/liberty/ - Liberty

To be fair anon, the USSR began collapsing around 1985.

It was probably the worst thing (socially, and short-term economically) to happen to those people since the Marxists' ban on religion.

>>15099

why would you care about religion

>>15119

Because I'm religious?

If you wanna go the anarchists don't believe in god route, that's almost exclusively "An"Coms and sometimes Transhumanists.

And because I know how much the Orthodox Church benefited Russia. They were personally responsible for spreading education and healthcare (privately I might add) to the snow niggers for centuries.

>>15126

Good post, I agree.

Christianity and statism are completely incompatible. I could rant on about this topic for hours, but I'll just say that if the government asserts morality, then it is assuming God's responsibilities.

Man is fallen and cannot create a utopia. God is perfect and Heaven is the utopia. Man is subjective, irrational and immoral. God is objective, rational and moral.

The state is Man-made. The Kingdom of Heaven is God-made. This is why Christian theology is only compatible with libertarianism.

Genesis 11:1-9

>>15156

>Man is fallen and cannot create a utopia. God is perfect and Heaven is the utopia. Man is subjective, irrational and immoral. God is objective, rational and moral.

>The state is Man-made. The Kingdom of Heaven is God-made. This is why Christian theology is only compatible with libertarianism.

literally bullshit

Go kill yourself

You should be ashamed of yourself, believing in bullshit even after 20 years of being alive.

>>15162

Prove that Man is perfect, rational or moral. Prove that a utopia is possible.

>>15091

this wouldn't happen under my communism tho

>>15172

>man is perfect

he has the potential to be so, by the definition of "perfect" in my book, which also denounces self-sacrifice.

>man is moral

he has the potential to be moral.

>man is rational

he has the potential to be rational

these things don't just fly down from the sky and just because not all men have them does not mean they are doomed. These are potentials. You live in a rational world guided by objective principles. You're only deluding yourself.

All these require conscious use of your mental resources, which you believe is impossible.

get the fuck outta here with your stupid stone age mystical bullshit. The only kind of people who follow this shit are the ones who can't be assed to take responsibility for their own actions.

>>15180

not really

>>15177

>he has the potential to be so

So no. If he can be perfect at one time and be imperfect the next, was he ever perfect? If varying degrees of perfection exist, is that really perfect? Is your definition perfect? Are you perfect?

>he has the potential to be moral.

So no.

>he has the potential to be rational

So no.

>these things don't just fly down from the sky and just because not all men have them does not mean they are doomed. These are potentials.

You admit that perfection is gained rather than inherited and you admit that not all men are perfect, so what's your point? You've basically agreed with my statement that Man is imperfect, all you've done is add a futile hope that "one day we can be perfect." Too late. Man has existed as a beast since the beginning of history, I don't think that he's going to wake up one day and stop killing his neighbours. What gives you the idea that Man should be given control over others when his success in doing so is only a "potential"? Why don't we just do the rational thing and prevent him from creating imperfect governments that always reflect his imperfect nature?

>You live in a rational world guided by objective principles. You're only deluding yourself.

Yes, we do live in a rational world with objective principles. Yet for some reason, Man doesn't follow these rules. You even said it, that he "deludes himself". Your argument fails presuppositionally as soon as you disagree with me, proving that Man is irrational. Doesn't matter who's right or wrong, if we're disagreeing then Man is irrational and imperfect.

Also, "world guided by objective principles"? Do you realize the implications of objectivity existing externally?

>The only kind of people who follow this shit are the ones who can't be assed to take responsibility for their own actions.

My worldview is the only valid one if people want to take responsibility for their own actions. If we follow - as you said - the objective principles that exist in the world, then we will all be under the same universal law that governs everything. The non-aggression principle.

>>15184

>The NAP is a philosophy

O am I laffin

never once did you justify why you need a fucking god in the first place. It always boils down the "muh I am ignorant and muh no reason to not anticipate le sky being meme"

>>15190

I never said that the NAP was a philosophy. I didn't even mention philosophy. You said that the world is guided by "objective principles", and the non-aggression principle is one of those. You just don't like it because you want power over other human beings.

>never once did you justify why you need a fucking god in the first place.

I never said that either. God isn't a necessary part of my claim that Man is imperfect, immoral and irrational. Libertarians understand the same thing that Christians understand - that excessive power shouldn't exist in the hands of imperfect people. Libertarians don't need God in this equation, in my original post I was just stating the compatibility between Christianity and libertarianism. The difference is that Christians recognize that power should only be given to people who can use that power perfectly, i.e. only God since he is the only perfect being, whereas atheistic libertarians don't believe in God, and therefore believe that this power shouldn't be given to anyone at all.

