I feel like I’m apologizing for some aspect of every article I write as of late. I’m an engineer and lawyer by training but have never been good at condensing complicated subject matter into digestible chunks. This article is no different. I have a feeling it’s going to become a meandering mess. Also, this article is gonna get a bit religious, so I’m sorry if you don’t like your libertarianism with a side of Jesus.
Faith and Tithing
It’s common knowledge that American Christians suck at even the basics of the faith, especially when it comes to parting with “their” money. Tithing (true tithing, as in 10% of your income) is hardly ever practiced. Tithing isn’t a God thing. God doesn’t need money (or a starship). Tithing isn’t primarily a church thing, either. Churches have varied forms of income, and unless they’re being run poorly, they’re not relying on the tithe to pay for the lights bill. Tithing is a personal thing, a growth opportunity, much like prayer and worship. It establishes the proper role of a person in relation to God and to material wealth.
“The point is this: whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows bountifully will also reap bountifully. Each one must give as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” – 2 Cor 9:6-7
Tithing is a discipline, not a purchase or a membership fee. It’s an acknowledgment to God that we’re just asset managers. God owns everything since God created everything. God even owns us and our labor, we are slaves to him.
“Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master” – Mat 25:23
I can already feel the cringes from the atheist libertarians who believe they are bound by no authority. Discussion of rightful authority is another topic for another day.
The Bible talks a ton about money and people’s relationship to money. The most famous and relevant example is Matthew 6:24.
“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”
One of the basic themes running through the Bible is the predisposition people have toward worshipping (or serving) idols, whether those be sticks with faces carved in them, golden animals, kings and other earthly rulers, celebrities, ideologies, themselves, or money. This is the recurring conflict in the Old Testament, with the Israelites constantly serving masters that promised more immediate results. This conflict still exists today and has an immensely negative impact on the charitable natures expected of Christians.
For example, roughly one in four regular church attending Christians actually give money on a regular basis. However, less than 5% actually give a tithe (10% of their income). A few questions come to mind when thinking about this pitiful statistic. First, why don’t people tithe? Second, what effect does this miserly Christian community have on society? Third, how do we get rid of the welfare state when people show no interest in picking up the slack?
Debt and Tithing
The statistics of tithing are quite interesting, and lead to an inescapable conclusion: people in the wealthiest country in the world are so ill equipped to handle personal finances that they are uncharitable because they’re broke. 8 out of 10 tithers have no consumer debt (I assume this excludes a mortgage). Of course, the Bible isn’t so hot on debt.
“The rich rules over the poor, And the borrower becomes the lender’s slave.” – Prov. 22:7
“Pay everyone what you owe him: taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. Be indebted to no one, except to one another in love, for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law.” – Romans 13:7-8
28% of tithers are completely debt free (apparently including mortgage). The leftist whinging against bankers and corporations is puerile, but there is a nugget of truth there. Debt is marketed even better than diamonds. It’s a product to satiate the most impatient impulses of the instant gratification culture that has developed in the US (and the West, in general). We could talk about whether debt has good uses, but that’s irrelevant in this context. What is relevant is how most modern Americans abuse debt, using it to live an uninspected life of trinkets and trivialities. Meanwhile, American household debt is hovering around $12.7 Trillion.
The most disappointing statistic about tithing is that folks with an income under $20k are 8x more likely to give than somebody making $75k. While a first blush reaction to this may involve Marxian epithets against the bourgeoisie, I think it illuminates another issue. Debt is most heavily marketed to middle and upper-middle class people, and they flock to it like moths to a flame. Income doesn’t measure financial health, net worth does. For example, I make enough to be in the top 10% income bracket (as an individual, household income is lower because my wife is stay-at-home), but my net worth is 6-figures negative because of massive debt. I don’t think that my situation is particularly out of the ordinary. The numbers may change from person to person, but most of the middle class has a glut of debt-financed luxuries and a massively negative net worth. When they’re in debt to their eyeballs, average Americans aren’t a giving people. (As an aside, when you compare American giving to other countries, Americans tend to be relatively quite charitable, which shows the systemic issues encountered across the rest of the world.)
Generosity and Selflessness
In libertarian circles, we tend to talk in rational terms, but people are motivated by things other than pure logic. Emotion controls people and cultures. It also controls our generosity. When people feel like they’re being wrung out, they don’t give. Also, when they feel that others’ needs are being taken care of, they don’t give. Even more, when they’re taught to hate or look down on the downtrodden, they lack the generosity required to give. All of these are issues in modern Western Civilization. Although charity was once a national ethic in the US, it has been beaten out of the people. The ever dragging boat anchor of an out of control government combined with a culture that “helps” through hashtag campaigns combines into a rather uncharitable cocktail. Toss on a heaping helping of scorn for the poor and struggling (brought on by the fact that Daddy Gubmint holds a gun to our collective heads and forces us to pay into programs that keep the poor impoverished), and true charity becomes passe.
“If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that?” – James 2:15-16
When a culture degenerates into a selfish and segmented “community,” there isn’t enough of a connection between people of different classes and groups to develop that natural empathy that leads to selfless giving. Selflessness is a discipline, and like any other discipline, it must be developed into a habit. Without the habitual discipline of charity, not only does the definition of charity tend to migrate (toward the lazy and the self-serving), but a certain virtue becomes associated with being the target of charity. The noble poor people are systematically oppressed and are victimized by society. We (meaning government) have to stick up for these noble people! Of course, the fact that this entire line of BS ignores the incestuous relationship between government and the virtuous poor narrative.
Charity v. The State
In the end, this perversion of the concept of “charity” is directly correlated to the growth of government forced income redistribution and vote buying. Libertarians tend to focus on the government apparatus and how to dismantle it, but this is only a part of the equation. We, as a culture, have been trained away from charity, from caring community, from cheerful giving. We are insulated from one another, carrying on a cultural dance where we spend ourselves into oblivion to pretend that we’re wealthy. The poorest of the poor are driving nice cars, looking down on the slightly less poor who can’t qualify for the massive debt instruments that have driven the middle-class into a ditch. As a result, there would be a massive vacuum if the government were to pull out of the charity business. There are good philanthropic groups, including religious ones, but many work within the government’s framework. In order to be able to permanently throw off the shackles of government theft and redistribution, we need to reinsert private individuals and groups as the primary driver of charity.
Whether you’re religious or not, a half-tithe is a good start. Devote 5% of your income to changing the definition of charity. You probably pay more than that for lattes in a month. Find a group that does something you support, and give them a recurring monthly payment. Even if just us Glibs banded together and focused on true charity, we could accomplish a ton. If we just stand on the sidelines and bitch about government confiscation and redistribution, we’re never going to make headway. Unlike Obamacare, we need a replacement option in place before we repeal the government welfare programs.
I submitted (then had put on hold while I rewrite) an article titled Jesus and the Gini Coeffiicient.
There is some overlap with this one.
FYI: It is scheduled for 1pm tomorrow.
Cool. Let it go as is, project at work is making rewrite impossible.
my net worth is 6-figures negative because of massive debt.
While this may be true (if you have a really large college debt or something), I think you may be forgetting to consider your assets too.
For example, if you have a $200k mortgage that leads to lots of debt, but if the house is worth $250, then that is +50k in net worth.
Read it and weep:
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/05/17/americans-average-net-worth-by-age-how-do-you-comp.aspx
*wipes brow* phew! Everyone my age is equally as poor as myself
Fun related fact: The median credit card debt is $0.
