-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Libertarian Christians
- Thread starter andrew
- Start date
Here is what I believe will happen—and it will happen most efficiently under a libertarian style government—
People will be allowed to succeed or fail. Those successes and failures will stand as an example for people to emulate or reject.
And I believe that those who succeed will, naturally so, be solid Christians, as they will be compelled to positions of leadership.
People will be allowed to succeed or fail. Those successes and failures will stand as an example for people to emulate or reject.
And I believe that those who succeed will, naturally so, be solid Christians, as they will be compelled to positions of leadership.
N0w we are 100% on the same page. 
From the point of view of legitimating the use of force by distant governments with no personal stake in the lives of the people they're ruling: libertarianism.
From the point of view of self-contained voluntary communities with the right to be self-determining: for me, a Christian community made up of... wait for it... biblical families! For others, whatever their thing is, as long as they're not bothering us and not demanding that we pay the costs associated with their choices. The results will speak for themselves.
From the point of view of legitimating the use of force by distant governments with no personal stake in the lives of the people they're ruling: libertarianism.
From the point of view of self-contained voluntary communities with the right to be self-determining: for me, a Christian community made up of... wait for it... biblical families! For others, whatever their thing is, as long as they're not bothering us and not demanding that we pay the costs associated with their choices. The results will speak for themselves.
Libertarian policy 'succeeds' at this point to the extent it retards the further decadence of our culture, and it does so by making people fully responsible (in the economic/political sense) for the consequences of their decisions. With enough momentum, we hope to reverse that process of decay, or in the alternative, build something new while the old collapses under the weight of its own lies.
What did you say about my momma?........Then not relooking at what was said.......That kind of confusion.
Lots to like here from the “libertarian Christian” pov.
Want to “Do Something?”—Embody the Kingdom of God
Want to “Do Something?”—Embody the Kingdom of God
I like this, from the "Do Something" article: "Our primary form of political activism ought to be our embodiment of Jesus’ vision of the kingdom of God" as demonstrated locally in our own lives and not by "attempting to take control of the levers of national power."
The ideology of the "Law" is seemingly reasonable and has a nugget of truth to it, but it's also sort of naive. Another function of government is to solve the tragedy of the commons. Sure people can commission small individual goods by spending some of their wealth, however, as cliche as it is I have never received a sensible answer; what about the roads? No individual can afford an entire highway system, and if one or two can, they won't open it up to the public. A super rich individual may have something of a park in his backyard, but hardly anybody will create public parks.
Bastiat’s essay made a good point at the time: when we look at government spending, we need to remember that it comes from somewhere, and consider the ‘unseen’ effects of taxing. The story he uses to demonstrate this is one where a window is broken and the community observes that the money paid to fix it generates income. This, however, ignores that the money paid to fix it could have been used to, say, buy shoes from a shoemaker, and a result the community could have had it all: the window, shoes and the income. The broken window was therefore a net loss, even though it appeared to generate income. However, one thing that Bastiat doesn’t touch on here is that the destruction itself can be costly. The breaking of the window in his parable is costless, but actually getting rid of existing capital stock is not. Hence the only way a ‘welfare improving’ change will be made is if the benefit to rebuilding exceeds the cost of destruction. Hurricanes etcetera take care of this costlessly; with war, the money used for bombing could have been more efficiently deployed to peacefully dismantling whatever was destroyed.
This is a good rebuttal to his broken window fallacy:
http://www.savingcommunities.org/econ/brokenwindow.html
So @sun, have you actually read The Law, or just read what other people have said about it? 'Cause you pretty completely missed @FollowingHim's point....
It's very obvious that @sun hasn't bothered to read it. The bulk of his post is a copy-paste from this page, which just happened to be the top return from a Google search for "where Bastiat went wrong" when I tried it just now. And neither that page, nor the link @sun posted, have anything to do with "The Law". They are attempts to refute a completely different essay, "What is seen and not seen", that just happens to be by the same author.
He's just searching Google for things that support his presuppositions and posting them without even examining them enough to see if they're on topic, let alone enough to engage his own thought processes on whether their assessment of the topic is correct.
@sun, you're wasting everyone's time, most of all your own. Unless you're a copy-paste bot doing what you've been programmed to do, in which case you're just wasting everyone else's time. I'll repeat my earlier advice:
He's just searching Google for things that support his presuppositions and posting them without even examining them enough to see if they're on topic, let alone enough to engage his own thought processes on whether their assessment of the topic is correct.
@sun, you're wasting everyone's time, most of all your own. Unless you're a copy-paste bot doing what you've been programmed to do, in which case you're just wasting everyone else's time. I'll repeat my earlier advice:
Everyone else, there's no point in discussing anything with @sun, just ignore him until he starts showing some indications of personal thought.
I disagree. The whole point of patriarchy is that men have the moral courage to decide what's right and to expect those under them to conform to it.
Jus thinking out loud here with @sun and others hearing my thoughts. Maybe he doesn't have his own original thoughts yet, and is trying to formulate them. I don't know his age, but I came of "thinking for myself" age before the easy Internet era. I had to buy or check out books from the library, then sit through multiple pages before something interesting came up. I actually read political or religious magazines. Then, trying to find someone who would actually listen to me as I pondered the implications of Adam Smith as not easy. It was a lot of effort. The net is filled with folks who have easy to digest opinions for others to read, and usually without cross references. I did like one of the cut and paste articles he presented, but never bothered to develop.
Otoh, if he is seeking to troll us with endless links and pastings, then it is a complete waste of time.
Right. "Those under them". Build your tribe. Trying to dominate other people's tribes is an act of war. Playing the self-righteous critic of other people's tribes is a chump's game. Focus on what you're building; everything else is a distraction.
Levitical has no power without a temple these days; and we can't join it; pretty much all those guys can do today is serve the Cohanim (priests) when they bless the people (Aronic benediction).
Malchizedek was always the superior, more inclusive, priesthood.
I read an article a few months back that discussed how it was likely G-d's plan from the beginning for the priesthood to be given to Moses, so there would have been a ruling/priest, similar to the Malchizedek design, but that it was Moses' lack in faith which prompted G-d to give in and split the priesthood to Aaron and eventually the ruler from Judah. (sorry if I posted this somewhere on the site before; I can't remember). Malchizedek is just such an exciting topic to me.
As a Jewish believer & a polygamist, I can wholeheartedly amen that brother... amen!
Care to start a new topic on that? I've heard some argue that he may have been a Christophany. Any thoughts? (not here)
Sure, I'm sure if you start a Malchizedek thread there'll be plenty of interest.
Yup...
#manstatus #beardedbarking
The West Clan grows... physically and spiritually! Amen.
#hardcorehusbanding #extremedadding