>muh I am ignorant and muh no reason to not anticipate le sky being meme

Great argument. I'm still waiting for you to prove the existence of this "potential perfection" that has lead some small group of people to become perfectly moral and rational.

>>15184

>muh "potential=actual reality " maymay

>>15192

>need power over other hbs

lol I never said that

>give le power to god

god isn't real.

>equating libertarianism with ancapism

no.

>Great argument. I'm still waiting for you to prove the existence of this "potential perfection" that has lead some small group of people to become perfectly moral and rational.

Since the world can be objectively understood via rational principles, anyone who is intellectually honest and actuates exactly what he believes, is moral. BTW god is not real, you are deluded.

>>15156

Christianity and capitalism are incompatible, too.

>>15201

Jesus tells us to be generous with what we have. He doesn't tell us to steal other people's property, faggot.

>>15197

>>muh "potential=actual reality " maymay

What? Is Man perfect or not?

>god isn't real.

Did you even read what I said? This isn't about God, this is about people who believe in Christ and people who believe in liberty. The two groups are complimentary because they both believe that power does not belong in the hands of Man, since he cannot use that power perfectly. I'll say it again, the difference between the two is that one believes that there actually is a being who can use power perfectly, since he is omniscient and omnibenevolent.

>Since the world can be objectively understood via rational principles, anyone who is intellectually honest and actuates exactly what he believes, is moral.

So anyone who actuates what they believe, is moral? If that's true, and one person's morality differs from another's, is human morality objective? If an individual's morality changes over time, is it absolute? If an individual's morality violates the world's objective principles, is it perfect?

>BTW god is not real, you are deluded.

Stop changing the subject. I originally claimed that "Christianity and statism are completely incompatible" and that "Man is fallen and cannot create a utopia", you denied this so I asked you to "prove that Man is perfect, rational or moral" and "prove that a utopia is possible" but all you've done is make fun of me for believing in God. I should be the one making fun of you for believing in this mystical fleeting objective morality that humans can create as long as they're "intellectually honest".

>>15221

>What? Is Man perfect or not?

lol

read that again

>Did you even read what I said? This isn't about God, this is about people who believe in Christ and people who believe in liberty. The two groups are complimentary because they both believe that power does not belong in the hands of Man, since he cannot use that power perfectly. I'll say it again, the difference between the two is that one believes that there actually is a being who can use power perfectly, since he is omniscient and omnibenevolent

yeah, but the fact is god ain't real. So all your BS goes down the drain.

>So anyone who actuates what they believe, is moral? If that's true, and one person's morality differs from another's, is human morality objective? If an individual's morality changes over time, is it absolute? If an individual's morality violates the world's objective principles, is it perfect?

lol

shows why you are a theist

1+1=2.

1+1=/=3

If you're rational, intellectually honest and assess all important facets of a situation in a real (ie non-mystical bs) context, then you'll always come to the same conclusion.

>Stop changing the subject. I originally claimed that "Christianity and statism are completely incompatible" and that "Man is fallen and cannot create a utopia", you denied this so I asked you to "prove that Man is perfect, rational or moral" and "prove that a utopia is possible" but all you've done is make fun of me for believing in God. I should be the one making fun of you for believing in this mystical fleeting objective morality that humans can create as long as they're "intellectually honest".

I'd ask you to prove god is real, but you can't, so I'll take my question back.

>>15209

Property is theft.

>>15260

>object is concept

>>15123

You must not have met very many. Voluntaryists/Ancaps come from all religious backgrounds.

>>15260

Define "theft".

>>15242

>read that again

I'm asking you if you believe that Man is perfect or not. If he isn't then he cannot use power perfectly.

>yeah, but the fact is god ain't real. So all your BS goes down the drain.

That's not my claim. My claim is that the political philosophy of Christian theology can only be libertarian.

Even if we we use the term "God" referring to a deistic force, even simply as the "rational objective principles of the world", I'm still correct. Man contradicts, dislikes and destroys the rational objective principles of the universe. In fact, Man is the only species that does this. All animals and plants do things that are in their nature, they all have instincts and none of them are irrational - only unintelligent. Whereas, Man does random, arbitrary, irrational things. My typing and your reading are only possible because we're human beings and not animals. Man is "fallen". Doesn't matter if he has always been falling or he fell at one point, he is fallen. If I am "deluding myself" as you said, then that proves the irrationality of Man.

>lol

>shows why you are a theist

And your belief that your personal relativism is objective, even though it contradicts everyone else's, shows why you are an atheist. You can't believe in external objectivity, so the only thing you can do is convince yourself that you're right. Logic, morality and literally everything that a human can believe in, is subjective. You can't even prove that external consciousness exists in other human beings. As you mentioned with your "rational world guided by objective principles", objectivity only exists outside of the human mind. Doesn't matter what it exists as, it could be nature or God. Whatever it is, it is more perfect than us. As you said, it is objective.

>If you're rational, intellectually honest and assess all important facets of a situation in a real (ie non-mystical bs) context, then you'll always come to the same conclusion.

You're basically saying that humans are computers that can figure everything out. You're saying that humans are perfectly rational, but in the same sentence you imply that some humans (i.e. me) are irrational and dishonest.

>I'd ask you to prove god is real, but you can't, so I'll take my question back.

I don't have to, since you already agreed with me that objectivity exists externally and that humans are irrational. Translation: God is perfect, Man is fallen.

>>15190

I'm an atheist, and I think you're a cunt. Seriously. Do you really have to argue against Christianity now? Is that REALLY necessary, or is it akin to going up to someone reading a magazine and repeatedly telling him horoscopes don't work? I'm all for it if he lets the damn thing decide to murder someone, but if the conclusion he draws from it is somehow that dictatorships suck, do you really have to tell him how much of an idiot he is?

>>15253

The USSR was sick with socialism for decades before they switched to a corrupt, still regulated, totally NOT free market.

>>15383

>god is perfect, man is not

>le justifications bla bla bla

beyond hope.

2rationalized4me

>>15384

>I think you're a cunt

>I'm an atheist too

lol nice story fam

Don't for a second think I think about a negative. I'm an atheist and I don't think about god or shit like that, and neither do I care if someone else is an atheist. Religious people I stay away from, because they represent a very dangerous breed of stupid.

>>15390

>Religious people I stay away from, because they represent a very dangerous breed of stupid.

"Religious people" are extremely altruistic, and created thousands of schools/hospitals out of their own pockets in Russia alone prior to the Marxists.

>>15390

>>15391

continuation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hospitals

>>15390

>Don't for a second think I think about a negative. I'm an atheist and I don't think about god or shit like that, and neither do I care if someone else is an atheist.

Apparently, you do care, or else you wouldn't have derailed an entire thread telling us that Christianity is stupid. The thread was shit to begin with, but still.

>Religious people I stay away from, because they represent a very dangerous breed of stupid.

Hate to be that guy, but not all religious people are stupid, and not all atheists or agnostics are good company. There's a bunch of christians I'd rather hang out with than with some atheists.

>>15390

>calls an entire group of people "a very dangerous breed of stupid"

>fails to refute literally anything in the post that he's replying to

>"y-you're beyond hope you dumb christian"

>>15391

>le altruism

implying that is desireable

>>15392

>le argument by history

no

>>15395

sure thing, but if I met twins who were the same but one was a theist and another was an atheist, I'd rather talk with the atheist. Theists are stupid because they still believe in bs.

>>15408

>implying they were arguments

>>15469

>Muh religion is duh devil!

Go back to fucking yourself with a banana already. Come speak to me when you're older, kid.

>>15418

>Against letting people have voluntary non-coercive trade for profit

>Anarchist

>>15495

>muh irrationality is good!

lol

I wonder who's the kid here, son.

>>15418

>>15469

>>15501

>>15511

Can you go have your atheistic butt-rage somewhere else? Sorry, but nobody cares if you hate religion, especially if you're just going to mock every post that you disagree with by using greentext

>>15529

>imblying every religious faggot doen't just do the same IRL with muh biblé

>>15569

Actually they don't. I'm sure that one random faggot on faux news or some liberal media channel does, but the vast majority of Christians (at least out here on the Great Plains) keep their mouths shut about religion until some ass hat tries to fuck with it.

Then again, you're probably the sort of autistic shit head who probably goes on and on about his own superiority while being completely unable to follow a philosophical or theological dialogue.

>>15590

>proving they do

kek

>namefagging

>"bro"

NORMIE

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>15625

someone got his feelings hurt

may I help you finding >>>/tumblr/?