More than 1/2 of US households either don’t have credit cards or pay them all off every month.
The mode is also $0.
The mean, not so much.
Yeah, ours is one of those households that treat credit cards like cash — the spousal unit and I pay ’em off every month, “religiously,” as it were. We both learned in Uni that “the magic of compound interest” was only magical if you were the lender. And early on, of course, we were more-or-less forced by circumstance to be massive borrowers.
The borrowing days are over, Thank God. It’s just a shame it took so long, which is why I kinda understand the Millenials’ addiction to debt to finance a lifestyle. It’s hard to say “no” to yourself for thirty years or so, especially considering that those are your healthiest and most-mobile thirty years.
Yeah, we have a cash-back credit card account that we pay off every month in full. The bank is literally paying us to use their card.
Ha, we do that too.
I consider it revenge for the Famine Times of my earlier years.
Almost 60 and have never paid a dime in credit card interest. On the other hand this year was my first tax refund in almost three decades. It was a one off thing (solar panel credits) and next year I’ll return to my usual Apr 15th ritual, curse mightily, write and mail check, curse mightily while drinking.
I have 4k in panel credits for for FY ’17. Did you have to get special paperwork from the solar company, or did you just declare it on the return?
You just declare on your return. It is a credit for 30% (if I remember correctly) of all associated costs. So if you paid X for panels and installation and you required Y costs in associated electrical upgrade and Z costs for permits etc. You add X+y+Z X 0.3= $ credit. PLUS most states give a credit as well. I took off 60% of costs on my taxes. The remaining 40% I will break even in less than 5 years, and less than that if they raise the rates again.
I went in big time since electric is stupid expensive in Hawaii and put up 24 panels. When I say expensive I dropped my rate by 1-1.5 factors of ten. My monthly rate is now just the hook up fee and I can afford to use my sauna and add bedroom AC. (The hot water heater was already solar when I purchased the place.)
The problem was from start to finish the project took almost three years to the day. All that time, less the 2 days for electric upgrades and 2 days for installation, was waiting and bugging the electric company for permission to install the system. Crony capitalism, ain’t it grand?
CA has zero credits. All I get is the Fed.
But, they do have something called NEM 1.0, which just ended with my utility. I got in just in time. It’s very favorable to the consumer. NEM 2.0 and 3.0 are much less favorable.
I get one bill a year, no connection fee.
It took about 2 weeks to install 16 290 watt panels and the inverter. Another month of bothering the electric company after that,
I wish I could have done more panels, but my small town has a stricter building code than pretty much any other city around here. No panels within 3 feet of the edges, peaks, or valleys of the roof. So all I could fit was 16.
Same.
Yep. I have 2, and I use them where it counts.
6% back on groceries, 5% back on Amazon prime, 3% back on gas, and 1% back on everything else.
Want me to use your card? Pay me.
So much this man…
Bingo.
have never been good at condensing complicated subject matter into digestible chunks.
Have you tried haiku?
It’s delicious, especially as a topping on steamed rice.
that’s 5 syllables. You need two more line though
Have you tried haiku?
It can condense articles
very succinctly.
I lol’d
Mirth is transient.
Sharing it audibly
Is a great honor.
Lines: Five seven five.
Deceptively simple.
Beauty in stricture.
Haiku should includea seasonal reference toothus sayeth Wiki
A became an apostate before I ever had enough money to tithe. Are you supposed to tithe on your net or your gross? Seems like there would be arguments in either direction.
I was taught to tithe on the gross but then you don’t tithe on any tax refunds.
These days, I see giving as being something other than tithing. There is support for tithing in the New Testament but there is also non-support e.g. the pharisee and the widow.
“Churches have varied forms of income, and unless they’re being run poorly, they’re not relying on the tithe to pay for the lights bill.”
I’d like a little detail on this. Most churches I’ve been part of have almost all their expenses coming out of gifts of the members/attendees.
Some rent out facilities.
Precise figures are hard to find, at least on my phone, but here is one example from the Methodist Church.
Essentially, the church leases land to wireless companies. The Methodist church has plenty of other revenue sources. Individualparishes may rely mostly on tithing for revenue, the church as an organization has plenty of other assets to work with. Even individual parishes have some assets as well; my local Methodist church renovated the old parsonage and rented it when the pastor no longer needed it.
That makes sense. Most of the churches I’ve been affiliated with have been independent or associated with loose organizations rather than old school denominational structure.
Independent churches may have financial problems, but most churches are part of a larger structure. The RCC isn’t going bankrupt anytime soon.
I used to work in cell tower industry, serviced a ton of church steeple towers. They are more common than you would think
^^^ this,
They approached the place where my kids go to Hebrew school and offered them a 15k/month lease to put up a cell site. They declined because there’s a preschool there, and they were worried that it would look bad. (some people think cell tower radiation is harmful to kids. I don’t.)
The Catholic Church kind of skews that.
They own some of the most valuable land in the United States.
Any pastor will tell you that regardless of what they think the answer is, they would be ecstatic if a large portion of their membership tithed on net.
^THIS^ x10
But tithing would decimate my income.
*stands, applauds*
*joins, adds loud ‘huzzah’s*
*adds 3 ‘harrumphs’*
Thread winner.
Joins in applause.
Something to consider is the number of charities that end up being scams. They use 90 percent of their revenue for “advertising” and “salaries” and maybe some gets to the needy. The only charity I give is directly to people I know that need help.
The only charity I give is directly to people I know that need help.
Which, as I understand it, is the origin of the phrase “Charity begins at home.” They’re the one group of people you can know, with reasonable certainty, actually need your help at some point.
… but the majority of the time, they’re just craven moochers .,..
ingrates.
Oh, so you’ve heard about Wounded Warrior Project.
Yup. I remember Swiss being particularly pissed.
*seethes with furious anger*
You mean … that money I sent to the Clintons to help little, earthquake-traumatized black babies in Haiti … *sob*
Hey… it looked great as part of Chelsea’s wedding dress.
I have a cousin that moved to Haiti to teach Haitian children. I’m sure she can tell me first hand all the good works that charity is doing over there.
Well, if she restricts herself to the good works the Clinton charity has undertaken, the conversation’s gonna be damn short.
And by good works, you mean hepatitis?
Syphilis.
I need help!!!
-puts out hand, palm up-
As an atheist libertarian that’s never been my position. I believe in universal morality, I just don’t use supernatural claims to justify it. Not to say that all that many atheists of any political persuasion aren’t moral relativists, most all of them are.
Ditto. I like the idea in abstract that rights stem from a Creator than I do the practical application of rights stemming from government. The Creator is invisible and ineffable and more importantly hands-off. Government, not so much.
Yep. The Creator has never, to my knowledge, effed me.
*looks 6 up and down*
I wouldn’t say that necessarily…
I’m not bad, I’m just made that way.
He can’t help it, he’s English.
I wonder whether people currently clamoring for political favoritism recognize that greater representation in an overweening authoritarian system goes hand in hand with wanting to be as invisible to its agents as possible.
So much this.
All of the atheists that have presented a detailed point and expressed their positions well have been libertarian in their politics. I have never met an atheist, whose politics skew left, that understand religion or is able to discuss their philosophy on morality. Those bastards give good atheists a bad name
Yeah and they’re a rare breed. All in all, I have to say Christians are more likely to have their shit together philosophically than atheists generally do. A lot of atheists replace belief in a supreme deity with belief in a supreme group of people or put their faith in certain ideologies that do the same. Political activists a.k.a. “community organizers” are a priestly class for whom victimology is their theology.
