Posted on 12/18/2012 8:25:58 AM PST by LouAvul
My local gun board is infested with libertarians and democRATs. The Rats were gloating about O'Dumdum's re-election, etc. Prior to the election they were insisting O'Bummer wouldn't make any moves to restrict gun rights, ownership, etc.
Now they've got egg on their faces, and one of them announced he's converting to the Republican party, solely on the basis of gun rights. But he continues to be a liberal on all other issues. Numerous posters chimed in that they did the same, etc, and are working to change the Republican party from within. They want to make us "socially relevant."
No, leftists want the govt off their bodies only so far as abortion goes but up to the neck in everyone's personal lives otherwise. So do you. I abhor abortion and believe it infringes on someone else's life (aside from the fact it's murder). Therefore it's wrong and I believe there should be a law against it. But get your f'ing boots off my neck. If I choose to smoke weed, it's really none of your damned business so long as I'm not infringing on someone else's rights.
Ya, the founders believed religion was important and so do I, but this weren't no theocracy and I failed to read a piece of the Consitution that gives the feds the power to enforce your version of morality.
They are using it to push left wing values that take it faraway from the traditional values the founding fathers had
So what the hell's the difference between a leftist using the govt to push their values and you using the govt to push yours? The founders believed it was incumbent upon US to do such things, not the govt. On this, you agree with leftists in using fed powers to do things not in the Constitution.
Lot of socially liberal people are not friendly to religion. They don’t like values, they want to be free to do what they want without any consequence.
That's great, but I go to church and I still maintain you're every bit as progressive as the left and have more in commmon with the left than I ever will. I believe in the founder's libertarianism and you clearly dont. Great conversation. Thanks.
But rampant drugs and drug use destroys the culture.
There is no sound reason to expect legalization to lead to "rampant" drug use - it didn't the last time drugs were legal in the USA.
People will start to try them because they are available to try if not outlawed.
News flash: they are available to try now even though outlawed.
Is the law YOUR primary reason to not use drugs?
The majority of the ghettos and cities with high crime rates have a drug problem.
And an alcohol problem, and a fatherlessness problem, and etc. Which causes what?
And note that the illegality of drugs incentivizes crime by hyperinflating the price of drugs.
Drugs are bad. Who would want to poison the body and end up sick? You have to enjoy life not start destroying the one body you were given.
All applicable to alcohol and tobacco - and all decisions that should be left to individuals.
If it is your choice fine, but people make an industry of it. If it is legal then the industry will flourish like in Amsterdam.
No more than the alcohol and tobacco industries flourish in the USA. Should those be banned? If people want things, other people will sell them - that's a fundamental fact of human nature that can't be legislated away ... but such utopian legislative fantasies can do a lot of harm, as we saw with Prohibition and see today with the War On Drugs.
This sounds pretty small-"l" libertarian to me:
'Has nothing whatsoever to do with “bedroom behavior.” It’s the public in your face and down our kids throats behavior that is intolerable. Keep it off our public squares, out of our playgrounds, out of our parks, out of our public restrooms, off our streets, out of our schools, out of our churches, off of our TV, out of our movies, out of our judiciary, out of our military, out of our government and out of our faces!! Take it back to your private bedrooms. Thankyouverymuch!!'
- Jim Robinson, 05/26/2011
In the New Testament, Rom 1:26ff: For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Paul discusses numerous other sins but then concludes in verse 32, Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
I don't know what Paul had in mind in verse 32 re "worthy of death." I think the consensus might be that he was referring to the second death, viz. eternal damnation. Regardless, he was saying that homosexuality is an abomination in public or private.
I also don't understand your reference to small vs large case libertarian. I don't think it's relevant. Libertarians universally demand/espouse that which God condemns, and that's enough for me.
This sounds pretty small-"l" libertarian to me: [...]
I don't know what the context of Mr. Robinson's comment was framed,
I gave you the link - you can easily see the context yourself.
but homosexuality is a pervasive evil regardless it's setting. The Bible strictly forbids it. In the Old Testament (which was fulfilled by Christ, therefore done away with) it was a crime punishable by death.
It seems that the founder/owner of FreeRepublic doesn't think it's government's proper role to enforce all biblical proscriptions. Perhaps FR is not the site for you.
I also don't understand your reference to small vs large case libertarian.
Uppercase L is the Libertarian Party, which endorses some flaky things.
I don't think it's relevant. Libertarians universally demand/espouse that which God condemns
No, they demand/espouse individual liberty to choose whether to do non-rights-violating things that God condemns.
As such, I have nothing more to say to you. You people are brainwashed in your own delusion. But hey, have a nice day. :)
Based on the post I quoted from FR's founder/owner, his position is closer to the libertarians than to yours.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.