[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> "So this is why when Japan is rocked by massive earthquakes making retail
> stocks venerable there is next to no looting while in the 'christian' us of
> a, looting occurs on a large scale even when stocks are only mildly
> insucured or insured only by mobs of looters?"
>
> Japan is a highly religious society. The US may be
> "Christian" in name, but considering that there is virtually no discernable
> difference between the morality of church-goers and non-church goers it is
> safe to say that American Christians have no fear of their professed God.
> (It is probably not coincidental that American religions focus almost
> exlusively on how much "God loves you". Modern Christianity is much like
> the welfare state, promising many benefits at no personal cost. The American
> god isn't much different than Santa Claus or Amway.)
>
> Go back 100 years. Around the turn of the twentieth century a man spilled
> bag of gold coins as he unloaded a truck on Wall Street. Passersby formed a
> circle of arms to protect the money laying in the street until it could all
> be picked up. America in times past did have a common decency that is rare
> today. The religion of the time was much more concerned with law than just
> grace, and Hell was much more predominant in mention. Fear of damnation or
> being associated with hellions was
> a social cost that people factored into decisions. Similarly in Japan, fear
> of dishonoring oneself or one's ancestors figures predominantly as a social
> cost affecting their decisions. Reputation is certainly involved. But in
> order for an individual to receive a bad reputation, the society must have a
> common definition of what constitutes "bad" behavior. So you are back to an
> ethical standard, that only religion can provide. You can tell the real
> religion of a society by looking at what it considers to be "bad".
> Ironically, Christianity is considered "bad" by most Americans, even many
> Christians. America is not Christian and hasn't been for a long time.
Clearly many virtues have been lost in the secularised west, and many
social norms have been broken down, with something like 1 in 3 children
growing up without a father living with them and a similar proportion of
children born out of wedlock. This is a social disaster. I was bought up
in a conservative and religious family environment without in a society
where crime and corruption is low, economic freedom is high (or at least
rapidly increasing) and people are friendly (New Zealand, born 1977). I
fervently believed only a few years ago that only the practice of the
christian religion, with emphasis on christian moral principles rather
than shallow emotionalism, was the salvation of the individual and
society. Things are different now and I don't have much of an
intellectual answer to the basis of morality, but I know that I don't
follow the christian version of sexual morality much anymore, having on
Sunday dumped a woman I was having casual sex with every night not
because of moral quarms but because I did not find her to be to my
liking.
>
> The libertarian movement has the following religious assumptions at its
> foundation:
>
> 1) Individuals have the right to life, liberty and property
> [This right is not found in nature where the fit survive and the weak are
> eaten. If it is true, then this is an ethical standard that must come from
> outside of nature.]
To many libertarians ought is derived from is, which the rest of the
philosophical community consider a fallacy.
> 2) the meaning of these rights is that no individual should legally be
> deprived of his life, liberty or property without due process of law
> [Why not? Again, natural selection recognizes only the law of power. To
> assume that rights exist is fundamentally religious. The law of the jungle
> is kill or be killed. If we arose from the jungle we cannot appeal to
> "rights" as a basis for government policy. Those in power have the "right"
> to do whatever they please, unless there is a higher power and a higher
> moral law.]
>
> 3) Individuals have a right to protect their life, liberty and property
> from imminent threats with the use of force, individuals have the right to
> self defence and to bear the means of self defence.
> [At least this one has some basis in the law of nature.]
>
> 4) Individuals have the right to petition the government for the redress of
> wrongs. This means taking people to court and bearing the costs and risks of
> litigation.
> [Again, why? Natural selection does not warrant this. The strong rule, the
> weak are exploited. The concept of "justice" has to be based on a morality
> outside of nature.]
perhaps the court system is the highest evolution of revenge, and civil
society is the evolution fro competition to cooperation, perhaps the
state is the ultimate transaction cost reducing form of economic
organisation?
>
> In order to provide an coherent set of principles around which to order
> society, libertarianism has to reject natural selection and look to an
> outside source of morality, an ethical standard, a god. The whole concept
> of the free-market being the source of morality is flawed. "Wicked deeds"
> have always been done in secret because of fear of a bad reputation. But if
> one takes away the definition of "bad" there is no fear of the reputation.
> In a world with 5 billion people the only way to have reputation be strong
> enough to follow you around is to institute draconian databases, which means
> total loss of privacy. Privacy is a libertarian mantra, isn't it? The old
> saying that there is no honor among thieves is true. If a thief has most of
> his relationships with thieves then he doesn't fear a bad reputation with
> the sheep. He's in the wolf club.
Libertarians want sheep to be able to build their own communities where
rent cannot be extracted from their transactions by rent-seeking wolves.
This reduces the ratio of wolves to sheep bt cutting off their supply of
transactions to tax.
>
> One of the classic philosophical problems of ancient times was the conflict
> between the ONE and the MANY. Humanist Socialism (Democracy) and Communism
> focus on the importance of the ONE, hence the STATE is the WILL OF THE
> PEOPLE. The many serve the one .
>
> Libertarianism
> seems to focus on the individual (the MANY). As the religions of the West
> have dissolved over the past century, so has self-governance. As society
> starts looking more and more like anarchy the opportunity arises for tyranny
> of the most powerful individuals. When the ONE does not exert power over
> the many, then petty dictators will arise among the MANY and impose their
> own order on the many. Libertarianism requires self-governance
> in order to work, just as communism and socialism require a work ethic in
> order to work. Those systems destroy the work ethic in their subjects. (Why
> work when I can be on the dole?)
> Libertarianism needs a religion to keep the people self-governing. Otherwise
> they realise that their liberty permits them to do whatever they please
> whether it hurts someone else or not. The jungle isn't a polite place.
Perhas there is a substitute belief system to christianity which can
nourish self-government.
>
> The Internet has strong trends toward anarchy. There are many
> sheep with no shepherd and the wolves are having a feast.
>
> HK
>
there are a lot of sheep and a lot of wolves, but the sheep graze there
because the grass is greener, despite the wolves, than elsewhere.
David Hillary
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
