A Church for Libertarians :D

[IMPress Polly]

Libertarians,

Are you tired of being emasculated by sissies? Are you in the market for hot godly chicks who know their place? Do you want to fight for your right to party? Are you looking for a God who expects nothing of you and a pastor who owns an in-home bar but not a Bible? Are you wondering if there's a church out there with your moral fiber?

If you answered "yes" to these questions, then just one more remains: Do you have the balls to worship at Ignite: America's manliest church? (http://www.vocativ.com/culture/religion/heath-mooneyham-ignite/?utm_source=digg&utm_medium=email) Come on, don't be a wuss! Join now and you could win a brand new assault rifle absolutely free! :wink:

[Captain Obvious]

Libertarians?

Teabaggers would be a better target market.

[Chris]

Polly, what are you smoking?

[Ethereal]

Unless they have a sermon on the Austrian business cycle theory, I'm not interested.

[Chris]

Unless they have a sermon on the Austrian business cycle theory, I'm not interested.

Yeah! Now that would be ballsy!!

Here's Reverend Woods...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K4Os5eXPw4

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
Polly, what are you smoking?

All will be explained if you just read the article. You WON'T be bored, I promise. :tongue:

[Chris]

All will be explained if you just read the article. You WON'T be bored, I promise. :tongue:

Read it. What's it got to do with libertarianism?

[IMPress Polly]

I just thought the highly permissive, morally bankrupt, macho-man attitude was logically analogous. :wink:

[Captain Obvious]

Machismo is not a sign of manliness, in fact it's a sign of a lack of manliness + overcompensating.

[PolWatch]

I don't know about the church being appropriate for Libertarians (imho they wouldn't fit in), but I do suspect a couple of the forum posters will be heading to MO for Sunday services this weekend. This 'church' seems to fit their style 100%.

[Animal Mother]

Not sure what this has to do with being a libertarian but if you get free guns and can drink beer in church I may rethink this whole god thing.

[nic34]

Libertarians?

Teabaggers would be a better target market.

Beat me to it....

http://thelastofthemillenniums.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/huckabee1.jpg

[Chris]

Beat me to it....


Except Huckabee is not a Tea Partier, though I can understand how Teabaggees might confuse things.

[del]

they're never tea partiers, are they?

[Captain Obvious]

they're never tea partiers, are they?

Six one... half dozen the other.

Same establishment, different label.

[Chris]

they're never tea partiers, are they?

Rand Paul is (was). Sarah Palin is (was). Knock yourself attacking them. But Huckabee, right, so was Rush Limbaugh, lol.

(Was, as I'm not sure the TP is so active anymore.)

[Chris]

Six one... half dozen the other.

Same establishment, different label.


How are anti-establishment Tea Partiers establishment?

[IMPress Polly]

Functionally speaking, there isn't much of a Tea Party movement left today because it's two key factions -- the libertarians and the social conservatives -- appear to be rather disunited at present. People don't really talk about "the Tea Party" anymore. I mean technically the movement still exists...but so too technically do the Occupy and hippie movements still exist. I think you get my point. What remains of it is clearly controlled by the social conservative branch of the party, as demonstrated, for example, in their selection of Mike Lee to offer this year's Tea Party rebuttal to the State of the Union Address...where Rand Paul (who had delivered it the previous year and also happens to be the current de facto leader of the American libertarian movement) offered a separate one this time around, showing that he now counts himself implicitly outside that movement. Not that any of that matters for our purpose here! It just seems that Ignite is too permissive, immoral, and deliberately outrageous for the more conservative churches that surround it and which encompass the dominant trend in the American Christian right...which strikes me as very similar to the relationship between social conservatives and libertarians in the political arena. That was all! :grin:

I'm not the church-going type and it cannot be said that I'm terribly fond of the overall role of the social conservatives / religious right in this country, especially when it comes to the politics. However, Ignite is so absurd that I think I'd actually like the Southern Baptist Convention better, and that's really saying something!

(Incidentally, libertarianism as a political movement does seem to ooze the whole sleazebag / macho-man type of image. I mean a study by Pew Research from a couple years back found that 60% of all ideological libertarians in America are men, which made libertarianism the single most lopsidedly male political grouping. There are reasons why, you know?)

[The Xl]

If that's how most libertarians look and act, I'm certainly not the norm.

[Chris]

Functionally speaking, there isn't much of a Tea Party movement left today because it's two key factions -- the libertarians and the social conservatives -- appear to be rather disunited at present. People don't really talk about "the Tea Party" anymore. I mean technically the movement still exists...but so too technically do the Occupy and hippie movements still exist. I think you get my point. What remains of it is clearly controlled by the social conservative branch of the party, as demonstrated, for example, in their selection of Mike Lee to offer this year's Tea Party rebuttal to the State of the Union Address...where Rand Paul (who had delivered it the previous year and also happens to be the current de facto leader of the American libertarian movement) offered a separate one this time around, showing that he now counts himself implicitly outside that movement. Not that any of that matters for our purpose here! It just seems that Ignite is too permissive, immoral, and deliberately outrageous for the more conservative churches that surround it and which encompass the dominant trend in the American Christian right...which strikes me as very similar to the relationship between social conservatives and libertarians in the political arena. That was all! :grin:

I'm not the church-going type and it cannot be said that I'm terribly fond of the overall role of the social conservatives / religious right in this country, especially when it comes to the politics. However, Ignite is so absurd that I think I'd actually like the Southern Baptist Convention better, and that's really saying something!

(Incidentally, libertarianism as a political movement does seem to ooze the whole sleazebag / macho-man type of image. I mean a study by Pew Research from a couple years back found that 60% of all ideological libertarians in America are men, which made libertarianism the single most lopsidedly male political grouping. There are reasons why, you know?)


Functionally speaking, there isn't much of a Tea Party movement left today because it's two key factions -- the libertarians and the social conservatives -- appear to be rather disunited at present.

While I agree with your assessment of their loss of power, I disagree with the cause of it.

Early on in the movement the social cons moved in on the movement and started making "religious" demands. I recall those coming through my local voting district Tea Party group. Objections were raised and it stopped, more or less agreement was reached on common goals of smaller government, less taxes and more liberty, period. This "common core" agreement played through nationally in most Tea Party groups. You can read something as late as Rand Paul's The Tea Party Goes to Washington to hear it at a national level.

So, no, that did not bring about what I agree is a loss of power, staying power. That can be accounted for simply by pointing out that the Tea parties' power, like that of OWS, or any other grassroots movement, was distributed among many small groups, like the voting district level group I belonged to. The movement simply dissipated in the long dry spells between elections.

