Wednesday, November 16, 2005

US map of libertarianism

For the Americans amongst you, check out this US map of libertarianism. Here it is in smaller :

11 comments:

Aaron Kinney said...

Wow. the max is 3.16%. But how many of these are "true" libertarians? ;)

Zachary Moore said...

The strong presence throughout the state of Indiana is interesting. What do you think may be the reason for this phenomenon?

ConcernedCatholic said...

Hey, just out of curiosity... how exactly do you defend the right to property with out God? Even Jefferson and Locke couldn't do it... talk about liars... without a divine arbiter, on what basis do you claim 'liberty' or 'property'... I am certainly willing to acknowledge that people like Locke and Jefferson may not have believed in God, but they needed Him to make their argument... and capitalism is little more than Calvinism applied to economics... very interesting...

Funny, I used to be a libertarian, too... thank God I outgrew that!

Francois Tremblay said...

Hello jackass,

1. How the fuck can a Christian reconcile individual values with the anti-individualism of Christianity ?

2. Why haven't you taken me up on my offer of beating you up to prove my existence yet ?

ConcernedCatholic said...

Christianity is the ultimate expression of individualism... why do you think that all those defective ideas about human rights emerged from a Christian culture? It was a defective expression of Christian culture (the Moderno-Protestant Ideological Revolutions), but Christian culture nonetheless... Locke, Hobbes, Descartes, Machiavelli, Bacon, Hume, even Kant and Nietzsche... and yes, even Hospers... ideas are rooted in Christian culture... they are just ideological extractions of Christian culture... that's why all these ideologies fail, because they are not rooted in an authentic Christian culture... read up on your distributism, boys... it's the way of the future... libertarianism is dead... I used to be one, then I saw the light...

You only demonstrate your ignorance when you make ridiculous claims like Christianity being 'anti-individual'... Christ was an individual and He was the person through whose life we are meant to realize our own... however, I am betting that you have adopted some simplistic variation on 'atomic individuality'... well, I hate to break the news to ya, but the atomic individual is a bigger myth than any god ever has been! We can't live as atomic individuals... we require others for even our most basic function (reproduction)... your perversion of private property... your fetishization (and that is all libertarianism really does, is to fetishize private property... make IT a god)... is what keeps you from being able to embrace a real model of economic and social justice... ownership is only PART of the equation... responsibility is the other part, and libertarianism just doesn't take that into account...

Christianity, and particularly the Catholic Faith, is the only fully realized and authentic expression of the individual, because it recognizes the individual is in a constant state of relationship... in much the way that the Trinity is a constant state of relationship between the Persons of God... the model of Christ is the only fully realized human individual... the Catholic explication of free will is the only one that takes into account human beings at their most natural...

All the silly little ideologies that you and your friends play at propagandizing are only shadows of the Truth... read through the CCC and pay particular attention to the stuff about individuality and property... check out Compendium Of The Social Doctrine Of The Church , or just read some of Chesterton or Belloc's works on distributism... or Fanfani or Pesch... by limiting yourself to boobs like Hospers and Nozick, you really miss the point... although, I am betting you probably haven't even read Hospers and/or Nozick, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Hellbound Alleee said...

Here's how human rights and individualism originated with "Christian Culture:"

They killed you for not believing. In really "individualist" ways, like stoning, hanging, boiling in oil, burning, etc. Yes, Jesus won the hearts and minds of mankind through bloody dismemberment.

You don't have to point out to us how dying to the flesh and immersing yourself in a cult="individualism." It's obvious.

Go sacrifice yourself, individualist.

Francois Tremblay said...

I rebuke you, filthy Papist, worshipper of false idols. You strain at a gnat and swallow the Papist camel. Go and believe no more, you blood-drinking freak.

ConcernedCatholic said...

In our recent discussion, I discovered (not surprisingly) that many of you mistheists are libertarians and follow in the footsteps of such non-entities as Robert Nozick, whose rejection of John Rawls' Theory of Justice, which was unfortunately considered 'distributist justice' (a gross misappropriation of the term by people who probably have never even read Chesterton).

