Religion has no place in politics!

[WIP]

In terms of understanding how our universe and the how the physical world works, science is our best tool. Spirituality is something that cannot be described/analyzed by science, and is completely subjective to the viewer. Religion and spirituality to me should be personal and that's it. If it works for you, then keep with it.

When it comes to how people find meaning and purpose in life, these are subjective and personal by definition; so I would agree that it is offensive to be faced with fundamentalists who think everyone needs their explanation. But, I can't help thinking that new atheists like Dawkins are fundamentalist naturalists, since they think that because they find all they need from science, everybody should and nobody should need supernatural explanations.

[WIP]

I am no fan of Dawkins. His science is impeccable and he's certainly one of the major biological theorists of the last thirty or forty years, but he's found a new career as a polemicist, picking fights even with groups that in fact have no issue with science in general.

That being said, you can put it all down, but humanity has yet to develop a better methodological framework for gaining knowledge than science. Just because Dawkins can be a prick hardly impugns science. Science shouldn't be a religion, but neither can it simply be discounted.

Aside from post-modernists, I don't think anyone discounts science, but that doesn't mean that science can answer every question. Some questions fall outside of the realm of science. I don't think science will tell us what life is all about.

Other than the name, social darwinism shares virtually nothing in evolutionary theory. In fact, it like Nazi eugenics, denies one of Darwin's key points, namely variation is key to survival All the social darwinists, eugenicists and the like actively denied that, they believed absurd things like tainting of the species by letting weaker individuals breed. The key to success in any species isn't limiting the variation to keep the bad traits out, but having as much variation as possible, to ensure a greater likelihood of the species as a whole making it through. Look at endangered populations, there's a point at which a population's genetic diversity will drop so low that survivability becomes questionable. That's likely what happened to Neandertals, pushed to the margins of their old stalking grounds, and in the final days, literally pushed to the geographical brink on Gibraltar, they simply died out.

I wasn't referring to the Nazis, or the practice of eugenics in America. My point is that Sam Harris made the claim that science, specifically neuro-science, is reaching a stage of development where it can start answering moral questions. But he is making a lot of assumptions that what's best in a scientific approach to ethics will lead straight to the liberal, secular beliefs he advocates.

I brought up the basic principles of social darwinism because Harris makes the assumption that there is a scientific reason for universal ethics, or what's best for the vast majority of people. Harris may be a utilitarian, but can't get there just by using science! That was the reason why David Hume presented the Is - Ought problem as a caution against claiming to derive a statement of principles solely from a statement of facts. If we were to just apply the principles of natural selection to questions of ethics, we don't find a reason to expand our circle of concern to universally applied ethics.

[Shwa]

That was the reason why David Hume presented the Is - Ought problem as a caution against claiming to derive a statement of principles solely from a statement of facts.

Excellent point, which leads me to understand 'politics' as a human social enterprise that overlaps between two spheres of human life - the private and the public. I cannot think of a situation in these modern times where a person can completely divorce their private and public lives, especially when it comes to those elements that inform their morals and ethics. Even with the most impressive of PR spin machines, private stuff gets out despite any public performance. In fact, it is an industry of sorts.

So the other side of the question is then, should we - as the public - disallow, ignore or otherwise minimize any religious undertones to another's political peformance?

[ToadBrother]

Aside from post-modernists, I don't think anyone discounts science, but that doesn't mean that science can answer every question. Some questions fall outside of the realm of science. I don't think science will tell us what life is all about.

Yes, some questions do. And scientists know perfectly well the type of questions that can't be answered. Dawkins and Hitchens are hardly breaking new ground anyways, materialists have been around for a while. Obviously, at the root level, I agree with them. I honestly don't think the sorts of questions that are usually held up as being beyond science are in fact sensible questions, but that's my personal belief, and hardly one I want to force on anyone else. As long as you're not trying to make me attend Communion once a year or anything like that, then I have no interest in conversions. Vive et vivant, live and let live, that's my motto.

