Tea Party: Why are libertarians and evangelicals so inseparable?

These ideas interest me. Please develop them.

Okay, this is weird. Please help me out on this: I don't know any Christians (everyone in my environment is vaguely spiritual at most, but usually plain atheistic, of the apathetic sort), and the only portrayals I ever saw of in-Christian tension were Ned Flanders reminding himself he should disinfect his hand after a handshake with a catholic, and that Captain Planet episode that was set in The Troubles, where people used "Catholics" and "Protestants" the same way Draco Malfoy uses "Potter" and "Weasley": you know it's supposed to be insulting, you just don't know how exactly.

Okay, now you're just rationalizing and you know it. I disagree with the Ninjas, this isn't even worth arguing.

The Quiet One. No OTT. No unfunny. No squick. No crusades. Harmless and clean.

Is it not worth arguing because its correct or because its wrong?

Actually, it's Not Even Wrong. Plus, Argumentum Ad Lapidem, also known as No. Just... No.

edited 14th Jul '11 3:43:36 PM by GoodGuyGreg

The Quiet One. No OTT. No unfunny. No squick. No crusades. Harmless and clean.

Sometimes, yes (though remember those megachurches are the descendants not of churches, but of huge, roadshow churches that took place in circus tents.) Other times, they're the crowd who build so many churches in one town that it can approach a 1:4 population ratio.

@Good Guy Greg: Read 4 lulz

Eric,

"one who supported Papal authority over all Christian" You mean, like, the international press? *keeps reading* Sheesh... Serious Business, much?

The Quiet One. No OTT. No unfunny. No squick. No crusades. Harmless and clean.

Me:

Eric:

The original sense is not still in use. [1]

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

You know, with that last post, and the general topic of the thread, I'm left wondering... are Panty And Stocking libertarian?

edited 14th Jul '11 4:23:15 PM by GoodGuyGreg

The Quiet One. No OTT. No unfunny. No squick. No crusades. Harmless and clean.

@GGG Just to explain the idea of modern Calvinism or neo-calvinism or whatever you want to call it:

Calvinism is the idea that salvation is predetermined. That is, an omniscient deity is going to know in advance who is saved and who is not saved. Where it comes into economics, is double predetermination. That is, if you're saved, then when said deity intervenes in the world, it's going to ensure that the people who are saved are going to also be successful.

The end result of this, is that the people who are not successful are also damned and should only not be helped, but should actively be punished for the "sin" of not being successful.

It actually has its roots in the MLM industry, to be honest, reading into that stuff is where I first read about this. Over the last decade and a half or so, it's gone way past a fringe belief, and it's pretty mainstream now. It's why, for example, the GOP are so hell-bent on looking for blood in terms of budget savings, with things like efficiency based savings being non-starters.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

^^^ Yeah, we left-anarchists originated the term, but that doesn't mean someone campaigning for unhealthy freedoms that would ultimately result in less freedom isn't also an anarchist/libertarian, just that they're a stupid one.

Eric,

edited 14th Jul '11 4:44:19 PM by EricDVH

There must be something missing in this syllogism, because I don't see how the conclusion follows from the premise. Successful in what? Financially? In crime? In surmounting challenges you give yourself and achieving a desired outcome?

please elaborate

"^^"? You talking to me? Well, yeah, I sure can see how the frenetic sexual promiscuity and Byronic Heroism promoted by the angel sisters could be unhealthy. Actually, it results from an Original Position Gambit (I found the YKTTW but why is the page gone?): you can only do that if you have angel-like resilience, stamina, immunity against STD's and pregnancy, etc.

edited 14th Jul '11 4:41:19 PM by GoodGuyGreg

The Quiet One. No OTT. No unfunny. No squick. No crusades. Harmless and clean.

Agh, no. Ninjas, when will they burn the dojos!?

Eric,

Well, in whatever they define as what they want to do. Generally they're talking about financial/business success of course.

For the second question, generally when we talk about budget cuts or whatever, what happens is that most of the cuts are based around becoming more efficient. That is, maybe holding off on upgrading the computer system, or more effective staffing or whatever. But one thing that has been said for this debate is that those savings don't count this time around. It's only "actual" cuts that count.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

What's an actual cut?

The Quiet One. No OTT. No unfunny. No squick. No crusades. Harmless and clean.

An actual cut would be saying, instead of getting 200 a week for unemployment you're now getting 150.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

No, surely that can't be an actual cut! It would have to be zero.

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

No True Cut?

The Quiet One. No OTT. No unfunny. No squick. No crusades. Harmless and clean.

Doma Doma, thanks for the info. I wish I could expect the hardcore freedom-lovin' Texazona gun nuts to tell the church-sponsored bedroom police to get off their damn lawn, but it's not happening.

Of course, the other problem is that the Objectivists, neoclassicals and monetarists (myself more or less in the latter camp, sometimes) tend to align with the Democrats these days, and the Barry Goldwater paleoconservatives are dead. So the only intelligent Republicans left are the Corrupt Corporate Executives and the neocons.

...oh yes, the neocons are still around, they're just hiding because they can't say anything without lining up with Obama. They'll pop right back up like weeds if Romney or Bachmann takes the White House.

woahwoahwoah, Objectivists are with the democrats?

I mean, their stance is essentially that to be moral, you must be hard-working and to never accept help and the government is inherently evil because it asks for help in protecting people via taxes and regulation. It is entirely anathema to the US Liberal standpoint which calls for higher taxation, proper regulation to keep products safe, and a safety net for all citizens to help in times of strife. The two are almost completely opposite.

edited 14th Jul '11 7:08:36 PM by Enkufka

Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry

Because they're not. It's a marriage of convenience, because the only thing they hate more than each other are the Left. The Tea Party, at its root, is anti-establishment, and both groups are dissatisfied with the establishment. The religious right thinks there's not enough Jesus, and the libertarians think there's not enough market.

They certainly can overlap.

"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom

Of course, there is often some tension among them. The Religious Right, for instance, often gets concerned for the libertarians' fondess for Randian-style thought.

Yep, the Objectivists prefer the Democrats to the Republicans. It is the official position of Leonard Paikoff, the supreme head honcho of the movement that it is immoral to not vote the straight Democratic ticket.

I imagine it's because Objectivists hate the Religious Right and the neocons even more than they do the liberals. (At least, this is me assuming there's any rhyme or reason to what's going on in Paikoff's head. The guy's as bad as Rand herself when it comes to dogmatism.)

Thread Hop, but there are two reasons:

1: Over the last century evangelical Christianity has seen shrinking influence in the urban and northern parts of the US, while it has remained strong in the southern and rural areas. Historically, the South has inherited a strong individualist attitude, and demographically, rural people tend to be more independent than urban people. So in part it's just an overlap of two unrelated value systems.

2: In recent years the Democrats have taken a number of positions on moral issues that evangelicals cannot support in good conscience. Since the GOP is the only party with power to stop the Democrats, evangelicals find themselves held hostage.

Taking me as an example, I'm not a fan of many Democratic policies, but the Republicans have their share of bad stuff as well (patriot act, anyone?). If it were not for the abortion issue, I'd probably go independent, but as long as what I consider a mass killing of innocent humans continues any pro-life candidate is going to have my support pretty much by default.

<><

ironic how that works for both parties. Most progressives wish the democrats would be more progressive..but then, iour choices are "waste a vote" or "vote democrat just to keep republicans out of power"

Yeah, that'll end well.

I'm a skeptical squirrel