On arriving at Libertarianism from a Quaker viewpoint.
I realise that I shall probably come in for some shtick for even mentioning any form of spiritual faith in the same breath as Libertarianism, Hey Ho!
One of my readers picked up on the fact that I said that I had arrived at Libertarianism from ‘a Quaker vantage point’ and has asked me to explain further. I could have done so in a private reply, but have decided to stick my head above the parapet. (Yet again).
I should define what I mean by spiritual faith first. It may have a different meaning to that employed by others, for the simple reason that such things are not defined in any book of rules within the Quaker fellowship. We arrive at our own personal definition.
I don’t know, for I have never met anyone who has travelled outside of our physical existence, that there is definitively a God. Some people, armed with the knowledge that there is no proof that God doesn’t exist, are happy to believe that He does, and follow their chosen religion. Others, armed with the knowledge that there is no proof that God does exist, are happy to call themselves Atheist, and denounce all religion. I struggle with the notion that an absence of proof either way means that I should join either one of the opposing camps.
I simply don’t know. I hope, I trust, I put it no higher than that, that mankind is not the highest form of existence in overall control of our planetary system. If mankind is, I would venture that we are in bigger trouble than we are capable of envisioning. I live my life on the basis that I shan’t know the answer to this question until I die – and until I do, I will assume that there may well be a God.
The Quaker fellowship doesn’t demand of me that I declare emphatically one way or the other my beliefs. There are no churches, no intermediaries, or ‘middle men’ as I refer to them, to demand that I renounce all other beliefs and publicly declare my allegiance – just a fellowship of other people very privately going about their business, living in a simple manner, trying their level best to do more good than harm. That seems to me an eminently sensible ‘insurance policy’ just in case we do have to account for ourselves one day.
A Quaker meeting is primarily in silence, a quiet dedicated hour or so set aside to reflect on how we think we have succeeded in our personal goal of ‘more good than harm’. The silence is occasionally broken by someone who feels that they have something to say, some insight that might be of use to others. There is no obligation to speak, no reason not to. There is no High Priest to tell us how we should live, or which rules to adhere to, no village elder to declare that this or that action will be condemned by this God or that God. Nor is there anyone specially commissioned to offer us a ‘get out of jail’ card if we have managed to cause more harm than good by one of our actions.
My ‘spiritual faith’ is entirely a matter for my conscience, my personal responsibility.
When I first ventured into the political bear pit, I was puzzled by the devotion of the party members – Left or Right. Conferences were held every year to decide on the party line, henceforth those who disagreed with the party line were liable to be vilified. It was almost as though they had threatened the very salvation of the rest of their chosen tribe.
You ‘were’ a Labour voter or a Conservative voter, and therefore this is what you believed. People arrived at this ‘belief’ through a process called ‘democracy’, the conference vote, and if 51% of them believed that Black was White – then the other 49% were forced to mouth the same supposition – and that was democracy on a good day!
I don’t want to be told what to think or what to do based on a man in a suit, regardless of which way round his collar is, holding up a piece of paper and saying ‘henceforth, this is what we believe’. I would prefer to make my own mind up on the basis of individual choices at a personal level.
That doesn’t make me a dyed in the wool individualist, who merely wants to get on with my life without outside interference, contributing nothing to my fellow man. I don’t hold with that notion of Libertarianism, which seems nothing more than a form of institutionalised selfishness that uses a misplaced understanding of the Libertarian label to excuse their egotism.
If I have time, money, knowledge, a spare bed for the night, even a pork chop, that is surplus to my requirements, then the Quaker principle of doing ‘more good than harm’ requires that I share it with someone who is in need – someone who is more vulnerable to the vagaries of physical existence than I am at that moment. It is perfectly possible to do that on a personal level – you don’t require a government edict to demand that you share your supper with a starving neighbour; human beings have been doing it for centuries.
Sometimes you need more than one person to give effective help to someone in need. People can and do act in concert without government intervention. There are those who will refuse to offer help when asked. So what? Let them live their individualistic existence. There are plenty of people who will help.
Many of the early Friendly Societies, groups of people who banded together to provide help and assistance for any of their number who fell on hard times, were of the Quaker belief. The idea that people can live together in peace and tolerance, mutually supportive of each other, without being ordered to do so, is one that sits easily with my beliefs.
The Blogosphere is a Friendly Society – I still say that even after recent experiences! – it can be mutually supportive, it can achieve far more collectively than any of us do individually. I christened it the Blog Society as opposed to Cameron’s ‘Big Society’. It should form the backbone of the Libertarian movement, for it allows all those who subscribe to it to step up to a call for help or ignore it at will, no vote required, no orders given.