My biggest problem with Hitchens and Dawkins isn't that religion is non-rational, I think most religious people would admit that to one extent or another. It's the painting of the widest possible brush I find dishonest and more troubling, deliberately prejudicial. This idea that religions, or at least the Abrahamic religions, are inherently violent, misogynistic, etc. strikes me as a rather bigoted point of view, coupled with the superiority that they are atheists. It's anti-religionism at its most infantile, and in Dawkins' case, because of his long career as a scientist of some renown, I think it's irresponsible, and does science no favors.

[maple_leafs182]

So the other side of the question is then, should we - as the public - disallow, ignore or otherwise minimize any religious undertones to another's political peformance?

Politics is pointless, it is just peoples opinions.

We should be applying the scientific method to solve our problems.

Politicians do not know how to solve problems.

[Shwa]

Politics is pointless, it is just peoples opinions.

We should be applying the scientific method to solve our problems.

Politicians do not know how to solve problems.

"...what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." - Principal from Billy Madison, 1995

Edited June 22, 2010 by Shwa

[Natchuck]

give it 30 yrs tops, atheists are the fastest growing demographic in Canada estimates are 20-30% of the population or 6-10,000,000 Canadians, exact numberss are hard to pin because people are guarded about their opinions on lack of belief ...among teens atheists are equal in in number to Catholics and outnumber protestants and all other religious beliefs combined...between 1991 and 2001 Christians grew in number by 1.5%, atheists by 37.7%...in ten year atheists will make up the largest single demographic in Canada

by 2050 religion will be a non-factor in Canadian politics...

Pretty optimistic, but Let's hope you are right

[maple_leafs182]

"...what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." - Principal from Billy Madison, 1995

Know what politics is, it is theater to keep the masses entertained and to make it look like we are actually doing something. It is similar to wrestling, they use emotion to control how we feel.

Politics solves no actual problems.

War, poverty and disease are true problems. All other problems like economic or banking problems are artificial problems.

As for laws, they do not actually solve problems. Laws are what we use when we do not have a solution to set problem.

A lot of crime comes as a result of poverty. If we just solved poverty we could drastically lower crime rates, but that can never be accomplished in a monetary based economy. In order to solve poverty we would need to create an abundance of the essentials and we all know that abundance is not profitable, scarcity is.

Their is no such thing as a evil person, they became who they are as a result of the conditioning they have received threw out their life. I am positive that if we gave everyone easy access to the necessities of life, we would act a lot different to this planet and each other then how we act now. Human nature is a lie, it is how we are nurtured that determines who we become.

[bloodyminded]

Their is no such thing as a evil person, they became who they are as a result of the conditioning they have received threw out their life. I am positive that if we gave everyone easy access to the necessities of life, we would act a lot different to this planet and each other then how we act now. Human nature is a lie, it is how we are nurtured that determines who we become.

Actually, that is a bit of an old, and discredited view. The reason there is a "nature vs. nurture" debate at all is that both are fundamentally important, and become intertwined. Human nature is very real.

I have an inborn capacity for violence; that is nature. If I had grown up differently, or had had more traumatic incidents happen to me, I might exercise that (innate) capacity more freely; that is nurture.

(This is no doubt a bit of a simplification, but is still broadly true.)

[WIP]

Their is no such thing as a evil person, they became who they are as a result of the conditioning they have received threw out their life. I am positive that if we gave everyone easy access to the necessities of life, we would act a lot different to this planet and each other then how we act now. Human nature is a lie, it is how we are nurtured that determines who we become.

It is unfortunate that discoveries made in brain function are almost completely ignored by mainstream media...which has almost totally scrapped any science news coverage; but the nature/nurture debate is pretty much resolved by the people who study the brain and how the brain creates mind.

In a nutshell nature and nurture are intrinsically linked and cannot be separated. Even in the womb, a fetus does not develop according to a set program of genetic codes, but instead, genes are expressed or activated depending on environmental pressures. This happens in how the body develops, including the brain.