Libertarian? Tea Partiers were libertarian-like so libertarians like myself fit in easily. It was not a libertarian movement however, there was never any sort of alliance, for how would two grassroots movements ally with each other? There's no official leaders to make such agreements.

[Captain Obvious]

How are anti-establishment Tea Partiers establishment?

Because they're basically the same self-promoting, agenda driven, special interest ass kissing phonies that we have now with the major two parties.

Unless you fix the machine it's going to keep churning out the same garbage. It's the political system that's broken, not the parties.

Have as many parties as you want, it's all still going to be the same shit unless you fix the system.

Yeah, I know. You need a youtube video to figure that out.

[Chris]

If that's how most libertarians look and act, I'm certainly not the norm.

Libertarians are secretly wild and crazy guys, doncha know.

http://i.snag.gy/EiDRF.jpg

[Chris]

Because they're basically the same self-promoting, agenda driven, special interest ass kissing phonies that we have now with the major two parties.

Unless you fix the machine it's going to keep churning out the same garbage. It's the political system that's broken, not the parties.

Have as many parties as you want, it's all still going to be the same shit unless you fix the system.

Yeah, I know. You need a youtube video to figure that out.


So now you've told us about you establishment types, what about anti-establishment Tea partiers?

[nic34]

Except Huckabee is not a Tea Partier, though I can understand how Teabaggees might confuse things.

Except I brought him up as he represents church. Remember the title?

A Church for Libertarians :D

[Chris]

Except I brought him up as he represents church. Remember the title?

A Church for Libertarians :D

Hehe.

"Immanuel Baptist Church in Pine Bluff, Arkansas from 1980 to 1986 and the Beech Street Baptist Church in Texarkana from 1986 to 1992" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Huckabee#Pastoral_career

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
While I agree with your assessment of their loss of power, I disagree with the cause of it.

Early on in the movement the social cons moved in on the movement and started making "religious" demands. I recall those coming through my local voting district Tea Party group. Objections were raised and it stopped, more or less agreement was reached on common goals of smaller government, less taxes and more liberty, period. This "common core" agreement played through nationally in most Tea Party groups. You can read something as late as Rand Paul's The Tea Party Goes to Washington to hear it at a national level.

So, no, that did not bring about what I agree is a loss of power, staying power. That can be accounted for simply by pointing out that the Tea parties' power, like that of OWS, or any other grassroots movement, was distributed among many small groups, like the voting district level group I belonged to. The movement simply dissipated in the long dry spells between elections.

Libertarian? Tea Partiers were libertarian-like so libertarians like myself fit in easily. It was not a libertarian movement however, there was never any sort of alliance, for how would two grassroots movements ally with each other? There's no official leaders to make such agreements.

Thanks for this helpful first-hand account!

To add some thoughts, decentralization of power within mass movements and organizations is a general trend in today's world. The Tea Party movement, the Occupy movement, and Al Qaeda all had that (a decentralized power structure) in common. File-sharing survives on the Internet largely because it's organized in a decentralized way these days (as per, for example, the BitTorrent model, as could be contrasted with the old, centralized Napster model that's mostly been crushed by the state). Even major communist parties (like the Communist Party USA) appear to be moving away from democratic centralism in terms of their party structure these days. Decentralization makes a movement or organization (as applicable) just plain more flexible, and flexibility is very important to the survival of mass movements in today's world. But the fact that a movement is decentralized and may lack institutionalized leaders doesn't mean that there aren't de facto leaders and de facto factions to it at any given point, just like any more centralized organization would inevitably have! I think it's important to see through the formalities of grassroots structure to the informal composition of movements in order to more fully understand what's actually going on therein at any given point in time.

So anyway, when I describe the Tea Party movement as having "leaders" and "a dominant faction", I mean that adherents to certain philosophies (who are also politically organized separately from the movement) are the most visible and thus socially prominent and influential within the said movement at this or that point. In the founding days, libertarians seemed to hold overall sway within the Tea Party movement. There are many signs today that, in the last couple years, that has stopped being the case in my observation.

(Rand Paul is trying to position himself as a serious presidential candidate (i.e. one who seeks broad appeal, as in appeal not just to Republicans, but also others) right now, and as such has made a number of gestures reaching out to people who normally vote for Democrats, like African Americans for example. Some of the positions he's spending much talking about, like the need to reform the criminal justice system to root out racial discrimination, don't go over well with more conventional, law-and-order conservatives. That may actually be a small factor, considering how influential he is with American libertarians. Just as an aside.)

I think you make a good point when you highlight the dry spells between elections, save for that the Tea Party movement itself was formed amidst one such dry spell in the first place in 2009, just like Occupy was in 2011. You see, the simple truth of the matter is that grassroots movements frequently wind up getting absorbed into electoral camps and thus losing their grassroots flavor -- their outsider feel -- to a large degree. Elections eat mass movements by giving them access to political power; by turning outsiders into insiders. That's exactly why many of the more radical communist groups out there (including the RCP (which I orbited for a few years) and the LLCO (which I joined for six months) oppose participation in elections: they feel that organized participation would weaken their revolutionary spirit and demobilize their street activists. My counter to that point is simply that these movements aim to realize change, that change doesn't typically occur without directly accessing political power in some way, and that the masses, unlike these parties, care more about obtaining results than they do about maintaining the movement and will thus participate in elections regardless of whether your party does anyway. (I mean as long as the process is generally recognized as being basically fair anyway, which it is in this country.) OF COURSE realizing your objectives to one degree or another is going to result in less on-the-ground activism! That's the whole point though, surely! You're surely aiming to get to a place where you don't need to be in the streets, angry anymore. And it's not like new movements can't be formed to take the place of old ones, incidentally, if need be. After all, Occupy may be functionally all but dead, but there is today in its place a lively movement to unionize the working poor that's growing and achieving victories and other left movements like Moral Mondays (and logical analogies).

[Chris]

To add some thoughts, decentralization of power within mass movements and organizations is a general trend in today's world. The Tea Party movement, the Occupy movement, and Al Qaeda all had that (a decentralized power structure) in common.

So did Greek city-states, American Indians (North and South America), the American Colonists and even the US under Articles of Confederation. IOW, it's one of two basic way people organize themselves with power distributed or centralized.

Distributed social orders is the theme of Brafman & Beckstrom's The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations.

Another good book on this is Clastres' Society Against the State, though it's a translation from French and the rhetorical style is hard to follow. It's an anthropological work concerned mainly with tribes in South America.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
So did Greek city-states, American Indians (North and South America), the American Colonists and even the US under Articles of Confederation. IOW, it's one of two basic way people organize themselves with power distributed or centralized.

