add-memberalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbellblockcalendarcamerachatchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-upcircle-with-crosscomposecrossfacebookflagfolderglobegoogleimagesinstagramkeylocation-pinmedalmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1pagepersonpluspollsImported LayersImported LayersImported LayersshieldstartwitterwinbackClosewinbackCompletewinbackDiscountyahoo

Re: [atheists-27] Snow Day! Let's talk politics

From: bruce
Sent on: Friday, March 8, 2013 7:26 AM
Unfortunately libertarianism is both subtle and abstract and many people can't fathom it, especially if they've never read anything expounding it.

I'm always amused by socialist and statist atheists.  You make fun of intelligent design theorists, but your belief that conscious central planning of society and the economy is the best or only way to build a bridge or hospital etc is of course just intelligent design theory.

An atheists who hasn't at least read eg Hayek's essay "The use of knowledge in society" is kind of an illiterate.

On Thursday, March 7, 2013, Duff Means wrote:
I feel the need to throw my $0.02 with respect to libertarianism: Much like communism, libertarianism is a noble ideal - but also like communism, it is entirely too vulnerable to corruption and greed, and as such, in its pure form, is unworkable. To put it simply, the "do what you will" aspect is focused on far too heavily, and to the exclusion of "but take responsibility for what you do". Additionally, not everyone agrees on what those responsibilities are - which is why government and laws are still required, and pure libertarianism can't work.

Ultimately, Representative Democracy is not a bad form of government, so long as the representatives do represent the people, rather than those that pay them: lobbyists for corporations and capitalist interests.

On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Zach Moore <[address removed]> wrote:

Don't have much time to respond but I'm an atheist libertarian and appreciate many things about the Tea Party. I don't appreciate the religious elements but I don't think the Tea Parties emphasis on tolerance and individual freedom is a hallmark of the religious worldview. Quite the contrary, I think the collectivists worldview of Plato, Kant, Hegel and of course religion is the dominant zeitgeist of the Democratic left. As an atheists who is humble enough to know that I am me and am limited in capacity, I think the libertarian position is one of the most moral positions to hold politically.

I'll be honest though. As an atheists, I do have to hold my nose with the religious elements of the GOP. Knowing the historical development of this faction helps me do this.

I say this just to add perspective to the conversation. In your pursuit of secular values, we need to be sure we do not adopt the mystical worldview of religion or secular collectivism. Both worldviews produce anti-humanitarian regimes (The crusades and The Final Solution). I'm reading a great book right now that explains how the  collectivist worldview led to Hitler's Germany. It's worth the read.

The Ominous Parallels by Leonard Peikof.


Zach Moore
Washington DC

On Mar 7,[masked]:56 PM, "Don Wharton" <[address removed]> wrote:
I think Chad is right that the Tea Party is now a liability for the GOP. However, members of the Tea Party do not consider themselves to be a liability. They remain within their delusional world view where they are right and the rest of the world is supposed to come around to their views of reality.
Morover, Boehner and company are fanatical on a basic Tea Party platform of no increase in taxes to achieve a move toward fiscal balance. Polls show that the majority of the GOP favor an increase in taxes on the rich so GOP leadership is substantially out of touch with their own base. I am sure that most members of the GOP would consider those making between $250 and $450k to be among the wealthy and those people did not have any increase in taxes with end of year agreement.
Chris Mooney has documented the fact that conservatives are substantially less inclined to be open to new experience. They want cognitive closure around their existing world view which comes from their various sources of conservative authority. The fact that Rick Scott has moved away from this knee-jerk variety of conservatism is to be applauded.
This brings me back the question of how we define what our secular values are? As part of my organizing activity for our upcoming Secular Voter's Forum I have be communicating with the Secular Coalition for America. This is a profoundly wonderful group. However, I found myself a bit disturbed by their understanding of the secular/religious divide in a conference call they had today.
Someone successfully made the point that within the SCA that voter ID laws are not considered a secular issue. I was appalled by this since I am rather certain that support for those laws would come disproportionately from the religious. Moreover, I doubt that we would have even 5% of our members here which would support those laws.
As a matter of science it has been demonstrated that extreme societal inequality results in substantial increases societal dysfunction and the probability of complete collapse of the social order. The current American trajectory toward a future where the rich and super-rich take a vastly disproportionate percentage of the economic wealth of our nation is not good.  Voter ID laws are specifically designed to disenfranchise those on the low end of the income spectrum to make the world more co
This message was sent by Duff Means ([address removed]) from DC Atheists Meetup.
To learn more about Duff Means, visit his/her member profile
Set my mailing list to email me As they are sent | In one daily email | Don't send me mailing list messages

Meetup, POB 4668 #37895 NY NY USA 10163 | [address removed]

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy