Intersection of Libertarian and Conservative thought

[gfost1]

Howdy, Y'all
A lot of good points. One that deserves further discussion is the so-called "morality" that so-called "conservatives" are "wanting the State to enforce".

For example, they want the State to outlaw prostitution because its immoral. Yet, if you read the Bible as many Conservatives claim to do, so is sex outside of marriage for any reason, so is adultery, etc. Why do Conservatives want Prostitution illegal and the government wasting our resources to "stop" it, but not other forms of extra marital sex? It's all immoral.

Right. It is all immoral, along with, according to the Bible, most every activity of a sexual nature that mankind engages in outside of a heterosexual marriage relationship. And, in fact, most of said activities were illegal in this country until the latter half of the 20th century. Moreover, these same activities carried the death penalty, according to the Law of Moses.

Libertarians appear to want a morality that is not based on Christian (or any other religion's) values, whereas Conservatives espouse a Biblical basis to their morality. The problem with the Libertarian view is that no rights can be God-given in the absence of God, while the problem with a Biblical or God-based morality lies in determining how much of God's law we empower the state to enforce.

Regards,

George

[SHMIV]

Actually, George, the problem with Biblical or God-based morality isn't that much of a problem. For example, we can look at the Commandment "thou shall not commit murder". Should that be enforced by government? Of course. Why? The victim would be deprived of his life. On the other hand, what of "thou shall not commit audultery"? This ought not be enforced by government. To do so would be a denial of pursuit of happiness.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Kreutz]

Moreover, these same activities carried the death penalty, according to the Law of Moses.

So did wearing fabrics blended of linen and wool.

Libertarians appear to want a morality that is not based on Christian (or any other religion's) values, whereas Conservatives espouse a Biblical basis to their morality. The problem with the Libertarian view is that no rights can be God-given in the absence of God, while the problem with a Biblical or God-based morality lies in determining how much of God's law we empower the state to enforce.

Regards,

George

Even Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. Romans 2:14

This references the "law of God written in mens hearts", the idea that people are instinctively "programmed" if you will to have a basic moral view of the world. The idea that morality does not exist outside of the Bible is demonstrably false.

[gfost1]

Actually, George, the problem with Biblical or God-based morality isn't that much of a problem. For example, we can look at the Commandment "thou shall not commit murder". Should that be enforced by government? Of course. Why? The victim would be deprived of his life. On the other hand, what of "thou shall not commit audultery"? This ought not be enforced by government. To do so would be a denial of pursuit of happiness.

So is your argument that Adultery is a "victimless" breach of morality? Or does the adulterers' pursuit of happiness trump the well being of their family(s)? The same arguments can be made (and are made) regarding substance abuse.

Even Gentiles, who do not have God's written law, show that they know his law when they instinctively obey it, even without having heard it. Romans 2:14

This references the "law of God written in mens hearts", the idea that people are instinctively "programmed" if you will to have a basic moral view of the world. The idea that morality does not exist outside of the Bible is demonstrably false.

Not putting words in your mouth, but for the sake of discussion, let's postulate that morality is "Instinctive" or "natural" as other translations express the Greek. How does one explain the wide variations in acceptable behavior between people groups, or among a single people over the course of time, or among individuals at any one point in time? If morality is instinctive, why is there so little consensus?

On what basis do we determine morality, and once determined, on what basis do we grant government oversight? Is there and should there be a difference between morality and legality?

I ask, because although our freedom to keep and bear arms is constitutionally explicit, it is precarious nonetheless. And so many of the freedoms we cherish are not protected in such a straightforward manner.

Regards,

George

[Kreutz]

Not putting words in your mouth, but for the sake of discussion, let's postulate that morality is "Instinctive" or "natural" as other translations express the Greek.

Sure.

How does one explain the wide variations in acceptable behavior between people groups, or among a single people over the course of time, or among individuals at any one point in time? If morality is instinctive, why is there so little consensus?

The truth is there has never been a human society which tolerated carte blanche malum in se behavior.

Now, morality may vary by culture,especially sexual mores, but what we would commonly refer to as "crimes" such as murder, theft, assault, etc. have always carried some societal repercussion....be it revenge by the injured party or their family (code of Hammurabi), corporal punishment, execution, imprisonment, and monetary fines/penalties....be it coin or cattle as the case may be.

If a non-Bibilical society will be one of chaos and depraved anarchy, how did any of them survive for any measurable amount of time? Why did pagan Rome have vigiles urbani (police) to enforce laws, laws that could not exist without moral underpinnings?

People do not need a book written by long dead jews to tell them "thou shall not steal" when apparently everyone else came to that conclusion on their own too.

On what basis do we determine morality, and once determined, on what basis do we grant government oversight? Is there and should there be a difference between morality and legality?

Waxing philosophical is not my strong suit, but it appears all human societies naturally form certain rules and standards over time, and government is the result....these laws need not be codified incidentally, plenty of "unspoken rules" out there.

[dorminWS]

“Non-bibical” morality vs. “biblical” morality might be, when viewed over the length of the history of humanity, just a matter of perspective and/or terminology. As Kreutz notes, all societies have “moral rules”, and laws, etc. What these might be more generally called is “rules for ordering society”. Do societies promulgate these rules out of morality or pragmatism? Do the rules exist to impose moral behavior on people or to avoid the chaos and depraved anarchy (nice turn of phrase, by the way) that Kreutz alludes to? I’d say the answer is “both”. Rules against murder are necessary as a practical matter because society just totally breaks down without them and mankind probably couldn’t survive. What about rules against adultery? I submit that as a practical matter, it was necessary to assure that the children that the Paleolithic breadwinner/hunter was supporting at the daily risk of his life were his own and that it was his genes he was propagating. Today we tend to put a “moral” face on this rule, and it is certainly a moral issue, but at the dawn of history it was a different ball game. And so it goes with all or at least most of our basic societal rules/laws/morals, with some variations from society to society. I’d say these rules probably originated out of pragmatic self-preservation and later became associated with “the will of the gods” and morality. And as human societial mores go, Christianity came rather late to the party. Christianity naturally embraced those rules that reinforced it’s value system, and they became “Christian morality”. The fact that utter pagans had the same rules for millennia before Christ did not make the rules less valid or necessary. It just meant that all rational human societies had certain things in common. My guess would be that many religions have embraced and promoted pre-existing societal values that conformed to their theology and rejected and discouraged those that did not; which segues nicely into the influence of religion upon morals and mores.

Now that we have allowed omnipresent, omnipotent, intrusive and overbearing government to take over our affairs, we have rules that ware promulgated primarity to further the interests and facilitate the functions of the government rather than the people. So these rules have less and less to do with the pragmatic ordering of society and/or morals and more and more to do with the self-preservation of government. From “chaos and depraved anarchy” to chaos and depraved governmental fiat. Ironic, isn’t it?

Now, this pragmatism I spoke of is a necessary part of the conservative/libertarian nexus, too. As philosophies/ideologies, neither conservatism (whatever that is) nor libertarianism (whatever THAT is) nor any other political/social/ecomomic belief system can be put into practice without tempering it with a healthy dose of pragmatism. So any “conservative” or “republican” will “betray” the “conservatives” or “republicans” or “libertarians” who expect only acts they deem ideologically pure any time he or she does something that might (a) actually get passed into law, and (b) has a snowball’s chance in hell of actually working once it has been passed. Same thing goes for the folks on the left.

So, while all this ideological hairsplitting is entertaining and stimulating as an intellectual exercise, it is pretty damned irrelevant as a practical matter. We’re all going to have to either agree on something that works or choose up sides and start all over again. Right now, it’s looking more and more to me like choosing up sides and starting all over again, because “compromise” doesn’t seem to be something the liberals/progressives can distinguish from “total capitulation”.

Just my opinion. OALA.

[dorminWS]

“Non-bibical” morality vs. “biblical” morality might be, when viewed over the length of the history of humanity, just a matter of perspective and/or terminology. As Kreutz notes, all societies have “moral rules”, and laws, etc. What these might be more generally called is “rules for ordering society”. Do societies promulgate these rules out of morality or pragmatism? Do the rules exist to impose moral behavior on people or to avoid the chaos and depraved anarchy (nice turn of phrase, by the way) that Kreutz alludes to? I’d say the answer is “both”. Rules against murder are necessary as a practical matter because society just totally breaks down without them and mankind probably couldn’t survive. What about rules against adultery? I submit that as a practical matter, it was necessary to assure that the children that the Paleolithic breadwinner/hunter was supporting at the daily risk of his life were his own and that it was his genes he was propagating. Today we tend to put a “moral” face on this rule, and it is certainly a moral issue, but at the dawn of history it was a different ball game. And so it goes with all or at least most of our basic societal rules/laws/morals, with some variations from society to society. I’d say these rules probably originated out of pragmatic self-preservation and later became associated with “the will of the gods” and morality. And as human societial mores go, Christianity came rather late to the party. Christianity naturally embraced those rules that reinforced its value system, and they became “Christian morality”. The fact that utter pagans had the same rules for millennia before Christ did not make the rules less valid or necessary. It just meant that all rational human societies had certain things in common. My guess would be that many religions have embraced and promoted pre-existing societal values that conformed to their theology and rejected and discouraged those that did not; which segues nicely into the influence of religion upon morals and mores.

Now that we have allowed omnipresent, omnipotent, intrusive and overbearing government to take over our affairs, we have rules that ware promulgated primarity to further the interests and facilitate the functions of the government rather than the people. So these rules have less and less to do with the pragmatic ordering of society and/or morals and more and more to do with the self-preservation of government. From “chaos and depraved anarchy” to chaos and depraved governmental fiat. Ironic, isn’t it?

Now, this pragmatism I spoke of is a necessary part of the conservative/libertarian nexus, too. As philosophies/ideologies, neither conservatism (whatever that is) nor libertarianism (whatever THAT is) nor any other political/social/ecomomic belief system can be put into practice without tempering it with a healthy dose of pragmatism. So any “conservative” or “republican” will “betray” the “conservatives” or “republicans” or “libertarians” who expect only acts they deem ideologically pure any time he or she does something that might (a) actually get passed into law, and (b) has a snowball’s chance in hell of actually working once it has been passed. Same thing goes for the folks on the left.

So, while all this ideological hairsplitting is entertaining and stimulating as an intellectual exercise, it is pretty damned irrelevant as a practical matter. We’re all going to have to either agree on something that works or choose up sides and start all over again. Right now, it’s looking more and more to me like choosing up sides and starting all over again, because “compromise” doesn’t seem to be something the liberals/progressives can distinguish from “total capitulation”.

Just my opinion. OALA.