addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1light-bulblinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

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

From: bruce
Sent on: Friday, March 8, 2013 7:27 AM
It is funny to watch people say freedom m is utopian as their government controlled money supply and economy crashes around their heads, with rising poverty, illiteracy, depreciation, corruption and unemployment

On Thursday, March 7, 2013, Zach Moore wrote:

The non agression principle is at the heart of libertarianism. That's not a utopian vision because it assumes human behavior is too creative and diverse to control through coercion. Of course there is room for retaliation but to say that libertarianism is unworkable... I just can't imagine why anyone would say that or how they could argue against the non agression principle without immediately becoming a hypocrite.

On Mar 7,[masked]:59 PM, "Duff Means" <[address removed]> 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.

Regards,

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?

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