What is Digg?1 Comments
- PeppermintPig, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1Ah, Stefan is posting about complex subjects in the wee hours of the morning!
I'll give it a shot here:
I'm perfectly fine with your approach to answering this question, though I would not go about it the same way. I would not cite statistics of nations to resolve the matter, even though your results could be very convincing to some. Nevertheless, you do make a good case and complete your argument with a conclusion similar to my own.
The use of a false dichotomy of choices is an effective means of issuing context to your audience, which I enjoyed in your video (The question of religious state vs secularist state in terms of which is more likely to bring about totalitarianism or war.).
When analyzing two ideologies/movements/factions, I find it effective to assume they are the same, and then articulate how they are different in as much detail as is necessary to effectively state the intended point. This sets a good inclusive context for human behavior.
Regarding your listing of Religious wars: I think it would be useful to mention that all war has an economical factor, even if the actions or motives to go to war are nearly always illogical in nature and betray the good sense of others to use their resources more wisely by avoiding indiscriminate action that would contribute to, say, a war. This leads to what is effectively your irrational vs rational argument, which I agree with.
I disagree with your assertion that libertarians defend organized religion. Some individual libertarians (or lets call them libertarians-in-progress, since you seem to prefer discussing the imperfect nature of man) defend religion, but all libertarians should defend the liberty of others to choose religion, even when it's not within reason or interest for a libertarian to do so. Libertarianism itself is interested in liberty, which encompasses the defense of religion, organized or otherwise, on the provision that it does not conflict with voluntary choice. Whether or not one has the means to recognize and do anything about violations lends itself more to market activity (which I'll get to in a moment.)
Libertarianism is not the complete picture. When speaking on the subject of what life choices a libertarian will make, there is hardly a singular plan laid out as in certain other ideologies or religions. Libertarianism is a compass and those choices/market choices make up the other half of the equation.
I value libertarianism because it is an ideology open to self-critique, which can be attributed to liberty and debate without fearing the person you're speaking with is going to bash your skull in with a large rock. :)
So, to your question 'Should libertarians be pro-religion, anti-religion, or neutral?', that is somewhat besides the point! While libertarianism says do not use force or coercion, real life application makes exceptions. The most reasonable exceptions being mitigate harm when force is unavoidable. You might also consider the problem of whether or not individuals actually value individualism, or whether or not they believe in rights, or humanism (since animals have fewer 'rights' in the opinion of many).
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is