I know! I was just highlighting that it's a GROWING trend in the modern world!


Distributed social orders is the theme of Brafman & Beckstrom's The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations.

I read that book a few years ago and liked it! :smiley: I'd echo this recommendation for anyone else looking for a good argument in favor of the decentralization of power.

[Chris]

I know! I was just highlighting that it's a GROWING trend in the modern world!



I read that book a few years ago and liked it! :smiley: I'd echo this recommendation for anyone else looking for a good argument in favor of the decentralization of power.


There's also a trend toward more and more centralization. Since centralized power monopolizes force, it seems to always be the dominant trend. But I think decentralized power is the more natural state.

[Captain Obvious]

So now you've told us about you establishment types, what about anti-establishment Tea partiers?

What about this guy:
http://img.bleacherreport.net/img/images/photos/002/796/309/8288d50f6769ccb555f2b9010a4f6544_crop_north.jpg?w= 543&h=361&q=75

Same thing, both have something to sell, fans to appease.

To what level you buy into this stuff determines a lot of things but at the end of the day all of us have a level of genuineness and a level of phony salesmanship. Some have higher and lower degrees than others.

[Chris]

What about this guy:
http://img.bleacherreport.net/img/images/photos/002/796/309/8288d50f6769ccb555f2b9010a4f6544_crop_north.jpg?w= 543&h=361&q=75

Same thing, both have something to sell, fans to appease.

To what level you buy into this stuff determines a lot of things but at the end of the day all of us have a level of genuineness and a level of phony salesmanship. Some have higher and lower degrees than others.

IOW, as usual, you've got nothing to contribute and try to hide that with bluster and balderdash. Very impressive.

[Captain Obvious]

IOW, as usual, you've got nothing to contribute and try to hide that with bluster and balderdash. Very impressive.

No, I made a valid point.

One you might have a hard time bickering over.

Who's turn is it today to babysit you? Yesterday was @Mac-7 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1014) 's, maybe he'll be a good guy and pacify you today too. I'm not, I'm getting a haircut and driving across the East Coast in a few.

[Chris]

No, I made a valid point.

One you might have a hard time bickering over.

Who's turn is it today to babysit you? Yesterday was @Mac-7 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1014) 's, maybe he'll be a good guy and pacify you today too. I'm not, I'm getting a haircut and driving across the East Coast in a few.


You made no valid point at all. You raised a doubt everything's just a big conspiracy. You've nothing to back it except your own incredulity.

And in the face of disagreement, you insult. Wow, some argument.

http://i.snag.gy/kFaFd.jpg

Why don't you want others to engage is discussion? Why does that irritate you so?

[Captain Obvious]

You made no valid point at all. You raised a doubt everything's just a big conspiracy. You've nothing to back it except your own incredulity.

And in the face of disagreement, you insult. Wow, some argument.

http://i.snag.gy/kFaFd.jpg

Why don't you want others to engage is discussion? Why does that irritate you so?

Just because you don't get it doesn't make it an invalid point.

And I have no argument here. You're just trying to pick a fight.

Go cast your trolling lines elsewhere.

Shoo!

[Chris]

Just because you don't get it doesn't make it an invalid point.

And I have no argument here. You're just trying to pick a fight.

Go cast your trolling lines elsewhere.

Shoo!


There's nothing you've offered to get, cappy. As you say very clearly: "I have no argument here." That's what I said. Good to see you agree.

And, again, your insults are so very impressive.

http://i.snag.gy/kFaFd.jpg

Blow harder, cappy, blow harder.

[Ethereal]

I just thought the highly permissive, morally bankrupt, macho-man attitude was logically analogous. :wink:

Libertarian ideology is highly restrictive and morally rigid, if anything. It doesn't allow people to get away with things like kidnapping, extortion, theft, and murder by labeling it "government", which is why so many people don't like it.

[Ethereal]

Functionally speaking, there isn't much of a Tea Party movement left today because it's two key factions -- the libertarians and the social conservatives -- appear to be rather disunited at present. People don't really talk about "the Tea Party" anymore. I mean technically the movement still exists...but so too technically do the Occupy and hippie movements still exist. I think you get my point. What remains of it is clearly controlled by the social conservative branch of the party, as demonstrated, for example, in their selection of Mike Lee to offer this year's Tea Party rebuttal to the State of the Union Address...where Rand Paul (who had delivered it the previous year and also happens to be the current de facto leader of the American libertarian movement) offered a separate one this time around, showing that he now counts himself implicitly outside that movement. Not that any of that matters for our purpose here! It just seems that Ignite is too permissive, immoral, and deliberately outrageous for the more conservative churches that surround it and which encompass the dominant trend in the American Christian right...which strikes me as very similar to the relationship between social conservatives and libertarians in the political arena. That was all! :grin:

I'm not the church-going type and it cannot be said that I'm terribly fond of the overall role of the social conservatives / religious right in this country, especially when it comes to the politics. However, Ignite is so absurd that I think I'd actually like the Southern Baptist Convention better, and that's really saying something!

Rand Paul is not the "de factor leader of the American libertarian movement". The movement is intellectual and ideological, not political.


(Incidentally, libertarianism as a political movement does seem to ooze the whole sleazebag / macho-man type of image. I mean a study by Pew Research from a couple years back found that 60% of all ideological libertarians in America are men, which made libertarianism the single most lopsidedly male political grouping. There are reasons why, you know?)

The basic premise of libertarian ideology is nonaggression, so I'm not sure why you would associate that with "sleazebag/macho-man" types.

[Mister D]

Obviously, I often disagree with libertarians but I really don't get the macho man thing either. Granted, progressive males do seem somewhat feminine in certain respects so perhaps she has a comparison of the two in mind.

[Chris]

Rand Paul is not the "de factor leader of the American libertarian movement". The movement is intellectual and ideological, not political.



The basic premise of libertarian ideology is nonaggression, so I'm not sure why you would associate that with "sleazebag/macho-man" types.



Rand, I would say, is not really libertarian. In some ideas, perhaps, but overall, no. IIRC, he calls himself a Constitutional conservative. I think the impression he's libertarian derives from association with his father.



The movement is intellectual and ideological, not political.

Interesting, hadn't really thought about it, but, yes, think it's true, thinking aloud: it's a- if not anti-political and, I would say, social in ideology, iow, concerned with how society is organized and ordered.

[Captain Obvious]

There's nothing you've offered to get, cappy. As you say very clearly: "I have no argument here." That's what I said. Good to see you agree.