There will be those who mock and sneer; there will be others who use the Blogosphere to write lengthy philosophical treatise on why their political movement is the one you should be following – but the ungoverned blogosphere is the perfect environment for the Libertarian movement to exist unfettered and to do ‘more good than harm’.
That is why I have nominated Andrew Withers as the new Libertarian leader, for I know that he will take the movement in a new direction, one which I believe will benefit all of us. A direction closer to the philosophy of the early Friendly Societies rather than the foul mouthed, vitriolic and destructive Anarchism that we have become associated with.
If you doubt that this is what the Libertarian movement has become associated with – then read some of the reports on the recent student riots, where the phrase Anarchist/Libertarian was freely bandied about by journalists. The two words have become interchangeable in many minds, aided and abetted by a MSM that is keen to see the status quo of Left/Right maintained.
Libertarianism is in desperate need of re-branding! The solution is in our own hands – we don’t need to be told what to do, we are Libertarians after all.
November 23, 2010 at 20:25
-
Wow, I pride myself on being quite objectionable sometimes, but that Claire
Khaw is poisonous, innit?
I’d rather share my planet with “parasites” and
“bastards”, then people like her. No, seriously, I would.
Claire, do you have any redeeming qualities which are not apparent?
- November 21, 2010 at 10:07
-
If you lash 100 times anyone having extra-marital sex then you won’t have
all those single mums who are a burden on the state, will you?
If you abolished child benefit you wouldn’t have parasites breeding
parasites for generation after generation, would you?
Britain is now a nation of bastards. Well, half of them anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khums
Go to page 88 for that horrifying statistic.
Britain has probably reached the point of no return.
- November 21, 2010 at 10:04
-
It may come as a surprised to many of you, but the Koran supports many
libertarian principles.
A 20% flat rate income tax sounds quite libertarian to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khums
- November 20, 2010 at 20:40
-
Oops. you got me there, Pericles!
But we live in strange times. I’m hoping that this chasing of funding in
difficult times is something that science will come to be very embarrassed
about in the future.
Belief unsupported by evidence? Am I guilty of
faith?
Bugger! You got me there alright.
(Slinks off, whistling casually. Turns corner, then runs away.)
Phooey.
- November 20, 2010 at 21:52
-
LOL ! Not that it’s a competition ; an interesting
discussion none the less.
ΠΞ
[Exit pursued by a raccoon]
- November 20, 2010 at 09:09
-
Pericles,
Occasionally a scientist tries to construct an evidence-based
alternative to the basic big bang notion. (Notably Fred Hoyle) Their attempts
generally meet with (amused) approval.
It remains bleedin’ obvious,
nevertheless. The measurements and logic are easy for anyone to follow.
Newton’s gravity was similarly easy to follow. It didn’t contradict any
holy writings, so was universally accepted. But it was eventually eclipsed
scientifically by Einstein’s version. This is difficult to follow, but gives
more accurate results in extreme conditions. Scientists judge theories by
results, not by whether they’re user-friendly or popular.
Most modern science is not obvious, though. There is such a lot of it now.
It’s easier to be amazed by the world and to imagine fairies, than to
personally check the entire trail of evidence.
I’ve checked the bits that interest me, and am reassured by the fact that
others are checking other bits.
The important point is that, unlike religion, science seldom excommunicates
mavericks or apostates. That’s why it progresses, and is able to reverse out
of dead-ends.
Those believers whose faith in a god stems from personal experience, have
nothing to offer me. They disagree about their various gods, so clearly most
of them have deluded themselves.
- November 20, 2010 at 16:04
-
As you, zaphod, I favour atheism ; our difference, I think,
lies in my acknowledged agnosticism (sc. ignorance).
“… unlike religion, science seldom excommunicates mavericks or
apostates. That’s why it progresses, and is able to reverse out of
dead-ends,” you say.
Not that I think the vast number of scientists would accept the terms
‘maverick’ and ‘apostate’ but I wonder whether you consider those that
question anthropogenic global warming to fall in to either category.
Perhaps you can predict how long it will take for members of the scientific
community that so vigorously promote the idea — and the politicians that
fund them with our money — to reverse out of this dead-end.
ΠΞ
- November 18, 2010 at 16:06
-
@annaraccoon2010 Libertarianism from an Islamic viewpoint is also a
possibility.
- November 18, 2010 at 14:35
-
God definitely exists, and there would be no morality without Him – despite
what certain humanists might want to believe. However, I have no time for
man-made organized religion. God is pure consciousness. He is not human. Not
only that, I doubt whether humans are particulary important to him. There are
billions of planets in the universe, with all kinds of creatures living on
them. Well, that’s what I reckon.