Now, considering how much I despise Rawls and his "Justice as Fairness" ideology, I also find Nozick's rejections to be equally perverse and disturbing. The former believes that 'wealth' not property should be 'fairly' distributed... in order to demonstrate what he considers 'fairness' he postulates a 'veil of ignorance' through which we must envision a society not knowing what role we would play in it... in other words, we should base the idea of justice on our own inherent greed and fear of material deprivation. Clearly, Rawls is an idiot (although, sadly, he has been widely popular with academics... although not surprisingly)... with this in mind, it was certainly refreshing to read Nozick's rejection of Rawls and, when I was a libertarian, Nozick made a certain amount of sense; however, as a Catholic I see that Nozick's conception of justice is no less perverse than Rawls', because Nozick, in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, roots his sense of justice in a perverse fetishization of private property and ownership that, while claiming to adhere to Kant's postulate that humans are ends in themselves and never means to another's ends, he uses Hayek's theories about the dangers of socialism to defend corporate greed. The most interesting thing that I find about Nozick's supposed 'anarchy', is that it seems to presuppose an oligarchy... a hierarchy rooted in wealth and material power rather than a meritocracy (as it would claim)... and further, that his adherence to the Austrian school through Hayek only goes to demonstrate the deep misunderstanding of the purpose of property... Hayek's Road to Serfdom asserts that socialism will bring us back to a form of slavery (of course, Hayek completely misunderstands the relationship between serf and lord... or the freedom of peasant society, but that is for another discussion... I should like to comment, briefly, on how many Modernist ideologies rely on a demonization of Medieval social and economic justice)...

And while Hayek may not be wrong about socialism, he misses the point that capitalism has an almost identical effect (although through the actions of private corporate entities rather than through the state)... and I am not, in retrospect, sure whose boot heel I would rather be crushed under!

Even Nozick's theory of Justice, which he calls 'Entitlement Theory', leads one (in retrospect) to wonder what it is that he is really asserting about the nature of economic justice. While it is certainly reasonable, theoretically, to advocate that each individual is 'entitled' to the fruits of his own labors, the system that Nozick advocates would seem to encourage oligarchic control of property and the means of production. In other words (and to paraphrase Chesterton), since we got into our current socio-economic mess through a gradual development of legal preferences that encouraged the merchant/capitalist at the expense of the small landowner/independent craftsman, only a reversal of that legal tradition can reverse the trend toward centralization of power/property in the hands of either the state or an oligarchy. Most 'conservative' economists and pundits argue this point exactly when when attacking socialism and socialist policies, but since 'conservative' has gradually come to be identified with capitalism, most policies enacted to 'roll back' socialism, simply enhance oligarchy.

Distributism (true distributism, not Rawls' conception of 'fairness') is the only reasonable alternative, rejecting both forms of concentration and advocating laws and policies that encourage widespread distribution of property. I won't get into a full-blown defense of distributism here, as I have elsewhere and IHS Press has a fantastic catalogue of newly minted editions of the great distributists works, but I DID want to take this opportunity to point out some of the problems of libertarianism and its apparent rejection of 'centralized power.'

I just wanted to make sure that you understood that I reject your socio-economics as well as your theology... interesting how that works, no?

Francois Tremblay said...

Wow, it looks like the filthy Papist actually made an intelligent comment. I'll let our other writers answer to this (because I don't answer to him apart from censoring his comments).

Marty said...

Like I said on another of our posts. You might want to consider using something other than name calling as argumentation. If you want to be considered rational that is.

ConcernedCatholic said...

Interesting how these 'rational' mistheists can't answer such a fundamental question about the ontological underpinnings of their beliefs. As I was trying to point out (and I assume that this will be deleted, so I am not too worried about it), concepts like 'rights', 'freedom', 'equality', and 'property' are VERY difficult (if not impossible) to defend without a universal absolute (i.e. God) and even the most mistheistic of the early market economy theorists posited some kind of 'god' so as to avoid such ontological arguments. I ask again, how are these beliefs defended without any universal ontological underpinning? Why should I care what you think about property, equality, rights, or freedom if it is merely your opinion... if it is not True?

You see, the name-calling is all fun and games, until someone asks you to defend your position and you can't...