And, again, your insults are so very impressive.

http://i.snag.gy/kFaFd.jpg

Blow harder, cappy, blow harder.

Mac must not be around.

Troll deeper, you'll eventually snag something.

[nic34]

Libertarian ideology is highly restrictive and morally rigid, if anything. It doesn't allow people to get away with things like kidnapping, extortion, theft, and murder by labeling it "government", which is why so many people don't like it.

How is any of that possible without a Libertarian "government"?

[Chris]

How is any of that possible without a Libertarian "government"?

Lowercase l libertarian. Uppercase L Libertarian is a political party.

Govern by social order--the traditions, customs, norms, manners, etc of society--instead of state order, to have rules without rulers.

[Chris]

Mac must not be around.

Troll deeper, you'll eventually snag something.


Poor cappy whose arguments are crappy.

[kilgram]

Lowercase l libertarian. Uppercase L Libertarian is a political party.

Govern by social order--the traditions, customs, norms, manners, etc of society--instead of state order, to have rules without rulers.
Social order? High class and low class... It will lead to crime because low class won't receive the basic resources. Obviously there won't be state to prevent that or to protect low class.

As I ever said, capitalism to work requires of state. Capitalism to work needs to be authoritarian. Capitalism never can be pure libertarian, as maximum minarchist.

[Captain Obvious]

Poor cappy whose arguments are crappy.

Poor Chris, who's trolling has gone amiss.

[Chris]

Social order? High class and low class... It will lead to crime because low class won't receive the basic resources. Obviously there won't be state to prevent that or to protect low class.

As I ever said, capitalism to work requires of state. Capitalism to work needs to be authoritarian. Capitalism never can be pure libertarian, as maximum minarchist.


Kilgram, didn't I define social order as "the traditions, customs, norms, manners, etc of society"? Why, yes, I did. So much for your straw man.

[Chris]

Poor Chris, who's trolling has gone amiss.

Poor echo troll who says he doesn't care and says he doesn't have an argument and yet keeps contradictingly coming back for more.

[nic34]

Social order? High class and low class... It will lead to crime because low class won't receive the basic resources. Obviously there won't be state to prevent that or to protect low class.

As I ever said, capitalism to work requires of state. Capitalism to work needs to be authoritarian. Capitalism never can be pure libertarian, as maximum minarchist.

... and not to mention there is currently no functioning libertarian country out of the near 200 out there.

[Chris]

... and not to mention there is currently no functioning libertarian country out of the near 200 out there.

It's that much of the existing social order not yet managed by the state.

You keep trying to imagine a libertarian/anarchistic government.

[IMPress Polly]

Chris wrote:
There's also a trend toward more and more centralization. Since centralized power monopolizes force, it seems to always be the dominant trend. But I think decentralized power is the more natural state.

I can see that trend only in the corporate world, where middle management is being eliminated and business are going global, thus dominating larger and larger chunks of an increasingly unified global economy. Where else are you seeing this "trend toward more and more centralization"?


Ethereal wrote:
The basic premise of libertarian ideology is nonaggression, so I'm not sure why you would associate that with "sleazebag/macho-man" types.

It's just an impression. Libertarians have traditionally been known for leading rather decadent lifestyles that logically correspond to their exceptionally permissive attitudes, which is from whence I'm drawing the term "sleazebag". Here was a Libertarian Senate campaign from 2006 that I still remember, which kinda cemented that impression for me. (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15392890/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/how-attract-voters-attention-cleavage/#.VC7k4BYXMyg) Struck me as the kind of campaign that other parties and political groupings would not recourse to.

The more basic reasons libertarians have a hard time attracting women (politically, I mean) has to do with the issues on which women typically vote. The top voting issues for American women these days are abortion rights (which most American libertarians oppose, including Rand Paul and Ron Paul both) and social welfare (as women tend to be poorer than men and thus more in need; libertarians care less about the needy in that sense than other political grouping). Add in the aforementioned reputation and voila: you have a formula for a very lopsidedly male fan base.

[Mister D]

I can see that trend only in the corporate world, where middle management is being eliminated and business are going global, thus dominating larger and larger chunks of an increasingly unified global economy. Where else are you seeing this "trend toward more and more centralization"?



The European Union is a perfect example.

[Captain Obvious]

Poor echo troll who says he doesn't care and says he doesn't have an argument and yet keeps contradictingly coming back for more.

And no matter how hard you try to start an argument, your trolling efforts fail.

[Mister D]

Gentlemen please...

[Chris]

I can see that trend only in the corporate world, where middle management is being eliminated and business are going global, thus dominating larger and larger chunks of an increasingly unified global economy. Where else are you seeing this "trend toward more and more centralization"?



It's just an impression. Libertarians have traditionally been known for leading rather decadent lifestyles that logically correspond to their exceptionally permissive attitudes, which is from whence I'm drawing the term "sleazebag". Here was a Libertarian Senate campaign from 2006 that I still remember, which kinda cemented that impression for me. (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15392890/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/how-attract-voters-attention-cleavage/#.VC7k4BYXMyg) Struck me as the kind of campaign that other parties and political groupings would not recourse to.

The more basic reasons libertarians have a hard time attracting women (politically, I mean) has to do with the issues on which women typically vote. The top voting issues for American women these days are abortion rights (which most American libertarians oppose, including Rand Paul and Ron Paul both) and social welfare (as women tend to be poorer than men and thus more in need; libertarians care less about the needy in that sense than other political grouping). Add in the aforementioned reputation and voila: you have a formula for a very lopsidedly male fan base.


Corporate world, yes, perhaps.


I think you confuse libertarians and libertines. Russell Kirk, an old conservative did the same.

[Chris]

And no matter how hard you try to start an argument, your trolling efforts fail.

You're projecting.

I shot down your BS and now you're mad. Get over it already.

[Chris]

Gentlemen please...

Sorry. Done.

[Ethereal]

How is any of that possible without a Libertarian "government"?

Libertarians don't object to government, they object to the state.

[Bob]

Machismo is not a sign of manliness, in fact it's a sign of a lack of manliness + overcompensating.

Yes, like some member announcing he has a 7.5 inch long cock.

[PolWatch]

I can see that trend only in the corporate world, where middle management is being eliminated and business are going global, thus dominating larger and larger chunks of an increasingly unified global economy. Where else are you seeing this "trend toward more and more centralization"?