Back when Philip Rushton and the writers of the "Bell Curve" created the last major flap on whether people's intelligence is based on nature vs. nurture, they were about the last in a series of serious scientific researchers who were arguing that genes are destiny. Now we know that a baby could have Einstein potential and be denied if the growing embryo and fetus is constantly bombarded by stress hormones from the mother, or the mother has poor diet and/or substance abuse problems. Even after birth, the baby's brain continues to grow and specialize, and connect a range of neurons via dendrite nerve bundles. The child's intelligence is going to be skewed by diet, availability of good schools, and how mother and father, and other siblings interact, especially how much they value reading and education. And there are likely a load of other factors I can't think of at the moment -- point being that the environment will determine how that genetic potential develops right through childhood and adolescence. Before I forget, I should note that there are many different categories of intelligence; and the ones we especially value: math and language skills are not the end all and be all on the subject. It's worth mentioning that Einstein himself was likely at least somewhat autistic and considered mentally deficient until early adulthood, when his unique mind was able to put his extraordinary problem-solving skills to good use.

Now, when it comes to evil; it is likely that what we perceive as evil -- a person who is psychopathic or sociopathic, is described by some neuroscientists as someone with low "emotional intelligence." Briefly, brain scans of most men reveal the presence of what's been dubbed "the Warrior Gene" -- MAOA gene (it is also common in women BTW), which is correlated highly with aggression.

Can Your Genes Make You Murder?

They've tested some 30 criminal defendants, most of whom were charged with murder. They were looking for a particular variant of the MAO-A gene — also known as the warrior gene because it has been associated with violence. Bernet says they found that Waldroup has the high-risk version of the gene.

"His genetic makeup, combined with his history of child abuse, together created a vulnerability that he would be a violent adult," Bernet explains.

Over the fierce opposition of prosecutors, the judge allowed Bernet to testify in court that these two factors help explain why Waldroup snapped that murderous night.

"We didn't say these things made him become violent, but they certainly constituted a risk factor or a vulnerability," Bernet says.

Bernet cited scientific studies over the past decade that found that the combination of the high-risk gene and child abuse increases one's chances of being convicted of a violent offense by more than 400 percent. He notes that other studies have not found a connection between the MAO-A gene and violence — but he told the jury that he felt the genes and childhood abuse were a dangerous cocktail.

"A person doesn't choose to have this particular gene or this particular genetic makeup," Bernet says. "A person doesn't choose to be abused as a child. So I think that should be taken into consideration when we're talking about criminal responsibility."

The brain scans have shown that the amygdala and cingulate cortex regions of the brain, which are involved in the perception and regulation of emotion, were significantly smaller in men and women with the L variant. -- A brain primed for violence?

The significance is that the amygdala is responsible for the production of most our neurochemicals associated with emotions, and stores long term memories based on emotional content; and the cingulate cortex, which is responsible for many functions such as error detection, conflict resolution and volition -- that are considered key components of conscious experience. If these regions are underdeveloped, it could explain both, the extreme level of stimulation to achieve a reward, and the lack of concern for consequences of an action.

Psychopaths' Brains Wired to Seek Rewards, No Matter the Consequences

"Psychopaths are often thought of as cold-blooded criminals who take what they want without thinking about consequences," Joshua Buckholtz, a graduate student in the Department of Psychology and lead author of the new study, said. "We found that a hyper-reactive dopamine reward system may be the foundation for some of the most problematic behaviors associated with psychopathy, such as violent crime, recidivism and substance abuse."

Okay, now that we've figured out a lot about the reasons for people who are violent and evil, we end up with physical determinants that have largely made them what they are. The NPR story notes that a judicial system can't function if no one is responsible for their crimes. The dilemma for the court that tried Bradley Waldroup was whether evidence from brain scans presented by his defense could absolve him of responsibility for his crimes. The court ruled that it did not, and he received a death sentence, which is under appeal. An appeal may make note of the fact that persons who are considered too intellectually mentally deficient to comprehend the consequences of their actions, cannot be given the death penalty; but does Waldroup's lack of "emotional intelligence" qualify as making him too mentally impaired to comprehend his crimes?

The big problem is that our whole criminal justice system is built upon an antiquated premise of Free Will -- except for the insane and mentally retarded, it is presumed that everyone else has complete contra-causal free will to act in a given situation. But this whole free will concept that is wrapped in the old way of thinking -- that our minds are separate and able to act independently to direct our bodies, is something that has been undone by modern discoveries about how the brain creates mind. Our whole system of ethics, especially judicial ethics needs to get up to speed. But, the general public needs to know about this also.

