Posted on 03/22/2013 8:51:10 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I can't separate the fact that law enforcement is government, and government is at best a necessary evil in of itself. Most people who are killed are killed by government.
As far as shame goes, I'm not a real fan of societal shame for stupidity. Evil is another matter. A lot of things that aren't moral are things regarding stupidity. They harm, but those who enact in that behavior often don't intend to cause harm. With teen pregnancy, shame (along with parental pressure, and boyfriend pressure) often leads to an unintended consequence that 10 times worse. Abortion.
Always think of the unintended consequences.
>> There is no liberty interest in the homosexual “marriage” movement. It is an authoritarian position, dedicated to using the police power of the state to force others ...
Exactly.
And that is just downright crazy. It’s the next stage of the equality-Nazis march to social Marxism. This is the suicide of a nation. It’s this kind of thinking that has killed America and doomed its future generations, robbing them of centuries of tradition and values. What this says is that evil is non-existent. Every opinion is valid and equal. The Soviet Union collapsed in flames because they abandoned the natural principles of supply and demand. In the future, people will study the collapse of the Western World, which abandoned the natural principles of good and evil.
Everything comes back to the Garden. “You will be as God, judging for yourself good and evil.” It’s so fundamental, because it allows the person to say to himself, “What I want is good, because I want it.”
And then, of course, he says, “And don’t you judge me, you evil HATER!!!!”
Like f'rinstance how?
That's pretty much what I was saying about the author's reasoning, yes.
There is no liberty interest in the homosexual "marriage" movement.
I heartily agree with all of the above.
It is an authoritarian position, dedicated to using the police power of the state to force others to act against their moral or pragmatic beliefs about certain kinds of behavior.
Who exactly is forced to act how exactly?
>> No matter how one cuts the pie, in practice the “Libertarian” position, devolves down to maximizing personal pleasure and the exercise of power over others.
The Libertarian Party is largely occupied by fools that exemplify your point — they are liberals.
It is important to understand, however, that libertarianism is the opposite of statism. And by dismissing libertarianism, the politics shift in favor of the statism now eroding our liberties.
There are many self-described libertarians that are eager to join the Constitutional revivification of the Country. To shun them is foolish. To believe it requires sacrificing Conservative principles is also foolish.
Sure, it's not government via the end of a gun. It's not bureaucracy. It's not a legal/paperwork/coercive environment -- 'cause Libertarians don't believe in that stuff, right?
But I am convicned that Libertarians are incapable of existing in a truly civil (polite) society. Because they have a severe dislike for anyone who thinks differently than they do.
I say this based on 40 years experience dealing with Libertarians. I believe my lying eyes.
Catering halls, photographers, insurers, adoption agencies, churches, publishers, etc...
Stop subsidizing immoral behavior, and the rest will pretty well sort itself out. Let the individual bear the costs of his/her behavior, and reap the benefits. Interestingly, traditional (Christian) morality ends up being pretty efficient.
Some of the episodes so far involve businesses' being sued to provide services to declared homosexuals, when the business owners don't wish to. Charitable organizations have been forced to stop facilitating adoptions because they will not place children with homosexuals. Government schools in some states now insist children be taught that homosexual behavior is positive in every way.
I'm unable to determine whether you are deliberately being disingenuous in your questions. These topics have been covered in depth for several years on FR, with examples from a number of U.S. states as well as foreign countries.
>> Ever see a Libertarian discuss religion?
Leftists and Liberals flying under the banner of libertarianism.
Like f'rinstance how?
Ever see a Libertarian discuss religion? Very rude. Very loud. No nuance. No real discussion. Just shouting down the other person because they're stupid and moralistic and evil and don't worship the flying spaghetti monster. Ridicule. Scorn. Derision.
Sure, it's not government via the end of a gun. It's not bureaucracy. It's not a legal/paperwork/coercive environment -- 'cause Libertarians don't believe in that stuff, right?
Right.
But I am convicned that Libertarians are incapable of existing in a truly civil (polite) society. Because they have a severe dislike for anyone who thinks differently than they do.
I say this based on 40 years experience dealing with Libertarians. I believe my lying eyes.
Let's say you're right about the incivility of libertarians. Does that make them wrong about limited government?
Do Libertarians Really “Want a World Without Moral Judgments”?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DEFINATELY!
Most libertarians are immoral as they resist and resent SoCon values. But worse than that, they delude themselves thinking the Constitution is not a moral document and that government should not take a moral stand on things.
The founders recognized the absolute need for a moral and religious people in order to have freedom.
Put simply, if you don’t self-govern,
you have to be governed.
“Either you’ll be governed by God, or, by God, you’ll be governed.”
Catering halls, photographers, insurers, adoption agencies, churches, publishers, etc...
Clearly the libertarian position is that those entities should be free to discriminate against or in favor of gay "married" couples, straight couples, interracial couples, singles, or whoever the want.
Some of the episodes so far involve businesses' being sued to provide services to declared homosexuals, when the business owners don't wish to. Charitable organizations have been forced to stop facilitating adoptions because they will not place children with homosexuals. Government schools in some states now insist children be taught that homosexual behavior is positive in every way.
Clearly the libertarian position is that those entities should be free to discriminate against or in favor of gay "married" couples, straight couples, interracial couples, singles, or whoever the want - and that there should be no government schools.
>> Clearly the libertarian position is that those entities should be free
It’s a statist position to say they should not be free.
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.