-
November 18, 2010 at 14:26
-
@annaraccoon2010 Glad to see you back
-
November 18, 2010 at 13:19
-
I was very confused when you disappeared, it took me a while to find out
why you had gone, I stopped looking to see if you would come back.
Quite by
accident I clicked on you within my favourites and you have reappeared, it
must have been divine providence!
Anyway so glad you are back, I don’t
always agree but you always make me think!
- November 18, 2010 at 12:15
-
The blogosphere would be a smaller, meaner, darker place without the likes
of Anna Raccoon to balance angry gits like me.
More power to your paw.
The
Penguin
- November 18, 2010 at 10:08
-
“I struggle with the notion that an absence of proof … means that I should
join either one of the opposing camps.”
You are an agnostic ; in fact because — as indeed you imply —
no-one has gathered evidence from beyond our physical existence we are all
agnostics : i.e. we do not know.
Ian R Thorpe makes the point neatly — both spiritually and temporally.
~ · ~
“I hope, I trust … that mankind is not the highest form of existence in
overall control of our planetary system.”
What makes you think mankind is in any wise in ‘control of our planetary
system’ ? Surely not the absurd faith of the environmentalist
movement in anthropogenic global warming and anthropogenic everything
else ? I suggest that the planetary and all other physical systems
(therefore the entire universe) are controlled not by man but by the laws of
physics — which one might call God or al-Lah or Yahweh or anything else.
~ · ~
SadButMadLad seems to confound faith and belief. Faith is not — nor
need it be — supported by evidence ; belief, such as the belief
that he behind you will catch you as you fall, is based on
evidence : experience, friendship, even contractual obligation or
the intriguing French law that requires one to go to the aid of one
periculo in mortis.
He’s dead right, however, to say that “[b]ig society decided on by … the
state is … still a big state doing all the decision making.” When the
need arises, people meet the need without the intervention of the state.
~ · ~
zaphod seems to contradict himself in saying, on the one paw, that
scientists seek to test hypotheses to destruction but, on the other, that the
big-bang theory is “bleedin’ obvious” (sc. beyond question). In fact
even the so called laws of physics are mere hypotheses that we’ve given up
trying to disprove.
~ · ~
I recall reading years ago in the works of Mary Baker Eddy, that, when she
was most in need, the Quakers were the ones that did not pass by on
the other side.
ΠΞ
- November 18, 2010 at 22:00
-
I was trying to confound faith and belief, though I was tired and it
probably didn’t come out right.
Though I do think it is faith to trust the person behind to catch you.
There is no evidence to say that the person will catch you the first time it
happens – especially if they are someone you don’t know.
-
November 18, 2010 at 22:15
-
Perhaps what we’re discussing here, then, is actually hope rather than
any form of belief.
Is belief conviction by the evidence (or by a misunderstanding
of the evidence) ; faith belief despite the evidence
(or lack of evidence) ?
ΠΞ
- November 19, 2010 at 08:59
-
The New Testament Greek word ελπις – translated into our word ‘hope’
– conveys certainty and expectation. Sadly, our sense of the word only
carries the idea of wishful thinking, so it’s a bum translation, but the
best we have in an equivalent word.
Hebrews 11:1 ‘…now faith is the
assurance of things hoped for, the evidence (substantiation) of things
unseen.’
The entire chapter of this NT letter revolves around
examples of those who had encounters with the Almighty and accepted his
promises; this was to remind the Jewish Christians that they had every
encouragement and reason to hang on through the hardest times.
-
November 19, 2010 at 20:32
-
Yes ; in antiquity ελπίς had a wide scope that included
fear.
ΠΞ
-
November 19, 2010 at 14:08
- November 18, 2010 at 10:03
-
I started life in the blogosphere with vague socialistic ideals, albeit
cynical towards and disillusioned by the Labour Party’s direction. I’ve been
an evangelical Christian for over 30 years, having personally experienced God
in ways which have only served to advance and confirm my confidence in the
Christian message – and Messenger. I’ve arrived at the position of anarchist
(in the constructive sense of the term, as with Obo’s position) – and I see
sufficient in Scripture to indicate to me that this is a reasonable and
biblical position to take. I therefore feel comfortable in the presence of
libertarians, since we all share a similar outlook. I won’t bore you my
theological reasons – unless anyone specifically requests it!
- November 18, 2010 at 09:00
-
I can’t remember how many times I have changed my mind in my lifetime. In
fact, I have been known to change it two or three times in the space of a
couple of hours.
But Planet Earth is a miracle to me, and I just can’t see
that happening by accident.
