Most folks I meet in the "liberty movement" whatever that is, are quickly assessed as defenders of liberty or enemies of liberty using this method of political triage. by Jahfre Fire Eater
(libertarian)
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Based on my over 30 years as a deliberate defender of individual liberty I have learned that when I encounter a self-professed atheist libertarian they are very likely seeking an entitlement from the rest of society called "Freedom From." They believe that atheists have a right to be free from consequences of other folks choosing other faiths. They are usually the same so-called libertarians who define liberty as the freedom from the consequences of actions taken by our ancestors. Anarchists, minarchists and objectivists also tend to share the pursuit of freedom from behavior they dislike. They also usually want a shield from the past so they can define their existence in a ridiculous environment promoted by academic naval-gazers like those at LRC. They also promote political self-marginalization and self-righteous futility and political victimhood. They are worthless to the defense of individual liberty; the whole lot of them.
Those characteristics are what I use to perform political triage. I can determine if a new acquaintence is valuable and reliable in the defense of liberty within the first couple minutes of conversation (or reading their articles) by looking for these "tells." Life is too short and the advocates of oppression are too relentless for me to waste time in philosophical debate with folks who seek a goal that can only be achieved at the expense of my liberty, the Freedom To.
Every faith-based world view demands freedom from any other world view. The only way to ever achieve this is through constant and continuously overwhelming force of violence or intimidation through the real threat of violence. Those who claim to be libertarian but who also pursue "Freedom From" as the basis for their claim to rights and their definition of liberty are the enemies of true freedom, the individual's "Freedom To". Freedom To means the freedom to act; To build communities, to move away from communities one does not like, to take over communities politically, to revolt and to worship. Very few libertarians I have met over these decades have I considered comrades against the enemies of liberty. All who pursue "Freedom From" serve the enemies of liberty by undermining the constant efforts of those who are vigilantly defending their freedom to do so. This pursuit defines the futility of the LP and those who promote their cause through political self-marginalization.
Some new religions are still in the evangelical phase where the faithful believe all they have to do is "convince" people. Some of these new religions, like libertarianism, are comprised primarily of folks who have not yet thought through their beliefs very well; they haven't realized the lesson Christianity learned centuries ago. Faith can only be imposed by force on those who do not share it. The Christians gave it a valiant try, so have the Muslims, various despots and the progressive movement, but, such overwhelming force cannot be sustained against an eternal enemy as strong as individual liberty.
One cannot simultaneously promote liberty and seek "Freedom From" the consequences of others exercising their liberty. The two are mutually exclusive and can only be embraced together through fallacious reasoning and rationalizations.
-Jahfre Fire Eater
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 5
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Jahfre Fire Eater only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Jahfre Fire Eater is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I'm curious as to whether or not your ideal of "freedom to" includes the freedom to push for legislation to enforce one's religious beliefs on others. Does it?
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: July 20, 2010 08:31:55 AM
@Walt, depends on the scope.
The main thing that distinguishes my conservatism from libertarianism is that I advocate community rule. Furthermore, It is obvious to me that the only way to prevent communities from forming is through force. So, the only way to stop a group of neighbors from implementing local religious laws is through force. Most often, the pursuit of control of the force necessary to prevent folks from forming diverse communities takes the debate to the federal level where decisions WILL be forced down upon all communities. I oppose that escalation and homogenization no matter if it is being done to the benefit or detriment of religions, including atheism.
So, my answer to your question is, yes, I believe folks have the right to form communities and decide what laws should govern their community and, when they push to have their laws escalated and forced upon other communities then, No. I oppose all efforts to impose religious beliefs at the federal level, including atheist and christian beliefs. In general, I oppose any notion of federal legislation aimed at establishing a "Freedom From" the consequences of individual liberty.
For instance, if the people of Texas outlawed all but one religion I have no problem with that. As long as folks who are opposed to it are free to go, their freedoms have not been altered by such a choice by the people of Texas. When there is no choice, as with a federal law that applies to every community, then I would oppose it.
Here is another example, I am pro-choice regarding abortions also, yet I would choose to live in a community that prohibits abortions over one that promotes them. I oppose federal abortion regulations on both sides of the issue. Ditto for "gay marriage" and every other personal choice and community choice that has been escalated to the federal level for political purposes.
Posted By: Bentree
Date: July 28, 2010 07:03:32 AM
JFE, Being a strong believer in contract law, I see no problem in a community establishing a religion before the fact, as an origination document. a new subdivision as an example with covenants, agreement and purchase establishes a contract between parties. Any attempt to establish "after the fact" that violates even one persons enumerated rights, even if they may freely leave is unacceptable. Case in point is the current situation in our country "community". My love affair is not with the United States of America but with what it used to stand for. If you as an individual are willing to compromise that's fine but you cannot make a contract binding me after the fact.
The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves.
George Washington
In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority
James Madison
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: August 12, 2010 10:06:34 PM
Hi Bentree,
I appreciate your assertion but no matter how fervently you believe that, reality proves you wrong. You cannot demand freedom from consequences in the real world. That possibility exists only in the academic world of incestuous theories like those promoted over LRC.com.