The dilemma of nihilism.
Atheist abandon religion, but few manage to replace it. It is easy to have a moral code with religion, but it is much harder without it. Many end up succumbing to nihilism instead of overcoming it.
I’m one of those atheists that looks with disgust as the falling religiosity of Christian societies around the world. I have no illusions that most people that become atheists fall victim to moral relativism or nihilism, which in turn makes society more fractious and less able to defend against existential threats like….. Islam, for example.
at* delusions*
Edit fairy save me!
I tend to prefer the so-called Silver Rule formulation better. Do NOT do unto others etc. It meshes better with libertarian ethics grounded in negative rights. Plus it’s actually coherent and functional. I would LOVE for some rando to give me 500 bucks while walking down the street, but no way would I walk down the street handing out cash. I do NOT want a rando stabbing me in the kidneys, so I will refrain from unjustly stabbing others. Silver Rule beats Golden Rule
threading fail.
Ah-ha! You do believe in a higher being!
Well, now seems to be the time to channel the spirit of Emile Cammaerts (correct – it wasn’t Chesterton as is commonly cited)
There’s more than a grain of truth in this, although it assumes the now-atheist lacks the ability to adopt an alternative moral code, which is clearly false. Sadly, that alternative moral code can be nihilistic or communitarian, with all the well-understoold flaws that accompany them.
I don’t what you call it, but my moral code comes from treating people the way I would want to be treated. So that means, no theft, rape, murder, cheating, etc. I don’t need that handed down on tablets.
After religions, who else is offering such moral certainty? Socialists, communists, and leftard utopian shitweasels of every type.
The laissez faire approach to interpersonal relations just doesn’t have the same proselytizing utility that religions and leftisms offer, sadly.
Rational morality, one might say.
I don’t what you call it, but my moral code comes from treating people the way I would want to be treated.
The golden rule.
What do you think AGW is about? A new cult, with its own apocalypse and all, to make smug marxiists fucks think that marxism if great because it will save Gaia too!
That was Nietzsche’s point. When we remove the importance of Christianity, or some other religion, nihilism creeps in. Nietzsche thought that this was what wss wrong with western culture, and what would eventually end it if we could not find a way to overcome it.
I wish it was just nihilism. Instead, it’s what they try to fill the void irreligiosity leaves them with. Usually with some form of ‘science worship’ that fails to recognize what science’s actual utility is. Harris pulls this shit all the time, that we can determine morality “scientifically” and then proceeds to make a ton of assumptions based on utilitarian philosophy. The primary problem in atheism is the quasi-religious extreme materialism. God is dead, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, we just need the proper system in place in order to create it.
They replace a faith in a higher metaphysical power with a faith in higher physical power, which tends to either be the state or some cult of experts. Take Ron Bailey on the Other Site. Atheist, but has basically completely filled his void with technofetishism. Science is going to give him the perfect society and immortal life, therefore it must be imposed on people, so you’d better vaccinate your kids!
Yes, filling the void with something that purports to give meaning relieves them from nihilism. If you believe Nietzsche, anyway.
Since atheism removes “because God says so” as the final moral backstop, people fill that need with other things. Attempting to scientifically determine morality, to use one of your examples. Utilitarianism is also popular.
Libertarianism, at least in its deontological form, side steps the issue. It posits a normative ethical code, in the form of the non aggression principle, but doesn’t make moral judgments on the actions themselves as long as they don’t violate the NAP. This allows libertarianism to provide a universal and normative ethical framework without a universal morality, which is one reason(drink? do we still do that?) why it meshes so well with atheism.
Some of us come by our atheism same way most people come by religion! I grew up in notionally atheist society, didn’t see an inside of a church until I was 14 (school trip stop), far as I know am not baptized and I never felt the draw of religion in any way.
However, we never saw the need to stop all the (again notionally) religious observances. As Pie in the Sky recapped, painting a hardboiled egg on Easter than smashing eggs to see who wins was a thing we did. Celebrating the feast of family’s patron saint was a thing that was done by everyone, and was pretty much an open secret even in (theoretically) Marxist education system – tell the teacher you’ll be away for a “family affair” on a given day and he/she will figure out why, just don’t say “yup, I’m taking St George’s/St Michael’s/etc day off because it’s what we observe.”
I have mellowed out on the idea of believing in church rather than God, however. For all its faults, Catholic (East Orthodox churches also consider themselves Catholic) Christianity was a thing for millennia, repository of science and culture, last light against barbarian hordes, creator of university system and producer of some of the most spectacular art crafted by human hands. It’s a shame most of its (again, notional) followers seem to be unaware of the intellectual treasure trove their church contains.
And yeah, I love this sketch because to me, fuck it, THAT is the church I’d go to if I had to choose.
This would be mine.
It’s a shame most of its (again, notional) followers seem to be unaware of the intellectual treasure trove their church contains.
I almost wept for a religion I’m not a part of when I was talking to some Catholics lately who didn’t know who Thomas Aquinas or St. Augustine were.
Jesus, what are those Ontario Catholic schools teaching anyway?
They’d probably lose government funding if they put Catholic spin in their Catholic school.
Applied Wokeness is more valuable.
And yeah, Bring Back Benedict, you dolts! That was a Pope! Or at least find a fun one, who’ll finance some statues then get into a pissing contest with Genoa!
All in all, I have to say Christians are more likely to have their shit together philosophically than atheists generally do.
/snickers at the dumb goy
I was waiting for one of (((you))) to weigh in 🙂
As far as I can tell, both Judaism and Catholicism’s sole function is to constantly be finding loopholes and exploits in their holy books in order to find ways of ignoring what Sky Daddy explicitly told you to do.
It’s like a religion made up of lawyers. No wonder God hates us.
Oh, C’mon Just Say’n, thats not true. I was assured by PZ Meyers that berating, humiliating and making fools of religious people was the best way to help them see the error of their ways. When I suggested that that tactic might put people on the defensive and so might not be the best approach he immediately accused me of being a concern troll and banned me from his site. Seriously, does that sound like a guy who would give atheists a bad name?
Which is exactly why “atheist” isn’t part of my identity. My non-belief in something doesn’t take precedence over what I do believe. I find most atheists to be insufferable. Though I will confess to a soft spot for Christopher Hitchens and even Richard Dawkins at certain times and places…
Laughing at the endless list of silly labels that can be applied to people based on their non-beleif in things.
Yeah, I also find the majority of them to be insufferable pricks.
Exactly. If it comes up I’ll discuss it, but it isn’t my identity. And truthfully I’m more of an agnostic/soft atheist. I do not think there is sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis “There is a God and he is concerned with human affairs at the individual level.” Which day to day doesn’t really impact my life. Most of my morality flows out of the NAP as it did back when I did believe. It’s kind of like whether you believe in a literal 6 day creation or evolution – for the most part it doesn’t impact how people live in a practical, day-to-day level.
And the NAP is so intuitive, you need never have heard the term to live your life by it. In any violent or potentially violent conflict it comes down to “who started it?” The NAP does elucidate the issue though, because on many issues people have trouble seeing who the aggressor is; “Hey that guy didn’t pay his taxes. So he is the instigator of the violent retribution that befell him.”, most people are taught to believe such things and have a hard time seeing the actual source of the conflict without some kind of rational philosophy like the NAP to shine a light on it.