It's just an impression. Libertarians have traditionally been known for leading rather decadent lifestyles that logically correspond to their exceptionally permissive attitudes, which is from whence I'm drawing the term "sleazebag". Here was a Libertarian Senate campaign from 2006 that I still remember, which kinda cemented that impression for me. (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15392890/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/how-attract-voters-attention-cleavage/#.VC7k4BYXMyg) Struck me as the kind of campaign that other parties and political groupings would not recourse to.

The more basic reasons libertarians have a hard time attracting women (politically, I mean) has to do with the issues on which women typically vote. The top voting issues for American women these days are abortion rights (which most American libertarians oppose, including Rand Paul and Ron Paul both) and social welfare (as women tend to be poorer than men and thus more in need; libertarians care less about the needy in that sense than other political grouping). Add in the aforementioned reputation and voila: you have a formula for a very lopsidedly male fan base.

the campaign you referenced was in Alabama...which kinda explains it. She was a nutcase doing anything/everything to get attention and did not actually represent any group (other than possibly drinking buddies).

Campaigns in Alabama are strange. We had a candidate running for the Public Service Commission (they regulate utilities) whose platform included fighting Obamacare. Our current governor is using the VA scandal to show how he will fight Washington for Alabama freedoms. Neither position has anything to do with the issues they highlighted. Typical Alabama politics.

[Ethereal]

... and not to mention there is currently no functioning libertarian country out of the near 200 out there.

The closer a country is to the libertarian ideal, the more prosperous and peaceful it is.

[Ethereal]

It's just an impression. Libertarians have traditionally been known for leading rather decadent lifestyles that logically correspond to their exceptionally permissive attitudes, which is from whence I'm drawing the term "sleazebag". Here was a Libertarian Senate campaign from 2006 that I still remember, which kinda cemented that impression for me. (http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15392890/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/how-attract-voters-attention-cleavage/#.VC7k4BYXMyg) Struck me as the kind of campaign that other parties and political groupings would not recourse to.

You keep conflating political Libertarians with the ideological libertarian movement. They are related, but distinct, like cousins.

And what do you mean "libertarians have traditionally been known for leasing rather decadent lifestyles"?


The more basic reasons libertarians have a hard time attracting women (politically, I mean) has to do with the issues on which women typically vote. The top voting issues for American women these days are abortion rights (which most American libertarians oppose, including Rand Paul and Ron Paul both) and social welfare (as women tend to be poorer than men and thus more in need; libertarians care less about the needy in that sense than other political grouping). Add in the aforementioned reputation and voila: you have a formula for a very lopsidedly male fan base.

Actually, most libertarians are pro-choice. (http://publicreligion.org/research/2013/10/2013-american-values-survey/)

And as for caring less about the needy, that simply isn't true at all. They just disagree on the best way to help the needy overcome their situation. They typically see the state as the biggest impediment to advancement for the poor and powerless, which is why they favor minimizing or abolishing it.

[Green Arrow]

I read about that church a week or so ago. I'd never go.

[Chris]

nic34, is this the conspiracy you fear?

http://i.snag.gy/J2LnM.jpg

[Alyosha]

I am a libertarian and a female. Libertarians are anti state interference in individual lives and choice. Libertarians are usually anti abortion but anti state mechanism to prevent it. I also don't care if some is macho because that's a choice. I make different choices.

[nic34]

the closer a country is to the libertarian ideal, the more prosperous and peaceful it is.

ok, which one is closest to that?

[Ethereal]

ok, which one is closest to that?

It's hard to say.

Economically speaking, it would probably be Hong Kong (http://www.heritage.org/index/).

Socially speaking, it would probably be Portugal or the Netherlands (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/uruguay/10216201/A-guide-to-the-worlds-most-libertarian-countries.html).

Overall, I would say maybe Canada, since it scores relatively high in both categories.

[Ethereal]

If a country would adopt Hong Kong's economic policies and Portugal's social policies, it'd be pretty darn close to being libertarian. Does that sound so horrible?

[Captain Obvious]

You're projecting.

I shot down your BS and now you're mad. Get over it already.

:biglaugh:

Now begone, troll

[Peter1469]

Warning: back on topic everyone, please.

[Chris]

If a country would adopt Hong Kong's economic policies and Portugal's social policies, it'd be pretty darn close to being libertarian. Does that sound so horrible?

Hong Kong always ranks high on the Index of Economic Freedom. I'll have to look into Portugal.

[IMPress Polly]

Mister D wrote:
The European Union is a perfect example.

Actually, since the Great Recession hit, I see the European Union as barely holding together these days; certainly not growing stronger and more unified, especially with the near-exits of Greece and Portugal, for example, and so many other European countries now voting against joining the EU, against adopting the euro, etc. Governments continue to grow weaker and more divided globally, while corporate power, including over government policies, conversely increases. (Besides all of this, the EU is essentially just an economic union anyway, designed for the purpose of fostering free trade, i.e. more freedom for capitalists at the expense of governments.)


Chris wrote:
I think you confuse libertarians and libertines.


Ethereal wrote:
You keep conflating political Libertarians with the ideological libertarian movement. They are related, but distinct, like cousins.

You guys may be right about that when it comes to the big picture. Natural overlap has simply been a presumption of mine.


Actually, most libertarians are pro-choice. (http://publicreligion.org/research/2013/10/2013-american-values-survey/)

This link was very helpful! Thanks! My assessment of the abortion stance was based on the prevailing stance among elected politicians who identify themselves as libertarians (like Rand Paul). However, you'll also note that the linked poll backs up other assessments I've made about the movement both here and in the past (e.g. very lopsidedly male, overwhelmingly white, not the dominant force in the Tea Party movement anymore, etc.). Anyway...


Libertarians don't object to government, they object to the state.

I think you may have the two things confused, Ethereal. From where I'm coming from as a Marxist, "the state" refers to mechanisms of official force: militaries, police forces, courts, and prisons. When these things are institutionalized, a state is formed. A state can be differentiated from a nation, which is a large group of people who consider themselves a nation. For example, Palestine has been a nation for ages even though it has only had a state since the 1990s, so obviously it's possible for a nation to exist without it having a state. Now a government, in Marxist theory, is a collection of civilian institutions that makes recognized policy decisions for a community (as in a legislature or commons) -- perhaps a local community, a national community, or, in the modern era, the world community. The importance of these distinctions from a Marxist perspective is as follows:

-Marxists seek to ultimately abolish all states (by way of abolishing the class distinctions that give rise to their existence).

-Different Marxists have different views on whether nations will or should eventually be done away with.

-Marxists have no intention to ever abolish governments.