Nothing to be done about death, just do the best you can while you are
here.
-
November 18, 2010 at 08:24
-
This is probably one of the the best posts you have done- but then again I
am slightly biased.
-
November 18, 2010 at 03:10
-
Religion is not the problem and quite boring to the agnostic – which this
post wasn’t. It’s the rationalist fantasy that we can prove the existence of
god or not that leads to that horrible form of public authority when all we
have are internalist accounts on these matters. Science has shown a lot of
religious accounts are myth or fable, but there is no reason for religion not
to leave this ignorance behind.
- November 18, 2010 at 02:15
-
Keep posting Anna. Your careful words and your thoughtful analysis are an
inspiration to me, and I hope, many others.
On occassion you are also very funny too, which is never a bad thing.
- November 17, 2010 at 23:47
-
My definition of atheist:
I am convinced that there is no god. I’m not claiming “proof”. I don’t need
“proof” in order to be convinced. I know of no mystery that requires god as an
explanation, especially as god would be a much bigger mystery.
Ditto for Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and ogres under the bed, etc.
I could be wrong about any or all of them, but I seriously doubt it.
The only things that can be “proved” are Maths, and “I think, therefore I
am.” So we just base our lives on what we’re convinced of.
Others are convinced otherwise. I’m cool with that, except for those who
are convinced that I should follow rules dictated by their god, rules which
are not negotiable; or open to explanation or debate.
I like the sound of
Quakers though, Anna.
Ian R Thorpe- With a bit of inquiry, the basic big bang theory is bleedin’
obvious. It’s not complicated, just the doppler effect. Everything is clearly
moving apart, generally. The further it is, the faster it’s going. There’s
only one way of rewinding that into the past.
The fiddly details are informed speculation, constantly leading to more
careful measurement. Nobody needs to understand or believe in them unless they
want to spectate or join in the fun. There is no dogma. There will never be
“proof”. Of anything.
If your theory involves fairies, it probably won’t
convince many scientists, but try, by all means.
Sorry if this sounds humourless,
but scientists seldom actually claim to have “proof”. They only seek to test
their own theories to destruction, and sometimes they triumphantly succeed.
Show me a religion that does that!
- November 17, 2010 at 23:17
-
Faith is many things. You can have faith in a god. But you can also have
faith that someone behind you will catch you when you fall. Faith does not
necessarily religous faith. You can also have faith in a political creed.
It could be said that Communism (or any other poltical form) is a religon.
It has all the hallmarks of such. The saints (Marx et al). The high priest.
The restricted access to the top levels unless you go through the proper
“religous” process. Conversion and baptism into the belief by signing up to
the party. The belief that all other forms of politics are wrong and not the
one and true path to enlightment.
But then you meet the problem with all religons and politics – one is
better than all the others and the proponents will fight each other to prove
it.
Quakerism sounds like it doesn’t suffer from these problems.
If libertarianism is like quakerism without the “religous” overtone then it
should aim for the same thing. Minimal conflicts. Peaceful debate. Doing good.
None of this fighting to prove it is better. Just let people see that
libertarianism just works – because it is a natural thing to do.
There is also the “big society” stuff of just getting stuck in be it with a
spare pork chop or a bed for the night or joining with others to provide help
for those who can’t help themselves. It does not need a central organisation
to tell people what they should volunteer for, they just do it because it’s a
human thing to do to help the common man.
Big society decided on by a political party or the state is not a big
society, it’s still a big state doing all the decision making. The decision
making should be done at the work face. That’s where the knowledge really is.
Ask a nurse how to do their job and they can tell you. Ask an adminstrator how
a nurse should do their job and they will tell you something totally different
but which is usually unworkable. Political decision making should be done at a
similar point, by the people themselves and locally.
A bit rambling but I’m tired and it’s late but hopefully someone
understands some of my points. My main one being that I agree with Anna.
- November 17, 2010 at 23:16
-
Excellent post as always. Another good thing about Quakers is their
pioneering work in the chocolate and tobacco industries – what’s not to like
about that?
- November 17, 2010 at 21:12
-
I noticed the bletherer – in-chief Obama was blethering the other day about
science and reason not winning the arguement. It concerns me a little that
science is being politicised and claimed by the left as their own. There is
nothing in the sciences that precludes belief in a higher being.
I also worry about people who call themselves libertarians but object to my
defending the right of people to use homeopathic remedies (not the same thing
as demanding homeopathic treatments be funded by the NHS which I do not
support)
I also do not like the ‘liberals’ / ‘libertarians’ / ‘progressives’ who
assume because I question Big Bang theory I must be a creationist. There is no
proof for either, the only answer to ‘how did it all begin’ that does not rely
on belief is “We dont know.”
