The key plank in libertarianism, is non-aggression. Do you disagree with this? Jesus, didn't believe in physical coercion, he didn't believe in violent aggression, and many facets of his teaching, are compatible if not explicitly identical to rational libertarian conclusions, from that non-aggression principle. But ignore what you call my syllogism. Let's discuss the case made in the article. Do you have any particular issues with the points the author raised?
Hmmm, i think jesus would be shocked at how bush gets us into iraq and at the same time saying god told him to
Just staying with your logic, if we accept that Jesus "didn't believe in physical coercion, didn't believe in violent coercion," and we accept this is shared by a libertarian philosophy, to say, "therefore," Christ was a libertarian is ludicrous, on the face of it. By this logic, any person who "didn't believe in physical coercion, didn't believe in violent coercion" would necessarily be a libertarian. Flawed. Regarding your article cited, I've already mentioned a principle flaw of the premise, a couple of times. Please see above. Beyond this general distortion, there are many specific points in the article which don't bear Christ's life out, and these really come from the flawed attempt to force the life of the historical Christ into the cage of a social philosophy, from your article, "a political theory for organizing civilized society." The article is claptrap. For example, in libertarianism, the "Tax Man" is evil incarnate - a class unto himself in deserving opprobrium. Or, from the article, The language imputes a class apart to a people for whom Christ felt the same way he apparently felt for all humanity. It is simply ridiculous, since Christ's concern was patently not the material concerns of civil society, and he certainly didn't somehow set tax collectors apart as "the worst of these bad actors." His words make it quite clear all are sinners, and none are good: But the author would distort the message to fit his theory of Jesus, the libertarian. So much more. I am sorry to say, DP has been loading slowly (egregiously so) for me tonight, and I will have to return to it later.
It looks like some people just don't "get" libertarianism. After living a life of what must have been total obedience and dependence on the state, I guess it's not that easy to open one's mind to new (old) ideas. Shame. So, anyone else agree that Jesus had a libertarian philosophy?
Provided. Please see posts #46, 50, 56, 58, 64. And it's just a start. I suppose railing all others are just statist borgs, who just can't "get" libertarianism, well - I guess for some folks that probably is just easier than actually dealing with substance. Guerilla's usual, regretfully, in my experience. Reading through the thread, it is easy to see why this article was embraced, because it is propaganda that fits a particular worldview. For instance, -is absolutely unsupported by the words of the historical Christ. It seems to me, from the words below, quite the opposite. Forget about earning a living. Forget about the world, in fact. Place your mind on the Father, get rid of all of your possessions, and prepare for the "real" life, after incarnation in the flesh; doing so, you will have what you need, as the Father will provide: Christ just didn't care about the material world. It wasn't his mission. To try to squeeze that mission into a material philosophy, "a political theory for organizing civilized society," as the article indicates, is flatly ridiculous, by any reasonable standard, it seems to me. Oh, and Hope it's OK if this atheist goes to the Gospel itself to discuss what Christ was, and wasn't about. A former preacher, in early life, I continue to marvel at the example of Christ's message of compassion and selflessness.