<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1">
<title></title>
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<h3 class="storytitle" id="post-190">From <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://davebudge.com">http://davebudge.com</a><br>
</h3>
<h3 class="storytitle" id="post-190"><br>
</h3>
<h3 class="storytitle" id="post-190"><a
href="http://davebudge.net/index.php?p=190" rel="bookmark"
title="Permanent Link: Devine Dust-up">Devine Dust-up</a></h3>
<div class="storycontent">
<p>An <a href="http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/libchristian.htm">essay</a>
written by Nick Gier, Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy,
University of Idaho, makes cogent points about being a
Christian/libertarian and the potential oxymoron it implies. Of course,
the context of this essay is written inside a larger debate where some
fundamentalist Christians have asserted being libertarian.</p>
<p>To
the extent that Prof. Grier is correct that a strict interpretation of
the Bible may be antithetical to libertarianism, one must also take a
critical eye to other assertions that he makes. In particular:<br>
</p>
<blockquote>Indeed, libertarianism, with is emphasis on free market
economics and
personal liberty is the most radical movement out of classical
liberalism. Morphing the fraternite of the French Revolution’s motto as
“community,” one can say while the contemporary conservatives emphasize
community, the liberal focuses on equality, and the libertarian affirms
liberty exclusively. <i>Libertarians and anarchists, their close
associates, are the true revolutionaries of the modern age</i>.
<p>The conservatives and liberals who dominate in the world’s liberal
democracies operate within the bounds of classical liberalism, and they
realize that they have to balance the three values of classical
liberalism carefully. In other words, good conservatives, while
emphasizing traditional community values, do not give up liberty and
equality. Likewise, good liberals, while emphasizing equality, do not
lose sight of liberty and community. <i>My main problem with
libertarians is that they see no need for balance, and as a result,
they threaten the great achievements of classical liberalism</i>.</p>
<p>The achievements of those political parties allied with the
Socialist
International constitute an empirical disconfirmation of libertarian
theory. Democratic Socialist, Social Democratic, and Labor parties
around the world have developed the most prosperous and civilized
nations in world history. They have broken every libertarian economic
rule in the book, but a recent New Republic article (6/16/03) shows
that they meet or exceed the US on all economic statistics except for
unemployment rates. Of course there is no comparison in terms of
quality of life indices: the lowest crime rates, infant and adult
mortality rates, recidivism rates, and smallest prison populations.
Their schools, heavily unionized and centrally controlled, are some of
best in the world.</p>
<p> (emphises added)</p>
</blockquote>
<p>One
must think, however, about the purported ideological relationship
between libertarians and anarchists. For sure libertarians embrace
minimalist government but, anarchist embrace no government - a
diametrically opposed position of libertarianism. In fact libertarian
ideology is very specific on the prerequisite that government has a
specific role of protecting individual liberties inside the context of
law. Hence the legal concept of nuisance usurps economic liberties
associated with property. </p>
<p>It may be argued also, to some
extent, that libertarians place a lesser value on community than modern
day liberals or conservatives. The assertion that libertarians “see no
need for balance, and as a result, they threaten the great achievements
of classical liberalism” is superficial. The libertarian construct of
community is indeed void of governmental definition of “community” but
that does not negate the economic principal of “public goods” it simply
negates an overbearing ownership monopoly of government of property.
The “balance” of community is therefor self-correcting over time as are
economic balances with the paradigm of community conscience being
unregulated.</p>
<p>The perfect example to illustrate this is
government ownership of national forest land. One may argue that
stewardship of our national lands may or may not be better under
governmental policy. To be sure there are many quasi private/public
enterprises that now rebuff the supremacy of governmental control by
the ever increasing presence of environmental land trusts. Of course
this collectivism is also used to supplement public lands but the
control of which is not trusted to governmental ownership or otherwise
it would be deeded directly to the public in one fashion or another. In
this context, however, the greater issue of ownership posses an
ideological paradox for libertarians. If, for example, public lands
were required to be sold off to private interests, the value of land
would drop to close to nothing, thereby imperiling the economic value
of existing land ownership. Thus, action by the government would cause
a distress of economic liberty in a sense by harming value. </p>
<p>The
current solution to this quandary by the Libertarian Party is to
provide
competitive leases of public assets to interested parties such as The
Sierra Club and remand stewardship responsibility to private or
quasi-private control. Although I’m not a party member, the notion may
have some merit in its direction. I, however, propose a more cautious
or incremental approach. The idea seems worth “testing” though.</p>
<p>Furthermore,
in the last paragraph sited, I would suggest the measure of success is
subjective on a normative basis and any advantage of other countries
broad coalitions may not either be permanent or sustainable and
certainly not self-correcting. Also, one must consider that failings
here may be affected by regulation short of social engineering
providing an outcome of sub-optimal results compared to what may
otherwise be produced in the absence of governmental interference. But
one cannot prove a negative.</p>
<p>Prof. Gier’s essay does have a
very compelling postulate on the aspects of religion vis a vis
political ideology. It is well thought through and quite worth reading.
</p>
</div>
<br>
<br>
Nicholas Gier wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid99d03599c988.99c98899d035@uidaho.edu">
<pre wrap="">Dear Mr. Burns,
You seem to have missed the main point of my letter about Wilkins. Just because you heard Wilkins and thought "he made sense" has nothing to do with my charge that he has lifted passages from at least three major works without citation or with very deceptive citation. Professors fail students for doing this, but Wilkins' and Wilson's infractions are far worst than this. Wilson's Canon Press made a profit on selling the slavery booklet for 10 years, making a profit on reproducing other scholars' words as if they were their own.
Mr. Burns, if you "want to read and understand history," you should read professional historians not hacks such as Wilson and Wilkins who have no shame let alone credentials to write accurate history.
Yes, there are people on this forum whom I would call "libertarians." Dave Budge is one of them and Dale Courtney claims to be one. But his type of Christianity (and yours, too, Mr. Burns)is totally incompatible with libertarianism. I'm still waiting for Courtnery to respond to my essay on the topic. I would appreciate your response, too, Mr. Burns. You can find it at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.class.uidhao.edu/ngier/libchristian.htm">www.class.uidhao.edu/ngier/libchristian.htm</a>.
You then seem to switch to another article of mine, "Chilling Parallels between Christian and Muslim Fundamentalism," so I'll respond to you points in turn
(1) An arrogant proclamation of those
who are saved and those who damned;
I am not the one who says who is saved and who is damned,
I'm glad that you don't, but Doug Jones said that the Rev. Forrest Church was damned in his debate with Chruch on Sept. 30, 2003 at UI SUB Auditorium.
(4) a serious affirmation that the laws of God
should be the laws of the land.
I'm glad that my friend Tom Hansen gave you a nice link on Common Law for your edification. I would just like to add that in the 17th Century Edward Coke, interpreting English Common Law with regard to abortion, ruled that the fetus has no rights until it is born. But you missed the point of my paragraph. Wilson and Co. want all Old Testament laws to become laws of the land, including death for homosexuality, disobedient children, apostasy, etc, etc, etc. I would also like for you to respond to my article on abortion at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/103/abortion.htm">www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/103/abortion.htm</a> and see if you can give me a coherent biblical defense.
You should read more carefully next time you decide to rant,
Nick Gier, Head Banshee, Palouse Region, Planet Earth
_____________________________________________________
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>