Now, by contrast, it seems to me that the state is precisely the one institution among the above three that the average libertarian is the most okay with keeping around. I have frequently heard it said by libertarians that they believe the sole role of "the government" should be to enforce property laws, for example. From a Marxist perspective, that means more or less only retaining the state (militaries, police, courts, prisons) as a permanent institution. This understanding makes sense of many claims by rightists. For example, it reconciles Ronald Reagan's famous proclamation that "today, government is the problem" with his consistent escalation of the military budget throughout his tenure as president and commander-in-chief of the military (i.e. head of the state).

[Alyosha]

Actually, since the Great Recession hit, I see the European Union as barely holding together these days; certainly not growing stronger and more unified, especially with the near-exits of Greece and Portugal, for example, and so many other European countries now voting against joining the EU, against adopting the euro, etc. Governments continue to grow weaker and more divided globally, while corporate power, including over government policies, conversely increases. (Besides all of this, the EU is essentially just an economic union anyway, designed for the purpose of fostering free trade, i.e. more freedom for capitalists at the expense of governments.)





You guys may be right about that when it comes to the big picture. Natural overlap has simply been a presumption of mine.



This link was very helpful! Thanks! My assessment of the abortion stance was based on the prevailing stance among elected politicians who identify themselves as libertarians (like Rand Paul). However, you'll also note that the linked poll backs up other assessments I've made about the movement both here and in the past (e.g. very lopsidedly male, overwhelmingly white, not the dominant force in the Tea Party movement anymore, etc.). Anyway...



I think you may have the two things confused, Ethereal. From where I'm coming from as a Marxist, "the state" refers to mechanisms of official force: militaries, police forces, courts, and prisons. When these things are institutionalized, a state is formed. A state can be differentiated from a nation, which is a large group of people who consider themselves a nation. For example, Palestine has been a nation for ages even though it has only had a state since the 1990s, so obviously it's possible for a nation to exist without it having a state. Now a government, in Marxist theory, is a collection of civilian institutions that makes recognized policy decisions for a community (as in a legislature or commons) -- perhaps a local community, a national community, or, in the modern era, the world community. The importance of these distinctions from a Marxist perspective is as follows:

-Marxists seek to ultimately abolish all states (by way of abolishing the class distinctions that give rise to their existence).

-Different Marxists have different views on whether nations will or should eventually be done away with.

-Marxists have no intention to ever abolish governments.

Now, by contrast, it seems to me that the state is precisely the one institution among the above three that the average libertarian is the most okay with keeping around. I have frequently heard it said by libertarians that they believe the sole role of "the government" should be to enforce property laws, for example. From a Marxist perspective, that means more or less only retaining the state (militaries, police, courts, prisons) as a permanent institution. This understanding makes sense of many claims by rightists. For example, it reconciles Ronald Reagan's famous proclamation that "today, government is the problem" with his consistent escalation of the military budget throughout his tenure as president and commander-in-chief of the military (i.e. head of the state).

1. Rand is a Republican with libertarian leanings
2. Government and the state are two different things. Libertarians are not anti government just anti state. A group of people talking and making group decisions is government. The state has a monopoly on force, something libertarians don't believe in.

[Chris]

I think you may have the two things confused, Ethereal. From where I'm coming from as a Marxist, "the state" refers to mechanisms of official force: militaries, police forces, courts, and prisons. When these things are institutionalized, a state is formed. A state can be differentiated from a nation, which is a large group of people who consider themselves a nation. For example, Palestine has been a nation for ages even though it has only had a state since the 1990s, so obviously it's possible for a nation to exist without it having a state. Now a government, in Marxist theory, is a collection of civilian institutions that makes recognized policy decisions for a community (as in a legislature or commons) -- perhaps a local community, a national community, or, in the modern era, the world community. The importance of these distinctions from a Marxist perspective is as follows:

-Marxists seek to ultimately abolish all states (by way of abolishing the class distinctions that give rise to their existence).

-Different Marxists have different views on whether nations will or should eventually be done away with.

-Marxists have no intention to ever abolish governments.

Now, by contrast, it seems to me that the state is precisely the one institution among the above three that the average libertarian is the most okay with keeping around. I have frequently heard it said by libertarians that they believe the sole role of "the government" should be to enforce property laws, for example. From a Marxist perspective, that means more or less only retaining the state (militaries, police, courts, prisons) as a permanent institution. This understanding makes sense of many claims by rightists. For example, it reconciles Ronald Reagan's famous proclamation that "today, government is the problem" with his consistent escalation of the military budget throughout his tenure as president and commander-in-chief of the military (i.e. head of the state).

No, as far as you go above, libertarians have no objection, there's little distinction. Having read a lot of Ethereal, I think he would agree as far as you go, eliminate the state, not government. Alyosha just above says this as well. As long as we're clear government is found in the traditions, customs, norms, mores, manners, etc of a society.

Where we part ways is on private property mainly.

[Mister D]

Actually, since the Great Recession hit, I see the European Union as barely holding together these days; certainly not growing stronger and more unified, especially with the near-exits of Greece and Portugal, for example, and so many other European countries now voting against joining the EU, against adopting the euro, etc. Governments continue to grow weaker and more divided globally, while corporate power, including over government policies, conversely increases. (Besides all of this, the EU is essentially just an economic union anyway, designed for the purpose of fostering free trade, i.e. more freedom for capitalists at the expense of governments.)


I agree that the E.U. is having trouble and for precisely the reason you suggest (i.e. it was formed on an economic basis). For such a thing to last and inspire it must be formed on a sense of shared values, culture, and history. That said, when and if the E.U. as it currently exists falls apart it will be replaced by another European wide bloc. The nation state is increasingly obsolete. It's too big and clumsy for the local issues and too small to protect the interests of a people in a global economy. Reverting to the modern paradigm of a Europe composed of separate nation states simply isn't a long term option.

[Chris]

One more difference, polly. Under a system of libertarian or free-market anarchy, people would be free to form communities of any sort they choose be it free market, Marxist, socialist, communist, commutarian, syndicalist, even, God forbid, statist.

I doubt very much that under a Marxist system people would be free to form communities, to start businesses, open factories and run them as they saw fit.

[Mister D]

Let me add that when I say the trend is toward bigger I don't necessarily mean more centralized, cumbersome, and intrusive. It doesn't have to be that way and, as the E.U. demonstrates, it doesn't really work.

[donttread]

The closer a country is to the libertarian ideal, the more prosperous and peaceful it is.

There is also currently no functioning "United States"

[Chris]

It was better when we said these United States rather than the United States.

[Ethereal]

You guys may be right about that when it comes to the big picture. Natural overlap has simply been a presumption of mine.