Not everyone with the L variant, or the A variant, becomes a criminal BTW, but it should be noted that these people who need high levels of excitement, and are relatively uninhibited by concern over consequences, often find themselves going to extremes seeking a rush. They are attracted to the most dangerous hobbies...and the most dangerous jobs. It's worth considering that many of the elite super soldiers who volunteer for the most intense and dangerous duties would likely show the same traits as the psychopathic criminal. Take them out of the war zone and bring them home to suburbia, and you better start worrying about how they will settle back into civilian life. And our modern ethos of eternal war that has returned to lionizing the warrior, is creating a climate to reward the most dangerous men in society.

Edited July 2, 2010 by WIP

[bloodyminded]

Not everyone with the L variant, or the A variant, becomes a criminal BTW, but it should be noted that these people who need high levels of excitement, and are relatively uninhibited by concern over consequences, often find themselves going to extremes seeking a rush. They are attracted to the most dangerous hobbies...and the most dangerous jobs. It's worth considering that many of the elite super soldiers who volunteer for the most intense and dangerous duties would likely show the same traits as the psychopathic criminal. Take them out of the war zone and bring them home to suburbia, and you better start worrying about how they will settle back into civilian life. And our modern ethos of eternal war that has returned to lionizing the warrior, is creating a climate to reward the most dangerous men in society.

It's interesting; I saw a program a while back in which a psychologist was interviewing a convict, a man who had been a notorious and particularly ruthless hitman for a criminal organization. The psychologist concluded that the "Iceman," as we was called, was a kind of perfect storm of genetic and environmental factors. He told the Iceman that people like him often became highly-prized members of society, doing work that demanded real fearlessness.

[maple_leafs182]

Actually, that is a bit of an old, and discredited view. The reason there is a "nature vs. nurture" debate at all is that both are fundamentally important, and become intertwined. Human nature is very real.

I have an inborn capacity for violence; that is nature. If I had grown up differently, or had had more traumatic incidents happen to me, I might exercise that (innate) capacity more freely; that is nurture.

(This is no doubt a bit of a simplification, but is still broadly true.)

You have an inborn capacity for violence, that is nature...

I think you were born in a world based on scarcity, from that you are forced to compete with others and from that competition comes violence.

point being that the environment will determine how that genetic potential develops right through childhood and adolescence.

And that is nurture correct, where does nature come into play.

Anyways my whole point was that the reason why the world is full of corruption, poverty, pollution and war is because of the monetary based economy. We could eradicate all the corruption in government and business in the world and it would only be a matter of time before it corrupts again. It is this system based on profit that can't afford to have morals.

We keep thinking politics will solve our problems, it never has and never will.

Socialism, capitalism, democracy, communism, they are all doomed to fail.

This entire planet needs a good shaking.

Try not eating for two days, chances are your stomach will hurt and you will begin to feel sick. Just try to feel the pain of others. People are not meant to live like that.

[TheLastCanadian]

Religion has no place at all public institutions. Government, law, schools and all other institutions run in the public interest must remain secular. If we begin to allow religion into any public sphere, we see the unparalleled evils of this age.

In Government? We see theocracy, the empowerment of individuals to commit the worst evils of their holy books and bring the hatred of a faith's enemies against them without second thought. This is the single greatest evil we face in this modern age. The modern example: Iran, with its leadership's unmitigated hatred of all things free and right in this world.

Law? We see inequality and total enslavement to the edicts of a book. If one religion is given precedence, others will want the same. After this, there will only be religious law, as they will complain about the discrimination of normal law against their religious edicts, or invoke the false divinity of their Gods to justify their barbaric systems. Eventually, we will all be held under the oppressive hand of religious fascists, with no escape. The modern example: The push for Sharia law.

School? We see the most criminal folly of them all. Indoctrination of youth before they have understanding, which is no better than the Hitlerjugend. This is the second greatest evil we have in the modern age. Poisoning a child to believe before they can understand what it is they believe in, then keeping them from exposure to any contradictory sources so they are enslaved by their God is unacceptable. I support the right to freedom of religion, but never before the freedom of choice based on proper investigation. The modern example? Communes of the different groups.

We tread a fine line with religious tolerance, and it does not take much to slip. Iran is the primary example of this.