I was discussing faith with an acquaintance of mine that identifies as an atheist, while we were fishing. He said that his bible is ‘The Origin of Species’ (which I thought was a bit odd). I asked him what philosophy informs his morality, as one doesn’t need a deity to live a decent life, but he should have guiding principles. For instance, I told him, Justin Martyr, one of the early church fathers, contended that Christian morality had been informed by the Stoics and they by earlier Greek thinkers. He stumbled and said he liked ‘Neitszche’. I asked him if he had ever read “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”. He said he’d never read Neitszche, but he had heard some of the things that he believed.
This was a man with no soul. Not because he believed in no God, but because his belief system was drift less and rooted in nothing other than group think. There are people like this who also ascribe to organized religion, of course, and they are just as sad.
Which was one of Nietzsche’s biggest problems. Nietzsche would have spit on him.
Exactly.
People love to spout “God is dead” but 90% of them don’t know the rest of that: God is dead and we killed him. Kind of changes the meaning a bit
Property rights are the fount of all rights. Specifically self-ownership. While not all are born into equal circumstances or with equal abilities there is no way to justify one individual owning themselves more so than any other individual. Outside of coercion no justification for any individual being partly or wholly the property of another. One wholly owns themselves. Their mind, their body and their conscience are their own. Solely their property and they may manage that property as they see fit. If their mind is their own then their thoughts, emotions, opinions and expressions are their own. If their conscience is their own then their beliefs are their own and they may hold them and act consistent with them. If their body is their own then the fruits of their labor is their own and they may dispose of that property as they decide. Any question regarding inalienable rights can be resolved by starting with self-ownership and following that to its logical conclusion. None of this is to say that those rights cannot be violated, only that they are innate in our humanity and cannot be given nor taken away. They are always there with us, part of us and always have been despite egregious violations.
That’s pretty much where I’m at. Well said.
Where then do property rights originate? How can we claim that they are naturally occurring? Property rights arise from possession and defense of possession. In nature every creature has an innate understanding of possession and the ownership that arises from defense of it. Attack any animal and it will defend itself or flee. Attempt to take its food, its young or invade its territory and it will respond the same way. The critters living in the wild didn’t have to learn about ownership. The idea is innate. It is a fundamental principle established in a world where all manner of creatures are equipped by nature itself with specialized body forms designed for acquisition and defense of self and property. Anyone who wishes to deny that even simple-minded animals do not instinctively understand ownership can demonstrate that proposition by simply talking a lion out of his dinner or convincing a bison to peacefully submit to slaughter.
And self-ownership? With regards to the self there can be no more complete possession than self. Everyone possesses themselves because they are that very thing.
Few people today attempt to deny self-ownership. The notable exception being communists, at which point you can tell them to shut the fuck up because they’re using someone else’s vocal chords to spout their evil stupidity.
Oh, there is plenty more…I never got around to finishing it because it all sounded so sophomoric no matter how I approached it:
We do not live in a kind world. Shortage and competition are fundamental to its nature. Ownership, essential for survival and success, is constantly challenged by force and must be defended with tooth and claw. In the savage world might makes right. Historically this is true for man as well but man is different from the other animals. We have the ability to rise above brute force and establish rules governing ownership. Recognizing and defending ownership with law is the essence of civilization. Without a legal recognition and defense of individual ownership we are left with only rule by brute force.
Well, Teenage Libertarian Student Daughter is going to have an interesting year ahead, reconciling her belief in self-ownership with her Catholic faith.
To date, she’s been able to steamroller the bush-league theologians she’s had to deal with, but she’ll be doing Foundations of Catholic Belief and Morality in the 20th Century with a guy who confronts woolly, youthful thinking on a daily basis. I wish I could record the confrontation when it happens.
Shouldn’t be hard. If you didn’t own yourself, how could your god possibly judge you for your actions? Determinism and lack of self-ownership would obfuscate the need to adhere to any moral code at all. Theologians denying self-ownership probably haven’t thought too hard about the concept if their take-away from it is “This person is putting themselves above God!”
It’s my understanding the the counter to that is that (to be flippant, ‘cos this is me talking) is that ultimately you’re God’s plaything; like a trusted slave whose chains lie lightly upon them. Of course God wants you to behave morally, but just in case, you’re still on a choke-chain.
You’re adopting a view of a God whose nature and motivations are knowable, which is somewhat compromised by concepts such as original sin. Why would a rational God condemn a newborn child to purgatory? Clearly, he’s got a moral code that doesn’t make sense to us – or at least, me.
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but the theology seemingly precludes what you and I would consider a simple and rational discussion.
Hey you’re preaching to the atheist choir here. I’m just saying from a Devil’s Advocate point of view, that it shouldn’t be hard to reconcile self-ownership with Catholicism.
I could see how one would have trouble reconciling it with Islam, the religion whose name literally means “submission” and/or “obedience”. But there is a lot of allowance made for personal responsibility and free will within mainstream Christianity.
Few people today attempt to deny self-ownership.
The drug warriors and the anti-euthanasia people attempt it.
That would be to ascribe them some sort of half-ass moral consistency, which I won’t grant. I think if you asked them personally if they own themselves they would say yes, but of course they don’t know how to apply that concept consistently because….here we are.
I’m an atheist because I don’t have faith. If other people do, that’s fine. I have yet to lose a moment of sleep over the idea that there are people who disagree with me on a metaphysical level. And I’m a skeptic, and that means being skeptical of my own beliefs, too. So I could be wrong. I’m just not convinced, and I’m erring on the most conservative side of the proposition.
I don’t believe there’s a higher authority in the sense of a god or something like that who establishes right and wrong, but that doesn’t make me a moral relativist, either. I hold to the same moral code that brought me to libertarianism, and it stems from the belief that human life is fragile and precious, we’ve got a limited amount of time here and we only get one shot at it, and so it’s important to try to be as kind as you can to other people. Tie that in with the exceptionally well-worded explanation of self-ownership that Suthenboy wrote, and that’s how I got to atheist libertarianism a la Bill.
In the red in tooth and claw world of evolutionary biology, the idea of a prescriptive universal morality strikes me as much more suspect than that of a creator God — and far more manipulative, for that matter. Surely if there is such a thing at a universal materialist ethic, it would look virtually nothing like the squabbling ideological children of the heavily Christian-influenced liberal ethics out there.
Third, how do we get rid of the welfare state when people show no interest in picking up the slack?
Are you sure that this doesn’t get causality wrong? It strikes me that the welfare state and the attendant taxation and regulation serve to make people less charitable.
Oh, Dear God, I really should read past the first couple of paragraphs before commenting.
I wouldn’t say that necessarily…
Love it. As another Christian libertarian, I would love it if the church were able to put the government out of the welfare business.
I know in past post people have linked to articles about the level of charity before the welfare state. Getting back to that time I fear is impossible.
Going to be a lot more possible when the global order collapses. I think we’ll see another great awakening as the fertile middle-country bands together to fight the coastal cannibals.
It’s a lot easier to dig redoubts when you’re the guys with all the backhoes and farming equipment.
Getting back to that time I fear is impossible.
Why? Maybe it’s me, but I tend to think that human nature hasn’t changed that much. I’d argue that the post-Depression/WWII expansion of government is what created a crowding out of pretty much the entire civic sphere. If you remove the crowding out, I think you’d see a lot of the civic sphere regenerate. People like to be thought well of. They like to see people get back on their feet. Even among us unvarnished reprobates, the morning links included a sweet story about sweet, old ladies helping people in the hospital. I don’t think kindness or decency has been exactly programmed out of mankind.