There is some overlap between Marxists and libertarians, too, but that doesn't mean they are the same.


This link was very helpful! Thanks! My assessment of the abortion stance was based on the prevailing stance among elected politicians who identify themselves as libertarians (like Rand Paul). However, you'll also note that the linked poll backs up other assessments I've made about the movement both here and in the past (e.g. very lopsidedly male, overwhelmingly white, not the dominant force in the Tea Party movement anymore, etc.). Anyway...

Yes, they are mostly white males, but why should that automatically translate into a "sleazebag/macho man" image? A more accurate stereotype of libertarians would be a pasty nerd with a pile of books and a pocket protector.


I think you may have the two things confused, Ethereal. From where I'm coming from as a Marxist, "the state" refers to mechanisms of official force: militaries, police forces, courts, and prisons. When these things are institutionalized, a state is formed. A state can be differentiated from a nation, which is a large group of people who consider themselves a nation. For example, Palestine has been a nation for ages even though it has only had a state since the 1990s, so obviously it's possible for a nation to exist without it having a state. Now a government, in Marxist theory, is a collection of civilian institutions that makes recognized policy decisions for a community (as in a legislature or commons) -- perhaps a local community, a national community, or, in the modern era, the world community. The importance of these distinctions from a Marxist perspective is as follows:

-Marxists seek to ultimately abolish all states (by way of abolishing the class distinctions that give rise to their existence).

-Different Marxists have different views on whether nations will or should eventually be done away with.

-Marxists have no intention to ever abolish governments.

Now, by contrast, it seems to me that the state is precisely the one institution among the above three that the average libertarian is the most okay with keeping around. I have frequently heard it said by libertarians that they believe the sole role of "the government" should be to enforce property laws, for example. From a Marxist perspective, that means more or less only retaining the state (militaries, police, courts, prisons) as a permanent institution. This understanding makes sense of many claims by rightists. For example, it reconciles Ronald Reagan's famous proclamation that "today, government is the problem" with his consistent escalation of the military budget throughout his tenure as president and commander-in-chief of the military (i.e. head of the state).

It depends on the libertarian. There are minarchists and anarchists within the ideological libertarian movement. The former believes the state is a necessary evil that must be strictly minimized, whereas the latter believes the state is just a sophisticated street gang that should be de-legitimized and subsequently abolished. Both of them emphasize non-aggressive forms of social organization that are based on individual consent and natural law.

[Ethereal]

There is also currently no functioning "United States"

Except as a pretense for the manipulation of the masses by the elites.

[IMPress Polly]

Ethereal wrote:
There is some overlap between Marxists and libertarians, too, but that doesn't mean they are the same.

Fair enough.


Yes, they are mostly white males, but why should that automatically translate into a "sleazebag/macho man" image? A more accurate stereotype of libertarians would be a pasty nerd with a pile of books and a pocket protector.

Really? The prevailing stereotype says that the full-on tech geek is a natural political progressive (e.g. look how many of them one can find on MSNBC vs. Fox).


Chris wrote:
One more difference, polly. Under a system of libertarian or free-market anarchy, people would be free to form communities of any sort they choose be it free market, Marxist, socialist, communist, commutarian, syndicalist, even, God forbid, statist.

I doubt very much that under a Marxist system people would be free to form communities, to start businesses, open factories and run them as they saw fit.

First of all, definitely not every libertarian shares that permissive attitude toward other systems. Many libertarians here have, for example, expressed a particular admiration for Barry Goldwater, who believed in nuking the Vietnamese rebels for being communists.

As to whether or not Marxists might be okay with the continuation of capitalism, serious Marxists might not be willing to permit capitalists to run everything "as they see fit", no, but it's not like there's no historical precedent for Marxist-run governments permitting the operation of market forces. To highlight an obvious example, take the Soviet Union's New Economic Policy in the 1920s. I think you'll find that, especially today, most Marxists (especially those of us who support electoral strategies) are stagists who believe that socialism and communism are things that must be progressed toward over time, not just lept straight to all at once. For example, I have recently written on my blog that capitalism is not yet historically outmoded and still has a basically positive world-historic role to finish playing out. To that end, while I'm open to socialist experiments in the here and now (such as what one sees in many Venezuelan communities right now), it's my opinion that they should be regarded as simply that: experiments with what is possible in the here and now, not as something that's likely to succeed. In my personal opinion, the tech revolution the world is undergoing must reach a more advanced stage before a sustained system of socialism will become both possible and inevitable because it is the tech revolution's capacity to eliminate the problem of production shortages and scarcity that plagued earlier socialist experiments that renders socialism the inevitable course of the future.

[Chris]

Fair enough.



Really? The prevailing stereotype says that the full-on tech geek is a natural political progressive (e.g. look how many of them one can find on MSNBC vs. Fox).



First of all, definitely not every libertarian shares that permissive attitude toward other systems. Many libertarians here have, for example, expressed a particular admiration for Barry Goldwater, who believed in nuking the Vietnamese rebels for being communists.

As to whether or not Marxists might be okay with the continuation of capitalism, serious Marxists might not be willing to permit capitalists to run everything "as they see fit", no, but it's not like there's no historical precedent for Marxist-run governments permitting the operation of market forces. To highlight an obvious example, take the Soviet Union's New Economic Policy in the 1920s. I think you'll find that, especially today, most Marxists (especially those of us who support electoral strategies) are stagists who believe that socialism and communism are things that must be progressed toward over time, not just lept straight to all at once. For example, I have recently written on my blog that capitalism is not yet historically outmoded and still has a basically positive world-historic role to finish playing out. To that end, while I'm open to socialist experiments in the here and now (such as what one sees in many Venezuelan communities right now), it's my opinion that they should be regarded as simply that: experiments with what is possible in the here and now, not as something that's likely to succeed. In my personal opinion, the tech revolution the world is undergoing must reach a more advanced stage before a sustained system of socialism will become both possible and inevitable because it is the tech revolution's capacity to eliminate the problem of production shortages and scarcity that plagued earlier socialist experiments that renders socialism the inevitable course of the future.


First of all, definitely not every libertarian shares that permissive attitude toward other systems. Many libertarians here have, for example, expressed a particular admiration for Barry Goldwater, who believed in nuking the Vietnamese rebels for being communists.

You've switched from economic systems to political systems. My claim concerned economic systems, that a libertarian anarchocapitalist system is open to people forming communities of any economic sort, that Marxists would not be open to that liberty.

Goldwater was repeating what military experts said at the time.