If we do not maintain secularism, the sole guardian of all human morality and all that is right in this world, we will fall into a dark age never before seen, where human life is worthless. Doesn't hurt that your God tells you to kill him either, simply by virtue of his lack of belief in your faith.

I'm an atheist, and I support the right to freedom of religion. But we must never, for all that is good in this world, allow it to supersede the rights of others and this life.

That's my stance on religion in government, and I would say the world.

It is private, and so long as it never interferes with the rights of others, it should be allowed. But in the institutions listed, it can do nothing else. This is why it must be barred from them now, and for all time to come, so long as humanity wishes to exist.

Edited July 4, 2010 by TheLastCanadian

[Remiel]

If we do not maintain secularism, the sole guardian of all human morality and all that is right in this world, we will fall into a dark age never before seen, where human life is worthless.

Dude, worldwide theocracy has been done before. Humanity survived, and human life was not thought of as " worthless " .

[Bonam]

Try not eating for two days, chances are your stomach will hurt and you will begin to feel sick. Just try to feel the pain of others. People are not meant to live like that.

Yeah, they aren't meant to live like that. You know what people are "meant" to do when they can't get enough food? They are meant to starve and die. That's what happens to any other animals that can't find enough food as well, and humans are no different.

[ToadBrother]

Yeah, they aren't meant to live like that. You know what people are "meant" to do when they can't get enough food? They are meant to starve and die. That's what happens to any other animals that can't find enough food as well, and humans are no different.

Your Libertarian leanings are coloring your view of things. Humans rarely live as singular isolates. We are a communal social species, not lonesome predators who live or die by their hands alone. A single human dying of starvation in a society of plenty is not natural, it's a sign of social breakdown.

[maple_leafs182]

Your Libertarian leanings are coloring your view of things. Humans rarely live as singular isolates. We are a communal social species, not lonesome predators who live or die by their hands alone. A single human dying of starvation in a society of plenty is not natural, it's a sign of social breakdown.

Exactly, something that we are doing is wrong.

As for as I can tell it is the monetary based economy is the biggest problem in society.

It creates many of the social problems we have today...wars, poverty, pollution and much of the street crime.

Those problems will never go away until we change the how the economy is structured. Our social problems are all technical not political.

And if you guys still think a monetary based economy is just excellent, watch America slip into depression, we will see food riots and tax revolts, all because of the monetary based economy.

[Shwa]

Exactly, something that we are doing is wrong.

As for as I can tell it is the monetary based economy is the biggest problem in society.

It creates many of the social problems we have today...wars, poverty, pollution and much of the street crime.

Those problems will never go away until we change the how the economy is structured. Our social problems are all technical not political.

And if you guys still think a monetary based economy is just excellent, watch America slip into depression, we will see food riots and tax revolts, all because of the monetary based economy.

And what sort of riot-avoiding economy would you have us create? And, just as importantly, how shall we transition ourselves from this riotous and revolting monetary economy into this new one?

I am just trying to find out if you are a Stoic, a Buddhist, a Radical or a mixture of all of them to some degree.

[Bonam]

Your Libertarian leanings are coloring your view of things. Humans rarely live as singular isolates. We are a communal social species, not lonesome predators who live or die by their hands alone. A single human dying of starvation in a society of plenty is not natural, it's a sign of social breakdown.

The humans dying of starvation are not those living in societies of plenty.

[Oleg Bach]

THE BEST PARTS OF RELIGION DOES HAVE A PLACE IN POLITICS..JUST SORT OUT THE GARBAGE AND KEEP THE GOOD STUFF...BUT- NO ONE IS SMART ENOUGH TO FIGURE THAT OUT - SO THEY SEEK TO DESTROY ALL RELIGION AND REPLACE IT WITH SECULAR CORPORATISM. WELCOME TO THE MACHINE THAT THWARTS ALL THAT IS GOOD AND INTELLIGENT.

[ToadBrother]

The humans dying of starvation are not those living in societies of plenty.

