Of course, the fundamental premise is wrong. We are of course not our own.
But the higher level principles seem nice (at least for what I watched). They seemed to get a lot of the details wrong. But certainly not bad for an intro. Problem is it could lead to someone thinking libertarianism in it's pure form was tractable, which it of course is not.
You are right, Ben. We are not our own, but I look at it as we are not owned, or at least should not be owned, by any mortal human.
As far as libertarianism not being tractable, maybe not as much as you would like, because it is risky to give people that freedom. However, I believe it jives with the principles of agency. Just because we don't make laws for or against certain things doesn't mean people won't have consequences for bad decisions. We just don't always need legal consequences imposed for every misdeed.
It has nothing to do with the risk of freedom as much the fact that even in the theoretical world things break down with one large malevolent actor.
But your comment brings up a good point. Another reason that libertarianism is dangerous is that it encourages to take no position on moral issues. Given that we often receive prophetic counsel on such issues, it can lead to apostasy. Have Brett tell you about the pieces of that that took hold in our stake.
Ben, how much have you really read about libertarianism?? Their are actually two main types, anarchist and minarchist libertarians. Sabrina is obviously not an anarchist, so try reading about minarchist libertarianism. That's basically what our founding fathers all were! I believe there is an even better form, I guess you could call it "mormon" libertarianism. :) It's the principles of libertarianism tied with the principles of the Gospel. We ARE owned, but ONLY by a Supreme and Perfect Being. Through the gift of the Holy Spirit, righteous people CAN live the "pure" form of libertarianism.(D&C 84:46)!!
Karen, I've read my share of Ayn Rand and the rest. Anarchocapitalism is exactly what the video was positing at least until I got so bored by having to read the slowly moving pictures that I just let the nice music play. The pro drug legalization stuff, the position that you can never create a government authorized to use force, those are not centrist libertarian positions. The church was strongly against the repeal of prohibition. Yet Mormon libertarianism led Utah to be (at least symbolically) the state that got rid of it. The basic principles are mostly fine, but that doesn't mean that we should privatize national defense. (A necessary corollary of accepting these as guiding principles instead of generally good points.) It also doesn't mean that government can't forbid harmful behavior. The principle of agency that's relevant here is the one at the end of Mosiah (think wrath and anger of the Lord if you want to avoid looking it up.) Now, as for minarchism in general, I'm for it. The idea that government should be small and limited is great. But the idea that this video was minarchist could be easily debunked by a simple trip to wikipedia.
I was going to attempt to explain something else, but I really stink at explaining my point of view, especially over the Internet. So, I am just going to say I can see how you could view this video as anarcho-capitalist. However, when I viewed it, I could interpret it into minarchist views just fine. It probably has a lot to do with perspective.
My main purpose for posting these types of things on this blog is not convince, but simply introduce other ideas that people can consider. I wish I had the talent and means to more effectively explain what I believe, but for now, this is as good as it gets. But, thank you for engaging me, thinking about it and providing alternate points of view. As I always like to say, I think it's good for everyone to think about different ideas and points of view as they are defining their own.
I agree with what this video is saying...but this country seems so complicated and out of control...I don't think we could ever get back to the basics. What do you think of Bob Barr? I've been trying to find out about him since the other parties have decided to go off the deep end with their nominees.
Leilani, I don't think Bob Barr is too bad of a choice. I think I am leaning more toward Chuck Baldwin though. I think I am more aligned with his social values and he still campaigns for small government. I would just write-in Ron Paul, but RP himself has suggested we not, so I guess I'll follow his wishes. It is tough though. This country is sure in a huge mess and there's no simple way out of it.
9 comments:
Random comment: Julia really liked the music to this video - tummy time was actually enjoyable!
Of course, the fundamental premise is wrong. We are of course not our own.
But the higher level principles seem nice (at least for what I watched). They seemed to get a lot of the details wrong. But certainly not bad for an intro. Problem is it could lead to someone thinking libertarianism in it's pure form was tractable, which it of course is not.
You are right, Ben. We are not our own, but I look at it as we are not owned, or at least should not be owned, by any mortal human.
As far as libertarianism not being tractable, maybe not as much as you would like, because it is risky to give people that freedom. However, I believe it jives with the principles of agency. Just because we don't make laws for or against certain things doesn't mean people won't have consequences for bad decisions. We just don't always need legal consequences imposed for every misdeed.
It has nothing to do with the risk of freedom as much the fact that even in the theoretical world things break down with one large malevolent actor.
But your comment brings up a good point. Another reason that libertarianism is dangerous is that it encourages to take no position on moral issues. Given that we often receive prophetic counsel on such issues, it can lead to apostasy. Have Brett tell you about the pieces of that that took hold in our stake.
Ben, how much have you really read about libertarianism?? Their are actually two main types, anarchist and minarchist libertarians. Sabrina is obviously not an anarchist, so try reading about minarchist libertarianism. That's basically what our founding fathers all were! I believe there is an even better form, I guess you could call it "mormon" libertarianism. :) It's the principles of libertarianism tied with the principles of the Gospel. We ARE owned, but ONLY by a Supreme and Perfect Being. Through the gift of the Holy Spirit, righteous people CAN live the
"pure" form of libertarianism.(D&C 84:46)!!
Karen, I've read my share of Ayn Rand and the rest. Anarchocapitalism is exactly what the video was positing at least until I got so bored by having to read the slowly moving pictures that I just let the nice music play.
The pro drug legalization stuff, the position that you can never create a government authorized to use force, those are not centrist libertarian positions.
The church was strongly against the repeal of prohibition. Yet Mormon libertarianism led Utah to be (at least symbolically) the state that got rid of it.
The basic principles are mostly fine, but that doesn't mean that we should privatize national defense. (A necessary corollary of accepting these as guiding principles instead of generally good points.) It also doesn't mean that government can't forbid harmful behavior. The principle of agency that's relevant here is the one at the end of Mosiah (think wrath and anger of the Lord if you want to avoid looking it up.)
Now, as for minarchism in general, I'm for it. The idea that government should be small and limited is great. But the idea that this video was minarchist could be easily debunked by a simple trip to wikipedia.
I was going to attempt to explain something else, but I really stink at explaining my point of view, especially over the Internet. So, I am just going to say I can see how you could view this video as anarcho-capitalist. However, when I viewed it, I could interpret it into minarchist views just fine. It probably has a lot to do with perspective.
My main purpose for posting these types of things on this blog is not convince, but simply introduce other ideas that people can consider. I wish I had the talent and means to more effectively explain what I believe, but for now, this is as good as it gets. But, thank you for engaging me, thinking about it and providing alternate points of view. As I always like to say, I think it's good for everyone to think about different ideas and points of view as they are defining their own.
I agree with what this video is saying...but this country seems so complicated and out of control...I don't think we could ever get back to the basics. What do you think of Bob Barr? I've been trying to find out about him since the other parties have decided to go off the deep end with their nominees.
Leilani, I don't think Bob Barr is too bad of a choice. I think I am leaning more toward Chuck Baldwin though. I think I am more aligned with his social values and he still campaigns for small government. I would just write-in Ron Paul, but RP himself has suggested we not, so I guess I'll follow his wishes. It is tough though. This country is sure in a huge mess and there's no simple way out of it.
Post a Comment