If you remove the crowding out
This is the part I think is impossible.
Ah, understood.
My pastor says that if just our church tithed, he would do that, at least locally.
I just don’t get money to charities. You can call it greed but the family comes first – until recently much of my free cash used to go to therapy for my special needs son before insurance started to “pick up the tab.” Also going from a double income to a single income family really put the hurt on the money spigot – that has also changed with my wife going from live-in teacher/therapist to a wage earner that often eclipses my own.
I have given canned goods/etc to food drives because it feels more “immediate” than cutting a check. Of course my old man would remind me – he used to volunteer for the local meals on wheels – that cash actually goes a lot farther since the food pantry can buy in bulk.
really put the hurt on the money spigot
That’s a hell of a euphemism.
Is it okay if I just call that good sense?
Hard to fix the world until your household is squared away.
Hey…. Are you suggesting that Martin Sheen is a bad father?
Never!
It’s OK – no one expects a marauder to be charitable.
He offered to let them walk away. It’s not his fault they refused his charity.
They MADE him unleash his dogs of war.
And a lot people like their charity dollars to flow to the third world despite the needy at home. Dumping resources into the third world is contributing to a population boom that the domestic populations’ own economic wherewithal cannot possibly support. The result is going to be ever increasing migration to the first world nations while at the same time unskilled labor becomes more and more obsolete. It’s got the makings of catastrophe all over it and I don’t see it as avoidable at this point.
Depends on the resources, doesn’t it? Start building power plants and water treatment facilities and see what happens.
British Guyana, like many other European colonies was once like heaven on earth. Paved streets covered with shiny cars, electricity, running water, state of the art sewage systems, lots of healthy people in bright clothes, manicured yards and parks, hospitals, schools….
The British gave it all back and look at it now.
You can build your power plants and water treatment facilities if you want but I can already tell you what will happen.
British Guyana, like many other European colonies was once like heaven on earth.
I get your overall point but this is a highly romanticized version of colonialism.
Well, they were squatting in the bushes eating each other before the Brits got it. Now they are back to it.
Yeah, they had a plantation economy but the greatest time in the history of that place was post-slavery colonial. Best by far, by any measure.
Yes but describing European colonies as ‘heaven on earth’ glorifies oppressive and murderous regimes. It’s “but Cuba has a high literacy rate and free healthcare” argument for colonial apologists. I don’t care about your utilitarianism, these people were not free.
Historically Americans largely viewed European colonialism with proper disgust because of the inherent tyranny of it. Praising it is a step in the wrong direction.
Fair point, but I think its most vociferous critics are guilty of romanticizing bush peoples and buying into the whole noble savage paradigm. Not to mention jumping all over colonialism as just another way to bludgeon Europe. Not that “colonialism” means much, anymore, since it’s come to mean every jot and tittle of oppression its critics contrive. But I think it’s worth making the effort to root out all that noble savage pablum.
Again, the point is never that these societies were perfect or wonderful before colonial regimes showed up. The point is that colonial regimes, by themselves, were oppressive and brutal states. What these societies were like before and after does not excuse the behaviour of the colonial regime itself. It’s like excusing the Soviet Union or the People’s Republic for their horrors because the Tsarists and the Qing were pieces of shit.
I have an abiding and perhaps inexcusable soft spot for the British Raj.
You make a fair point John. I will point out that by the time the British walked off from Guyana, 1966, it was not that oppressive. They had become quite liberal.’Colonial’ periods cover a large expanse of time wherein there were evolving societies, economies and values. It cant be fairly represented by a snapshot of one time period or one place. They had become quite liberal. The main complaint of the non-brits was that all that wealth had been created on their backs and so the Brits should just give it to them and GTFO. So they did. Also worth noting that most third world former colonies were more like the soviets than the colonizers in that they adopted extremely oppressive socialist governments.
That’s a broad brush. The British didn’t colonize like the Spanish and the French didn’t colonize like the Dutch. And what brutality there was, and assuredly there was plenty, it was most often more civilized and far less brutal than what came before.
I don’t know about you, but I’d rather live under the rule of Conquistadors than cannibals.
It cant be fairly represented by a snapshot of one time period or one place. They had become quite liberal.
This is largely a mythology that has developed specifically because most European colonial states were smart enough to start burning their records when decolonization was happening. The ‘quite liberal’ British colonials of the 1950s massacred huge amounts of Africans, ran internment camps, and use torture and rape on prisoners. British behaviour in Nigeria alone makes them look more savage than the actual savages.
Also worth noting that most third world former colonies were more like the soviets than the colonizers
That is, sadly, also partially the fault of the West. Of course the Soviets also poured resources into it as well, but when decolonization was happening and all those Western-educated natives were taking over the countries, where and what had they learned? At Western universities, under Marxist professors. Oops.
The British didn’t colonize like the Spanish and the French didn’t colonize like the Dutch.
Tell me which European colonial power didn’t engage in massacres, brutal repression of dissent, racial hierarchies or poorly managed centralized planning.
it was most often more civilized and far less brutal than what came before.
Again, this is just excusing atrocities because White Man’s Burden.
I don’t know about you, but I’d rather live under the rule of Conquistadors than cannibals.
So worked to death in a silver mine as a slave in horrific conditions?
Tell me which colonized people didn’t engage in massacres, brutal repression of dissent, racial hierarchies or poorly managed centralized planning. I mean fair is fair. It’s right to hold the Europeans to higher moral standard because of their relative development, but it’s also right to hold people everywhere to some kind of moral standard, which in noble savage apologia this is just not done.
Yeah that’s a totally fair comparison because that was the most common state of existence for colonial subjects, said my Marxist history teacher.
The Ghosts of Leopold II and the French who built the “Railroad of Bones” smile and nod.
Conquering and enslaving people is an NAP violation (and in this article’s spirit, un-Christian) – I don’t care how bad their “standard of living” is or if they have a shitty regime.
Fuck off colonial slavers.
Bad enough we decided to do our own colonial killin’ in the Philippines, let us not defend others shame as well.
Bad enough we decided to do our own colonial killin’ in the Philippines, let us not defend others shame as well.
We freed them from Spanish colonialism, bro. Freed them right into piles of dead bodies a man high. It was a good work. A VERY good work. Living like a bunch of fucking savages on their islands. LIVING, can you fucking believe it? Then we killed them and they weren’t living like savages anymore.
I mean fair is fair. It’s right to hold the Europeans to higher moral standard because of their relative development
I’m not even holding them to a standard based on their recent behaviour, I’m just holding them to a libertarian one. A colonial state is a monstrous opponent to libertarian ideals, even ignoring the horrors they committed they’re basically the precursor and model of 20th century centralized planning.
Yeah that’s a totally fair comparison because that was the most common state of existence for colonial subjects, said my Marxist history teacher.
You specifically said conquistadors, who were well known for working natives to death.
Whatevs, jesse. The Filipinos we killed got a chance to go to White Man’s Heaven, which everyone knows is the best Heaven.
I’m not defending anyone’s shame or crime. I’m saying in the context of the times, it’s understandable why all of it happened, the good and bad. My position is that if any other culture on Earth were in the Europeans figurative shoes at the time, they would not have not operated under the moral constraints that European conquerors typically operated under.
There’s no need to go back in time to ask the slaves at market in Africa whether they’d prefer go east to slavery under the Arabs or west to slavery under Europeans. The fact that there are almost no surviving descendants of African slaves alive in the middle east today speaks for itself. Stating this fact is not slavery apologia, it’s context.
under the moral constraints that European conquerors typically operated under.