As to whether or not Marxists might be okay with the continuation of capitalism, serious Marxists might not be willing to permit capitalists to run everything "as they see fit", no

It seems you cannot conceive of a liberty where someone doesn't run everything. Marx couldn't either.


but it's not like there's no historical precedent for Marxist-run governments permitting the operation of market forces.....

Indeed, when the Soviet Union realized they could not solve the economic calculation problem, they looked to free markets in the West and their prices to set policy.

That didn't work too well either because those prices were set by Americans and Europeans who naturally have different values and valuations than Russians.



In my personal opinion, the tech revolution the world is undergoing must reach a more advanced stage before a sustained system of socialism will become both possible and inevitable because it is the tech revolution's capacity to eliminate the problem of production shortages and scarcity that plagued earlier socialist experiments that renders socialism the inevitable course of the future.

Who's Afraid of the Workers' Revolution? (http://fee.org/the_freeman/detail/whos-afraid-of-the-workers-revolution)


...Well, this shift is precisely what seems to be taking place — not through socialist upheaval or policy mandates but through the advancement of markets themselves. Economic productivity and exchange are increasingly happening peer to peer, thanks to technological innovations.
Do we find the opponents of traditional capitalism now celebrating? Far from it. Apparently you can’t make these people happy.
I offer as evidence a viral piece that appeared on the site Jacobinmag.com, the digital version of the magazine Jacobin, which describes itself as “a leading voice of the American left, offering socialist perspectives on politics, economics, and culture.”...

...“Uber is part of a new wave of corporations that make up what’s called the ‘sharing economy,’” writes Avi Asher-Schapiro in the strangely titled article “Against Sharing.”
“The premise is seductive in its simplicity: people have skills, and customers want services. Silicon Valley plays matchmaker, churning out apps that pair workers with work. Now, anyone can rent out an apartment with AirBnB, become a cabbie through Uber, or clean houses using Homejoy.”
So far, so good. But then the writer dives deep into the ideological thicket: “under the guise of innovation and progress, companies are stripping away worker protections, pushing down wages, and flouting government regulations.”

...As for pushing down wages, about whose wages are we talking? Such innovations might indeed reduce wages among the established players. This outcome is why labor unions hate them....

...“At its core,” he writes, “the sharing economy is a scheme to shift risk from companies to workers.”...

...Asher-Schapiro is more or less correct in his conclusion: “there’s nothing innovative or new about this business model. Uber is just capitalism, in its most naked form.” And that is precisely what is so wonderful about it, in contrast to the mercantilist, monopolistic, corporatist, State-managed systems of enterprise that have been common for the last 100 years.
What’s strange is why left idealism does not welcome this development but rather condemns it. I find this mystifying, as bizarre as the opposition of the socialist left to Walmart, which has brought remarkable products to the “workers and peasants” at ridiculously low prices, and to fast food, which has made a glorious diet instantly obtainable through a window at prices that are unthinkably low and falling all the time.

No matter how much capitalism develops in the direction of direct worker control and individual sovereignty, reducing the role of large-scale enterprises and monopolies, the socialists still complain with the old bromides of exploitation while calling for government to crack down. So much for revolution. It’s the digital-age capitalists who have recaptured the revolutionary idealism that socialists long ago set aside.

[Mister D]

(Incidentally, libertarianism as a political movement does seem to ooze the whole sleazebag / macho-man type of image. I mean a study by Pew Research from a couple years back found that 60% of all ideological libertarians in America are men, which made libertarianism the single most lopsidedly male political grouping. There are reasons why, you know?)

60% of libertarians are male. Ergo, misogyny? Can someone explain the logic here?

[IMPress Polly]

Seriously? Just because Ethereal brought this ancient thread up as bait elsewhere? I've long since apologized for this thread and am moving on whether you do or not.

[Green Arrow]

I forgot this thread was even a thing.

[Hal Jordan]

I forgot this thread was even a thing.
Green Arrow, I'm upset with you. Why didn't you tell me about this thing way back when? This is my hometown that was being talked about here. I also looked them up, and their current location is across the street from where my mom cut hair for years...

[Green Arrow]

@Green Arrow (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=868), I'm upset with you. Why didn't you tell me about this thing way back when? This is my hometown that was being talked about here. I also looked them up, and their current location is across the street from where my mom cut hair for years...

I didn't know about it when we were still in MO, is why :tongue:

[Hal Jordan]

I didn't know about it when we were still in MO, is why :tongue:

But still, the second Joplin comes up in an article, you should let me know... :P

[donttread]

Libertarians,

Are you tired of being emasculated by sissies? Are you in the market for hot godly chicks who know their place? Do you want to fight for your right to party? Are you looking for a God who expects nothing of you and a pastor who owns an in-home bar but not a Bible? Are you wondering if there's a church out there with your moral fiber?

If you answered "yes" to these questions, then just one more remains: Do you have the balls to worship at Ignite: America's manliest church? (http://www.vocativ.com/culture/religion/heath-mooneyham-ignite/?utm_source=digg&utm_medium=email) Come on, don't be a wuss! Join now and you could win a brand new assault rifle absolutely free! :wink:

Finally a church I can get behind

[Chris]

Raised from the dead again!

[Peter1469]

amen

[Green Arrow]

Raised from the dead again!

Cana you not feela da powa of de Lawd?

[Chris]

http://i.snag.gy/K3BP0.jpg

[Hal Jordan]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11500&stc=1

[Ivan88]

Mooneyham argues that God created sex and married Christians should be having as much of it as possible.
“It’s a gift and it’s beautiful and it’s pleasurable, but we’ve demonized it,” he says. Many spouses find themselves unsatisfied as a result, which tempts them toward adultery, pornography or other carnal sins.

Well, he's right on this issue. Thanks Polly for posting this thread.

Interesting avatar you have Polly.
http://thepoliticalforums.com/image.php?u=399&dateline=1418730346
"She and Tim attended a Pentecostal church for years, where her platinum blond hair, nose ring and Marvel comics T-shirts didn’t go over so well. They found a home in Ignite. “It was life-changing to walk through those doors,” she says.
“I was given a freedom that I never had before. A freedom from religion. A freedom to grow in Christ.”"

Mooneyham "...tried out a few gigs as a youth pastor, but he found the churches spiritually stifling. “I hated the person I had to become,” he says. “I was this full-blown religious asshole. It wasn’t me.”

"He bristled at what he thought were a bunch of bullshit rules he was asked to follow. “Bro, it was the boringest thing I’ve ever been a part of,” he says. And he resented what he perceived as hypocrisy among the practitioners, who would don their best Sunday faces but act differently throughout the week."