The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Libertarianism and Socialism

The following is the precursor that lead to this thread about Libertarianism and Socialism and any other form of government others wish to add to the discussion.

2 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by leveni on December 20, 2011 at 8:41am

Hi Glen,

People have to come to it rationally.

I guess that's pretty much what the law or a bill of rights should protect. A chance in life that allows us to think freely, regardless of whether we think rubbish or whether we think rationally. The law or a bill of rights should protect each individuals potential to think as they wish.

Do it in the middle east and parts of Africa today and it is a disaster.

It would be an interesting experiment. But in the Middle East, 'control over others' is an integral part of the culture, so liberties and freedom of thought (as we know it) would never be discussed by the masses.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on December 20, 2011 at 12:37pm

Here I thought that that is what the 1st amendment of the U.S does.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by leveni on December 20, 2011 at 8:19pm

Hi Susan,

Here I thought that that is what the 1st amendment of the U.S does.

It should, yes.

But I see a problem with the way the first amendment is written. In a previous post I wrote the following.

One problem with the English bill of rights is that because it mentions royalty, there is an assumption that royalty should exist.

I find a similar type of problem in the first amendment of the American Bill of rights. Because religion is mentioned in the bill of rights, there is an assumption that religion should exist.

If religion is explicitly mentioned in the constitution, then there is an assumption that there is some benefit in the existence of religion. Is there benefit in having freedom of speech? I'd say yes, right to assemble? yes, freedom of the press? yes. Because religion is mentioned in the Bill of rights, along with freedom of speech etc, does this mean religion is of the same type of benefit as freedom of speech?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on December 20, 2011 at 8:46pm

does this mean religion is of the same type of benefit as freedom of speech?

Yes, Just because you do't like it an it can be abused does not mean religion shouldn't exist. In other words, what you are asking the government to do, if police peoples thoughts with regards to one subject. When you do that you risk ALL thoughts being subject to government intervention.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by leveni on December 20, 2011 at 9:08pm

Hi Susan,

Yes, Just because you do't like it and it can be abused does not mean religion shouldn't exist. In other words, what you are asking the government to do, is police peoples thoughts with regards to one subject. When you do that you risk ALL thoughts being subject to government intervention.

I can see your point. And I agree with it, because people should be allowed to think as they wish. Be that religiously or otherwise.

My point is that no specific way of thinking should be included in any bill of rights.

Religious thinking is a specific way of thinking. So the US bill of rights is protecting a specific way of thinking. Why doesn't it also include 'scientific method' as a basis of thinking and a right that should be protected.

If it said freedom to be religious and/or non-religious, I could live with that. If the Bill of Rights is going to mention one group of people and ignore others then I think this is unfair. But if it acknowledges all groups in regards to a specific topic then that would be fair.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on December 20, 2011 at 9:13pm

You have bought the propaganda of the religious right that freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by leveni on December 20, 2011 at 9:32pm

You have bought the propaganda of the religious right that freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion.

Hehe, I see what you are saying.

And I agree with what the American Religious Right is saying. Not because of their propaganda, but because of the way the US bill of rights has been written.

Semantics can be a pretty powerful weapon. And the American Religious Right seem to be able to use semantics pretty well.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Susan Stanko on December 21, 2011 at 7:23am

You can't have freedom of religion without freedom from religion.

Permalink Reply by MCT on December 20, 2011 at 2:59am

"The impossible is just a statement relative to the current state of knowledge as I have showed you time and time again, In relation to the now violated law of conservation of mass."

-So, then, you must agree that it is possible 2+2=17.3, water can freeze at 10,000 C and that you have a tribe a dwarfs under your thumb nail. Because humans have been wrong about things is not a reason to think that laws necessary for thought are invalid.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by VeganApe on December 20, 2011 at 10:09pm

So, then, you must agree that it is possible 2+2=17.3, water can freeze at 10,000 C

So you think that the freezing temp of water is always the same?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MCT on December 20, 2011 at 11:31pm

Did I say that? So you think water can freeze at 10,000 degrees? And what about 2+2? Can that possibly equal -51.7?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by VeganApe on December 21, 2011 at 12:26am

That is a stupid retort, Waters phase diagram is actually quite complex as waters phase relationships between pressure and temp are complex. But other more simple liquids do display such dynamic changes in phase change points over large temp spans.