Western society, inventor (or at least perfecter) of the concentration camp, well known for its moral constraints.
(And this isn’t a “WESTERN SOCIETY IS EVIL” argument, it’s that the ‘moral constraints’ of Europeans don’t seem to hold up as well as you think they do)
whether they’d prefer go east to slavery under the Arabs or west to slavery under Europeans.
I’d think they’d prefer not being slaves at all really.
The fact that there are almost no surviving descendants of African slaves alive in the middle east today speaks for itself.
Meh. Depends. Sure, the castration sucks, but I could possibly get a decent position in a Turkish court if I’m lucky. Beats picking cotton until I’m too old to function and they just let me die.
con·text \ˈkän-ˌtekst\
1 the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
2 the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs : environment, setting the historical context of the war
You must be woefully unfamiliar with the norms and practices of most of humanity in that time period to posit that Europeans were the uniquely brutal ones of the time.
Thanks for removing all doubt that you’re unaware of the prevailing morality of the time period. Slaves that went to the Islamic world, particularly the African ones (for racial reasons too!) were castrated, the raped female’s offspring were murdered immediately after birth, the sick were put down because new slaves were cheaper than medicine. And finally, like a farm animal with no utility, the slaves that could no longer work had their throats slit so they wouldn’t consume anymore resources. But hey, a couple hundred out of the millions taken from Africa might end up a house servant in some potentate’s court so it’s a wash!
Try this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigénat
The corvee enslaved that dropped like flies.
No difference dying in a Soviet labor camp or building a Frog railroad near the equator.
Slavers is slavers.
Yes “Free Society”, we know you’re a cunt, no need to obnoxiously post dictionary definitions and claim I don’t know anything while completely ignoring the actual point.
You must be woefully unfamiliar with the norms and practices of most of humanity in that time period to posit that Europeans were the uniquely brutal ones of the time.
Wow, you know, if you had actually read what I actually wrote, you know, the thing you directly quoted, not the shitty strawman in your head, you’d notice that I specifically didn’t say that.
Thanks for removing all doubt that you’re unaware of the prevailing morality of the time period.
You know, for someone who constantly bends over backwards to excuse any horror the West commits, you sure do seem obsessed with holding everyone else to a much higher moral standard. I wonder why that is.
I like to ask anti-colonists what standards of living were like in the Amazon basin prior to European contact. Or ask them what the life expectancy was in South Africa prior to the Europeans. Or what the state of sanitary practices were India before the Portugese and British, or what was the state of “human rights” (natural rights) of the Aztecs prior to contact with the Spanish.
With some notable exceptions like the Belgian Congo, the vast majority of colonial contacts made with European were unquestionably to the benefit of the local societies.
Pre-colonial societies being shit do not, and never will, justify or excuse the atrocities committed by colonial regimes. Sanitary practices were garbage in India, but somehow that does not justify the regular mass starvation that occurred due to the British’s incompetent top-down management of their agricultural economy.
Colonial apologia is just the right-wing version of Soviet apologia. Sure they both improved literacy rates, with stacks of dead and oppression.
Like I said, there are notable exceptions. But the fact remains that many millions more people are living lives with living standards many times greater than they would have otherwise experienced, up to this very day, were it not for colonial contact. In many cases, evenhanded trade with these societies would have been largely fruitless because the infrastructure wasn’t there. There may have been plenty of copper in them thar hills, but unless you move your own people with their own equipment and their own know-how, you’re not getting it. I’m not sure how much first world civilization could economically penetrate places whose primary export was beads and wood carved talismans. But these places would be far worse off now than if European colonization never happened.
And for what it’s worth, the Europeans gave pretty much all of it back to nations that wanted their independence and to this day they’re still bending over backwards to make amends. That’s something that I can’t fathom of any other conquerors in history having had the altruistic fortitude to do.
But the fact remains that many millions more people are living lives with living standards many times greater
Which does not justify millions of dead. Again, this is just typical apologia for mass murder.
In many cases, evenhanded trade with these societies would have been largely fruitless because the infrastructure wasn’t there.
Even if this were true (and it’s not for many of the societies colonized), it’s still not a justification for colonialism.
But these places would be far worse off now than if European colonization never happened.
Alternative history arguments go nowhere. I could just as easily say that peaceful trade with Europeans would have resulted in technology pushing ahead and forming societies better off than the ones today. Neither of us have any evidence to support it.
And for what it’s worth, the Europeans gave pretty much all of it back to nations that wanted their independence
Uh, my grandfather who shot a lot of Indonesians would disagree on that historical assessment. The French and British massacred hundreds of thousands in their African colonies. In the 1950s. Your idea of decolonization is pure fantasy. The Europeans gave up their colonies due to international pressure and their inability to hold onto them in the long run, not because they were virtuous.
Hey, at least the Vietnamese are really good at making French bread now.
“These slaves got it real good, I tells ya!”
Swing low, sweet chariot
Which slaves today are you referring to, Swiss? Last I checked the evil Europeans sailed around the globe spending blood a treasure to abolish that ancient institution from the Earth.
Thread fail…
These: Try this.
The corvee enslaved that dropped like flies.
No difference dying in a Soviet labor camp or building a Frog railroad near the equator.
Slavers is slavers.
They fail to maintain them and everything breaks down or alternatively they just cut to the chase and sell the equipment as scrap?
Yeah, the leapfrog theory of development doesn’t seem to work out to well. The underlying culture needs to value development if they are to maintain it, not just have it given to them to advance. That’s why Botswana is much better off than her neighbors, despite having no real resources. They decided that the West had some good ideas and decided to implement them, especially after seeing what happened to South Africa and Rhodesia when they rejected those same values.
Or they just walk off and leave it.
When I was there the sewage plant was overgrown with jungle and full of stinking water while they were throwing slop jars out of their windows into open ditches. In town the power poles had fallen down with the wire still on them and they just walked or drove over the wires wherever they needed to. The roads were long gone and the only real way to get around the country was by boat.
I had one guy tell me that since we used to make them work they refused to lift a finger now to do any work at all. Nearly everyone made drinking money by doing a little gold-panning but only until they had enough to buy drink.
It was really sad.
Oh, I get it. But helping coal-rich Tanzania expand its grid seems more productive than shit-tons of easily stolen/liquidated aid.
The original statement was the ultimate futility and danger of dumping resources in third world nations. It may be that the best solution is to cease, but I have have no fucking clue.
Well take the dumping of agricultural products for example. The result is local farmer’s being forced to compete with “free”, which they often lose. This means fewer farmers, less farming knowledge being passed down from generation to generation and more dependence on the good intentions of far away foreigners.
The poorest places on Earth need honest trade, not charity.
Bingo. Not long ago I read about the dairy business in Jamaica being destroyed by the US dumping tons of surplus powdered milk on the island. The dairy farmers are all sitting around in the street drunk now, there are no cows, fields or barns left. Some of them destroyed their equipment in protest. That kind of ‘charity’ raised unemployment, destroyed the work ethic, and lowered the standard of living overall.
Really, with friends like that…
It’s not just something that third worlders are susceptible to. After WWI the Germans were forced to give the UK a whole bunch of shoes as part of their war reparations, the result was the near total collapse of the British shoe manufacturing industry. It hurt the Germans and British.
Or look at the Spanish importation of plundered gold from Mexico, it collapsed their economy so badly that according to many economists, Spain didn’t recover from this until the 20th century, and some say they’re still feeling the effects.
not to say you were saying that….