In general true, but that's largely because of directly funded programs (ie. welfare programs) or indirectly funded programs (via a tax-free status like churches). It's no different than it was in Roman times. Having a large number of people lacking for food is a guarantee of social breakdown. The Republic, and later the Emperors, didn't feed the people of the city of Rome out of the goodness of their heart (well, maybe some did), but because when there were food shortages, there were riots of a very ugly nature. It was essentially the same principle that lead to the Poor Laws and have carried over into the institutions most, or more to the point all industrialized economies have created. Having a hungry underclass is a very bad thing, one that any society that hopes to exist over the long term cannot abide.

The last time the West really saw a sink-or-swim attitude towards a large impoverished underclass was in Ireland during the Potato Famine, when the British government withheld distribution of its vast corn and grain reserves, leading to the starvation of a million Irishmen and a diaspora of a million more. If there was ever a better argument against Libertarian notions that everyone is responsible for themselves and should not look to the state for aid, I can't think of it. I'd love someone like Ron Paul to explain how exactly a Libertarian government would have dealt with a massive famine like this.

[maple_leafs182]

The humans dying of starvation are not those living in societies of plenty.

We don't live in a society of plenty because we have a monetary based economy.

If it rained gold for 5 minutes everyone would fill their house with gold, if it continued to rain gold for 2 weeks people would be trying to get rid of all that gold. Scarcity is what makes something valuable.

The less of that commodity there is, the more the company can charge for it and the bigger profits the company can make. Profits are what drive the economy. We can't live in a society of plenty because it wouldn't be profitable.

[Bonam]

In general true, but that's largely because of directly funded programs (ie. welfare programs) or indirectly funded programs (via a tax-free status like churches). It's no different than it was in Roman times. Having a large number of people lacking for food is a guarantee of social breakdown. The Republic, and later the Emperors, didn't feed the people of the city of Rome out of the goodness of their heart (well, maybe some did), but because when there were food shortages, there were riots of a very ugly nature. It was essentially the same principle that lead to the Poor Laws and have carried over into the institutions most, or more to the point all industrialized economies have created. Having a hungry underclass is a very bad thing, one that any society that hopes to exist over the long term cannot abide.

I do not oppose the existence of Churches and other charities and recognize that they have a certain role to play in society.

The last time the West really saw a sink-or-swim attitude towards a large impoverished underclass was in Ireland during the Potato Famine, when the British government withheld distribution of its vast corn and grain reserves, leading to the starvation of a million Irishmen and a diaspora of a million more. If there was ever a better argument against Libertarian notions that everyone is responsible for themselves and should not look to the state for aid, I can't think of it. I'd love someone like Ron Paul to explain how exactly a Libertarian government would have dealt with a massive famine like this.

Ireland was an impoverished nation, made so to a large part by British policies towards Ireland. Without British interference, it is likely that such a terrible famine would never have happened, or that it could have been mitigated by purchasing food from other areas less affected by the potato blight. The "Libertarian solution" would have been simple: don't conquer, subjugate, and impoverish Ireland in the first place. More generally, in a Libertarian society, the "vast reserves of corn and grain" would never have been in the hands of a government to begin with.

[ToadBrother]

I do not oppose the existence of Churches and other charities and recognize that they have a certain role to play in society.

But you don't seem to recognize that even during the era where the Church was largely responsible for social services, it did so in large part because it owned feudal lands just like the state (the state being a more diluted entity during this period, but the point stands). In effect it was using its taxation powers to underwrite its charitable donations, making it a government (not really a branch of the jurisdictions in which it operated, because to one extent or another it had immunity from most local laws). The Medieval Church had considerably more power and more direct capacity to produce income because it was permitted largely the same rights as the landed nobility and gentry. In England, particularly under Edward VI and Elizabeth I, as the English Church was essentially made an organ of the state, by the 16th century we see the first Poor Laws. It didn't happen quite that simply, but the end of the Medieval Church in England also saw the erosion of that role of the Church, and it was now taken up by the state.

Even with your notion of churches, they're charitable works are essentially underwritten by great big grants from the taxpayer, thus allowing those churches to direct more of their incomes towards aiding the poor. However, those incomes are most certainly insufficient to hope to accomplish the role of the Medieval Church, as they enjoy almost none of the privileges of Feudal times. In short, the same problem faces modern governments that faced post-Medieval England and much earlier, Rome. Having large numbers of starving people who received no meaningful help would lead to severe social dislocation, crime, and ultimately undermine the society itself. In other words, welfare is the worst solution, except for all the rest.

