to try and understand why. What I found was not very pretty. How can a group, on one hand, support the Separation of Church and State and on the other have a problem with the Feds (IRS) keeping religious organizations in line with their nonprofit status? I also discovered that many don't believe in Global Warming. Like Evolution, Global Warming is based on facts....not something that you believe or don't believe. Am I missing something here....or are they having trouble with reality?

Views: 212

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

What happened to the world outside the US and Europe? Did it get sucked into a black hole, or something?
Meabh!! AH caught you. Did you just ignore my last message to you lol :-(
No, never! Get distracted and forget to respond? Yes.
I said what I knew and linked to a world-wide article on the subject.

If you know more about the rest of the world, feel free to tell us. I'm sure we'd all be interested.
I was hoping to get some libertarians from outside the US to comment.
I do not personally endorse the party. I think that having Bob Barr as their presidential candidate last time around showed a lot of desparation. It just isn't what it was in the late 90's - early 2000's. Membership in all of our parties is also in decline, even the Democrats, though they are diminishing slower. Instead it is probably better to support individuals based on their philosophy and their record and not expect too much from parties, if you expect much from politics at all.

I don't like Beck. Maybe he puts on a persona for shock value, maybe he's trying to sink someone. His mannerisms are all wrong. I view him as just another of the clowns that today's TV is trying to pass off as journalists these days, along with Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Kieth Olberman and basically anyone else who manages to get on TV.

Knowing who is a true Libertarian shouldn't be that hard. I think something like the Nolan Quiz, or what a Mises Institute speaker called "plumb-line libertarianism" should be the litmus test.

Ron Paul is almost a dictionary definition Libertarian, with, a few conservative tendencies just to give him flavor. I note that he prefers to say non-interventionist rather than isolationist. The point is, communication and trade, tourism, exchange students are what we want rather than war, sanctions or attempts to control other countries from afar. War must be declared, and should only be declared when it would clearly be defensive.

I would like to know much more about libertarianism in the rest of the world.
Shortly after the election I pretty much stopped associating with them. I still volunteer for web dev type stuff, but that's about it.

And Beck drives me nuts sometimes, but other times seems like a decent guy. I wouldn't put him with O'Reilly, Hannity and Olberman. Beck seems genuine to me, and seems willing to hear other people out instead of shouting them down to fire up viewers. It's been awhile since I've seen him.

Ron Paul was generally good, but some of his social ideas annoyed the hell out of me.
The problem with "only fighting a defensive war" is WWII. Now we can add 9/11. We cannot stand by and allow dictators to abuse their way to our borders, so we can fight a bloodbath on our soil. ....That's the line of thinking. I believe we do have a moral obligation to not stand by while horrors are perpatrated on innocent people.
I know the problem is where to draw the line. Any ideas??
I don't think WWII is a good example. If a country refuses to recognize sovereignty of other nations, I don't tend to respect theirs. I have no problem with defending other countries when their rights are refused. To me, once you declare someone else's rights void, yours are void too.

As for 9/11, I'm not sure how we could have prevented that with aggression.

Morally, I would draw the line at a country that doesn't respect citizen's rights. As it turns out, we would be fighting every country in the world plus having a civil war on that one. No useful ideas off the top of my head; I'll work on it.
This is not a subject I know a great deal about, however, I know that there are some books presenting alternative analysis of WWII from a libertarian perspective.

The problem with using the military to prevent horrors perpetrated on others, far over the horizon, is that war by its nature ensures the perpetration of horrors of its own in the process of executing its avowed goal of preventing other horrors. Growth of government and loss of liberty also always go with the exercise of war powers.
Good points on noninterventionism. I'm fairly certain the world would work a whole lot better if countries just backed off each other a bit. I've never understood how we have any true national security interests in the Middle East. I'm pretty sure if we withdrew from the region completely, the Saudis would be more than happy to trade oil tanker loads for cash in the middle of the Atlantic.

And yes, one of the few reasons to go to war is if another country has launched aggression against its neighbors. I supported the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait and the invasion of Afghanistan to topple the Taliban and go after al Qaeda (though I'm not sure carpet bombing with B-52s made any sense--you can't bomb a country back to the Stone Age if they're already there), but the Iraq War was insane.
We didn't carpet bomb any one. Not only does it make no sense in a nation like afghanistan, we no longer possess the capability to carpet bomb. To expensive and ineffective.



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service