I am of the theory that since 40-45% of my income is being stolen from me every year to hand out money for causes that would otherwise be handled by charities, that I am meeting my charitable obligations. If charities or churches wish to receive more from me directly, then they should advocate for the reduction or elimination of taxes. If they prefer to suck the government’s disease riddled prick like a crack whore, then they stop being charities and are just another set of rent-seeking leeches. My family and I come first. And I am generous with friends. So I’m with you.
Yep. 15% of my gross goes to providing pension and medical care for senior citizens. And that’s 50% more than a tithe and that’s before we even get to income tax or state and local sales tax!
Taking care of your family first is biblical:
“Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” –1 Timothy 5:8 (NIV)
I’ve always thought, and was taught by Catholic schools, that a man who can write a check, but is too important to engage in direct charity is less charitable than the man with less who still offers his time.
It seems like the Law of Comparative Advantage comes into play here. Let’s say I’m a corporate exec making 1 million a year, and every year I write a check to the local food bank for 100K. The only way I’m providing 100K worth of services by volunteering is by negotiating with suppliers, dealing with zoning laws, etc. Nothing that would actually require much in the way of dealing actual poor people.
Meanwhile, that $100k could be used to pay hire one philanthropic full-time manager $40K a year, who would be much better at developing relations with suppliers, and local politicians, since that is their full time job and not a hobby. Plus, they can hire two additional people at $20K a piece who had fallen on hard times, but need to get back to work, to work in the back, cooking food, or just sorting out the food from the canned food drive. Plus an additional $20K for actual food and rent.
I mean if you’re working temp jobs and you’re first instinct when times are slow is to go volunteering rather than sitting at home, then good for you. Just the guy with the $100K check probably did a lot more to improve people’s lives. Assuming the Charity is somewhat competently run.
Fact: Mormons are better people than you.
Low bar.
Yeah but they’re just doing it to get their own planet.
The Expanse reference? Damn, I still haven’t made the time to seek out Season 2.
Not a reference… the Mormon afterlife includes getting your own planet.
Nope, it’s an actual thing in Mormon cosmology. When they die they supposedly go to Kolob, the planet closest to God. After reading into it a bit you start to realize why there’s so many Mormon science fiction writers.
OMG, this is incredible stuff. ::ponders converting::
Hope you keep your undies clean.
Battlestar Galactica was loosely based on Mormon theology.
http://www.millennialstar.org/battlestar-galactica-and-mormonism/
I’m not a Mormon, Thank you very much
God created Arrakis to train the faithful.
“And what have they learned, Usul?”
Larry Correia converted to Mormonism, then used its theology (or rather, I suspect retconned it in) as a background to his Monster Hunter universe. And it works brilliantly! There’s even room for Lovecraftian Things from Beyond in it.
I got several of my own planets playing No Man’s Sky; the experience was underwhelming.
The Mormons truly are decent people, as a whole
They really are. You know, some of my best friends are Mormons.
Just can’t talk to the women about drug policy (they sound like rural housewives from the 50’s) or to the men about my instinctive anti-authoritarianism. But watching the looks-like-a-normie-soccer-mom talk about her three years of emergency food and bullets in the basement is kind of great.
Their beliefs are loony, but they’re great people on the whole. I have a neighbor who is Mormon and you couldn’t ask for a better neighbor. Friendly without being intrusive, minds his own business, generous to a fault. I asked to borrow his ladder once to clean out my gutters, and he just up and did it for me. Seriously.
And now you’re in your neighbour’s debt. Devious bastard.
Eh, to be fair, it’s already loony to believe in an omnipotent wizard in the sky. I don’t really like to cast judgement on the specific tenets of other people’s faiths, because everyone can throw stones. And this is from a guy who has GK Chesterton as his picture
Chesterton may have been a loon that believed in an invisible sky wizard, but he could turn a phrase. There are far worse people to emulate.
I don’t knock him for believing in that wizard, as I do too.
I know. You filthy papist.
But seriously, despite being a filthy apostate, I hold no grudge against religion, or the RCC specifically. If I were to return to the fold, it would probably be as an eastern orthodox because I well never acknowledge the superiority of the bishop of Rome, but other than that the RCC is fine by me.
Haha. I hold no grudge against any man’s faith or lack their of.
Who knows, maybe the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholics will finally achieve some sort of compromise at reconciliation. Then I guess you’d be left with High Anglicanism
I fell in with the Lutherans because of my wife. It’s about 90% the same as Catholicism.
Without the child abuse, though.
+1 church potluck …or is that just us Methodists?
I don’t know if you could say 90%. There’s some pretty large differences.
I was raised Lutheran. I went to mass a few times with friends and I had no idea what the hell was going on.
It really is too bad the UU’s all became such hardcore SJW’s, they generally don’t realize it but their belief systems such as they are really do fit much better in a libertarian framework given the heavy focus on the individual search for truth
RCC
Royal Crown Cola?
I have a bit of a grudge. But it is still better than Pepsi.
+1, weird incense swirling rituals
Fair enough.
True, but Mormonism has the disadvantage of being a recent religion, so all its weirdness hasn’t really been broadly accepted into the culture and it’s also a product of a much better documented historical period.
Like, we’ll accept the Jews massacring the Canaanites in the Bible despite zero archaeological evidence to support it, but Jews coming over to America and becoming Indians? That’s just dumb.
We were talking about the golden tablets and my cousin was talking about how ridiculous the whole thing was. When I said “Hey I was up on a mountain praying the other day and this shrub caught on fire and handed me some stone tablets, so I’m gonna lead you now and these are the laws,” the subject quickly changed.
Why would you discuss religion in meat space? No good can come of that.
Group of people I knew well, we’d all grown up in the same religious milieu, and I knew nobody would get really offended. The discourse was becoming lecturey and I’m unenthusiastic when people disrespect other beliefs out of hand without examining their own so I popped the bubble and we moved on to other topics.
How’d you manage to fit him in a picture? Did you have to splice a couple together?
I go to Palm Desert for a week every year, and I get exited when I see Utah license plates in the parking lot. It means that that my kids are going to have nice kids to play with, and the moms are going to be smoking hot.
Lapsed Mormons are the best. All the politeness and cornfed good looks and a making up for lost time attitude about sex.
The two sluttiest girls I knew in the Marines were both Mormons. Get em outta Provo and they go wild.
One of my Mormon HS friends was “saving herself for marriage”. That did not include her mouth or her butt. She was quite popular.
You talking about the ladies or the gents there, sir? or is it both?
I can’t speak to the ladies.
Best libertarian “charity” is Kiva. Because it’s not actually a charity. SP, webdominatrix, and I give all we can to them.
Thanks for that. I just checked it out and did a couple small loans–I’m not exactly flush, myself, here, but I like the idea of lending to specific people with specific objectives instead of just “Here’s $100, Goodwill; I hope that finds its way to someone who needs it somehow.”
Goodwill is in business for Goodwill.
So they are hunting for business?
*narrows gaze*
Somebody bring ^^this guy^^ a mirror.
I don’t know how Goodwill hasn’t become a bigger scandal. I am sure they follow the letter of the law as far as deception goes. But not one person gives their items to Goodwill to make profits for its owner. To a person, they give because they have been deceived.
I give stuff because I don’t want to deal with selling it, but I don’t want to throw it away.
My family gives to get rid of junk we don’t want without throwing it away. We also shop fairly regularly at goodwill (my mom does anyway) which I find mildly ironic.