So I can support you Anna. Quakers have been libertarians for much longer
than the people who are simply pissed off with the political
establishment.
- November 17, 2010 at 21:10
-
I’m so glad to see you’re back in the blogosphere, I can’t think of
anything to say!
Welcome back Anna!
- November 17, 2010 at 20:33
-
From the lofty intellectual heights of my agnosticism I have to say this is
an interesting read. I’m unconvinced by the ‘God’ stuff, but I think I agree
with the philosphy and attitudes as described in your post.
But I have
always had a ‘soft spot’ for the Quakers from my youth. I was never one for
unquestioning obedience even then, and once in my teens and having rejected
the C of E and looked around it was the only major religion I found that
didn’t call on the ‘authority’ of the church or use ‘threats’ and coercion to
enforce obedience. Rather that encouraged the ‘members’ to think for
themselves.
In fact it’s alway appeared to me to be as much, or maybe more,
of a philisophy than a typical religion. My understanding is that it
celebrates and supports a positive view of the good that is in people, and
encourages people to do good, something it’s easy to forget in our angry,
negative and spirtitually impoverished world. As such it also makes an
interesting contrast to religions that are designed to ‘control’ the bad in
people.
So personally I see absolutely nothing strange about mixing
Quakerism (can one say that?) with Libertarianism, indeed it seems to me to be
the obvious religion to fit alongside it – for those that feel the need of a
religion of course.
- November 17, 2010 at
20:58
-
“In fact it’s always appeared to me to be as much, or maybe more, of a
philisophy than a typical religion.”
I think that sums up my view as well Woodsy, I see it more as a
philosophy and template for life than a religion.
Just as well, since it is considered a ‘culte’ here in France (as is
everything barring Roman Catholicism……!!!.)
-
November 18, 2010 at 11:16
-
Surely to a rational person, one would hope that any creed resulted in
individuals who were as nice as possible to other people & who
co-existed as harmoniously as possible with the natural world. Both
Buddhists & Quakers seem to fit into this category.
The self
detonating community still have some way to go, to achieve this status
!
- November
17, 2010 at 19:24
-
Excellent post!
- November
17, 2010 at 18:31
-
Plenty of food for thought here. I regard myself as agnostic rather than
atheist: it’s not that we know whether or not there is a God, but that we will
never know. By definition we *cannot* know. To say “you must have faith” isn’t
good enough, I’m afraid. I regard all organised religions with equal
suspicion, in the same way that I suspect anyone who tells me that he has all
the answers. I am drawn towards Buddhism, if anything. I know little about the
Quakers, other than regarding them as faintly nutty but harmless – probably a
result of what I was told as a child. Your description makes me want to know
more. Thank you.
- November 17, 2010 at
18:34
-
November 17, 2010 at 17:31
-
If I may throw Tom Paine in to the mix, in The Age of Reason he gives one
of the clearest expositions of libertarian theism ever to have appeared in
print. “I believe in one God and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this
life. I believe the equality of man and I believe that religious duties
consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavouring to make our
fellow-creatures happy. I do not believe in the creed professed……by any church
that I know of. My own mind is my own church.”
Thanks for your thoughtful article Anna. My own beliefs are broadly
Christian but with buddhist tendencies in that I prefer to meditate quietly
rather than sing hymns and engage in collective acts of worship.
As to libertarianism being in dire need of re-branding I couldn’t agree
more.
- November 17, 2010 at 17:03
-
Nicely put, Annaraccoon
I was a christian before I was a Libertarian. You have to have a belief in
the goodness of Man in order to want to give power back to him (or her).
Humanists can come to the same conclusions, obviously.
I was also never
totally convinced by ethical egoism. You can explain all actions in that way
but my intuition says otherwise (plus there’s that whole self sacrifice thing
that can’t be batted away easily)
On LPUK, the party cannot be taken seriously with it’s angry, shouty image
at the moment. I was a member of the US Libertarian party and campaigned for
them locally when I was living there but I’ll wait and see here. DK is not a
serious politician, nice and intelligent guy though I’m sure he is.
- November 17, 2010 at 16:59
-
It all seems eminently sensible to me!
- November 17, 2010 at 16:38
-
although wishing to remain anonymous, I had to write to thank you for your
definition of being a Quaker. It closely echoes what I have long felt, but
didn’t know where I belong. Thank you Anna for your humanity, and your courage
to speak out. Yours is the first blog I read each day, and I felt quite bereft
when you decided to leave, it was like my best friend didn’t like me anymore!
Now I can still read you and enjoy.
Jean
{ 38 comments }