Ireland was an impoverished nation, made so to a large part by British policies towards Ireland. Without British interference, it is likely that such a terrible famine would never have happened, or that it could have been mitigated by purchasing food from other areas less affected by the potato blight. The "Libertarian solution" would have been simple: don't conquer, subjugate, and impoverish Ireland in the first place. More generally, in a Libertarian society, the "vast reserves of corn and grain" would never have been in the hands of a government to begin with.

That's what I would expect from a Libertarian, much like Paul's "Well, a Libertarian state wouldn't have slaves". I'm asking what a Libertarian government would do if a region faced massive starvation and emigration. What I get is "we would never do that!" as if a Libertarian government and the state it ran would spring whole cloth from nowhere into existence.

And you wonder you guys are considered the useful idiots to Conservatism.

[Bonam]

But you don't seem to recognize that even during the era where the Church was largely responsible for social services, it did so in large part because it owned feudal lands just like the state (the state being a more diluted entity during this period, but the point stands). In effect it was using its taxation powers to underwrite its charitable donations, making it a government (not really a branch of the jurisdictions in which it operated, because to one extent or another it had immunity from most local laws). The Medieval Church had considerably more power and more direct capacity to produce income because it was permitted largely the same rights as the landed nobility and gentry. In England, particularly under Edward VI and Elizabeth I, as the English Church was essentially made an organ of the state, by the 16th century we see the first Poor Laws. It didn't happen quite that simply, but the end of the Medieval Church in England also saw the erosion of that role of the Church, and it was now taken up by the state.

Even with your notion of churches, they're charitable works are essentially underwritten by great big grants from the taxpayer, thus allowing those churches to direct more of their incomes towards aiding the poor. However, those incomes are most certainly insufficient to hope to accomplish the role of the Medieval Church, as they enjoy almost none of the privileges of Feudal times. In short, the same problem faces modern governments that faced post-Medieval England and much earlier, Rome. Having large numbers of starving people who received no meaningful help would lead to severe social dislocation, crime, and ultimately undermine the society itself. In other words, welfare is the worst solution, except for all the rest.

I know that you favor extensive use of historical analogies but the reality is that the world has changed substantially since the times you are talking about. A famine is not going to happen in a country like Canada or the USA in the 21st century, and not because of social programs like welfare, but because we produce a vast variety of different foods, each dependent on different factors, and many of the processes are extensively automated and employ technologies that did not exist in the past, and many can function adequately regardless of weather conditions in any given year. Moreover the quantities of food that we produce far far exceed our requirements for survival.

That's what I would expect from a Libertarian, much like Paul's "Well, a Libertarian state wouldn't have slaves". I'm asking what a Libertarian government would do if a region faced massive starvation and emigration. What I get is "we would never do that!" as if a Libertarian government and the state it ran would spring whole cloth from nowhere into existence.

What could such a state do? The state, in a Libertarian society, has minimal funding, sufficient only to provide a few specifically defined services, like law & justice, police, military, perhaps roads, etc. The people living in such a society should have more to begin with since not as much was taken away in taxes, that is the crux of the argument, because such a state simply would not have the resources to help people in the way you suggest, by design.

It would be the people's responsibility to prepare for such eventualities. If communities felt the need to create reserves for potential troubled times, they could do so on a smaller, local, level.

Remember, having a socialist/welfare state government does not magically create more food. If anything, less goods are produced when businesses are burdened by the taxation related to such forms of government. The only thing a socialist state can do in troubled times is to transfer food from one area to another, hoping to mitigate damage in the most severely affected areas, but adding extra hardships to more prosperous areas by doing so. In a more individualist society, if there was a famine, the excess food from more prosperous areas can still find its way to more severely affected areas, but in exchange for currency or for other goods, rather than by government decree.

Anyway, this isn't particularly relevant to modern advanced societies as I explained above.

And you wonder you guys are considered the useful idiots to Conservatism.

I'm defending a kind of Libertarian position in this thread but I'm not really a Libertarian. Also like I've said before, Libertarian ideas and those of "conservative" parties are increasingly diverging, because modern conservatives believe in big government no less than do modern liberals.