I found a nice Glock holster at a savers once for $2. Now all I need is a Glock.
No, they give because the store will take it for free so I dont have to pay a huge fee at the landfill.
Exactly, plus you get a tax writeoff that you don’t get from the landfill.
^^This^^ I hope they never review my receipts…
We park all the $$$ my brother gives to my kids in Prosper, which is pretty much the same thing. Little fuckers are getting 10% returns.
Meant to post to the links thread but I forgot:
This morning at around one or two I woke up to a hushed conversation being carried out in the driveway just outside my bedroom. I couldn’t make out the words but it was clearly two men whispering to one another. This was significant beyond the obvious since my car has been broken into twice in the last month. So I am instantly awake and start squirming out of bed as quietly as possible.
Which jostled the Boston terrier awake, and the voices stopped. He’d been snoring. My brain made up the rest.
Sometimes paranoia is a result of them actually being after you.
They’re certainly after what little my car can offer.
Which is funny because they always miss the coin cup.
Tweakers aren’t known for their critical thinking skills.
I subscribe to my local Classical radio station, 5$ a month, I noticed how much i listen to it and figured it’s a drop in the bucket, but I feelz better
That’s why I gave to reason. I didn’t really consider it charity because I was using their service.
Is there a way to support Glib?
I’ve heard swag is imminent.
Sure. Give me money….
This site is sustained on the blood of a virgin….
No vaj blood though, that’s gross.
Not yet. We are currently managing all the costs internally and without ad-revenue.
We hope to add merchandise at some point, but the process on that has been stalled by various life and work commitments.
Thank you for thinking of us.
Let me just say for everyone that we feel blessed to be able to enjoy this content everyday. And it is truly an honor to be able to post our thoughts here.
this plus10000
Did you tell them about the imminent “Swiss Servator Scotch and Steak Fund?”
Oh, did I post this out in the open?
*scurries away*
Admin forum, dude. Don’t give the game away.
I personally would not object to some unobstrusive banner ads at the top and/or sides. Hopefully some libertarian themed merchandise can be marketed there, such at bongs, semi automatics firearms, and mail order brides.
I could go for some bizarre “recommended for you…” ads. I’m not going to sugarcoat it, predictive A.I. has not been perfected.
I would have to curate the ads and that’s a lot of work. If only I could somehow be lawnmowermanned into the internet…
[world ends]
Lobster, how else are we gonna get lobster girl?
Eh, I’m just a wee bit wary of ads, particularly through AdChoice or some other third-party ad server.
Mostly because of a bad history of getting those shitty, very likely virus-riddled ones that completely hijack the active tab, and in some instances the entire browser, in order to tell me Your JAVA/Flash Player/* needs updating. NOW!
NO ADS!
We use this site quite a bit. I dont know what the operating costs are like but I for one am getting a little anxious to pay my way.
Wait WUT? Merchandise? Can I buy my own hat and hair? get it shipped in 2 days? NOICE!
I’ve looked for a company that would make us some branded wigs, but short order runs are expensive.
I do hope to get an Oval Office playset out for Christmas. Don’t you all know someone who would love to have a little hat and hair of their own? and a Donald with realistic pillow-humping action? and your own ‘Lil Soapdodger Heroin Cook Set?
And we might even throw in an Ivanka-cut hooker doll as a pre-order bonus…
STEVE SMITH ACTION FIGURE, WITH THE STEVE SMITH GRIP SELL OUT IN MINUTES
Yeah, man, I’d love to help out with hosting costs, stuff like that.
My sarcasm detection needle is all over the place on this one.
Excellent article.
And uh, speaking of which.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/eastside/income-tax-on-wealthy-draws-intense-support-at-seattle-city-council-hearing/
The Seattle City Council Finance Committee heard public testimony on a proposed tax on high-income earners. Questions include whether it’s constitutional and whether the city has the expertise and staff to become a mini-Internal Revenue Service.
Waving signs that said “Tax the Rich,” dozens of supporters of a tax on high-income residents turned out at a Seattle City Council Finance Committee hearing Wednesday and testified in support of a measure that would create the state’s first local income tax.
Many were advocates for the homeless who urged the council to redirect the money raised by the proposed tax to ending the homeless crisis in the city. Others pointed to the city’s escalating sales and property taxes and noted that they hit poor residents the hardest.
A lone Republican ventured into the hearing and called the “tax-the-rich” rhetoric divisive and the proposed legislation itself unconstitutional.
“I respectfully ask the council to permanently shelve the issue,” he said
I can’t even imagine having any kind of respect for the Seattle city council.
I love the way the identify the lone dissenter as “Republican”, but the mob of gimmedats as “supporters”.
Nope, no bias or partisanship there.
The local media has become a laugh riot. Journalism is dead in this town. The major and minor newspapers are now stenographers for the city government. And I’m not exaggerating.
Not to mention you’ve got KShama Sawant on the council who might as well be a mole from the Communist Party of India.
Srsly. Go ruin Britain and leave us out it.
It’s not like you could JUST MOVE out of Seattle…
I ain’t retiring here.
They’re going to lose their most productive citizens. Dumb, dumb, dumb…
They are trying to turn into Detroit as quickly as possible.
That’s what I was thinking. A DMZ surrounded by mansions with swimming pools, just outside city lines.
urged the council to redirect the money raised by the proposed tax to ending the homeless crisis in the city
Because the more you spend on the homeless, the fewer you have?
It’s not like you could JUST MOVE into Seattle…
I’m sure there will be plenty of empty houses for the homeless to squat.
I thought only cartoon parodies of envious layabouts had signs that read “Tax the Rich!”
Plus Walter Sobchak’s retarded cousin before he goes off to shoot at congressmen.
Seattle is retarded.
YOU’RE RETA… oh wait, you’re right.
O.T: CNN has now scrubbed almost all mention of yesterday’s shooting incident from the front page of their site. The only headline references it reads, “Trump says Rep. Scalise’s condition is worse than some may think.” Make of that what you will.
In other hard hitting news coverage…
“Obama texted Kevin Durant after win”
“Cosby does ‘Fat Albert’ tagline after court”
“How streaking could change your life”
CNN has now scrubbed almost all mention of yesterday’s shooting incident from the front page of their site.
When I checked their site yesterday at around 2 or 3 pm Pacific time, it was pretty much gone already.
Hey,hey, hey-looks like I’m not going away.
Yes, I’m sure being put on the sex offender registry would be life changing.
Whew! When he left office, I was afraid the press would no longer keep me up to date on the mundane details of Barack Obama’s life. Crisis averted!
And three stories about RUSSIA!!!!!1!11!
How long did they keep the Gabrielle Giffords story at the top of the heap? Months?
That was a good read, well done trshmnstr.
Also, praise kek!
Amen.
Really enjoyed this one, and the many comments.
FWIW, I think another reason that charity has lessened is that it’s become redefined into “giving money and/or stuff to people through a managed, likely bureaucratic program”. A whole lot of things that used to be at least charity-adjacent (co-ops, mutual aid & friendly societies, private unions, brotherhoods, preferential options for poor, syndicates, etc) have either devolved into hippie bullshit or gone the way of the dodo. Some things, like microlending, hearken to this sentiment but there’s very little of this available. Bureaucrats and lawyers are rife in supposedly “private” charities, and at least some of the improvement ethic represented by the charity-adjacent groups I mentioned would have to come back for people to trust that they’re not simply keeping a horribly corrupt and bureaucratic version of panem et circenses afloat.