Skip to comments.Rand Paul Says America Needs A "Spiritual Cleansing"
Posted on 04/10/2013 8:16:17 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
click here to read article
“.......Paul has stunned many conservatives with two policy statements of late that go to the very core of the conservative movement. If he persists, he may well lose the support of millions as he contemplates a presidential run in 2016.
Not only did Sen. Paul state that he supports a special path to citizenship for illegal aliens, which has enraged those who have worked for a sane border security and immigration policy that adheres to U.S. law, but he has also made a major concession on the firearms background check issue”
Please, look up his stated position and voting record rather than posting liberal hit pieces.
This is getting REALLY, REALLY disgusting on FR attacking Rand Paul. Hes one of the only true conservatives who will argue and battle for constitutional principles versus legislate (e.g. make more unconstitutional laws for thee and not for me).
I'm NOT a LIBERTARIAN party member, but I'm getting pushed into its support the more I debate with statist Republican Freepers who embrace government expansion with such gusto.
And before you slam me as a lib or "Libertarian" (not that I eschew the moniker), read my profile and In Forum comments:
“Since he pandered to Mexicans, I’m not surprised to see him pandering to blacks.”
It’s useless to be right if you can’t win elections.
If you want politicians who only pander to you, the result is you get defeated and people like Obama take over everything.
USA Senator Rand Paul is CORRECT, the USA NEEDS to have a “spiritual cleansing” or to put it in my own, a spiritual spring cleaning.
God Bless Sen. Rand Paul.
What's useless is pandering to people who won't vote for you anyway while alienating people who would otherwise vote for you.
A D.C. cleansing - great idea. Would that be a D&C?
That would mean Libertarians = anarchy and traditional-values conservatives = fascist theocracy. I don't hold that position.
The beliefs can be identical (there are at least 2 types of Libertarians), but the path to implement is different. One believes government can compensate for moral deficiencies and the other believes government will reflect deficiencies and inhibit their correction.
- My opponents call me libertarian but I'm pro-life. (Feb 2011)
- Life begins at conception. (Jul 2010)
- Opposes federal abortion funding. (Aug 2010)
- Prohibit federal funding for abortion. (May 2011)
- Opposes same-sex marriage. (Nov 2009)
- Opposes affirmative action. (Aug 2010)
- Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage. (Aug 2010)
Yes, he is somewhat of a combination of the two (libertarianism and traditional-values conservatism). That’s usually what people are, of either stripe: a combination.
Ideologically, however, the two do not mix. It’s like socialism and free-marked capitalism. We have a mixture in the United States, but there is an inherent conflict between the two, and the complete domination of either one would eliminate the other.
Then you do believe that:
Libertarians = anarchy
... and ...
traditional-values conservatives = fascist theocracy?
In summary, government has enough to do with upholding the constitution.
Leave spiritual matters to those who are called by God to teach, and free citizens of this Republic to hear and act upon.
Social conservatism and libertarianism are not intrinsically incompatible. There are health and financial consequences of most immoral behaviors - gluttony, alcoholism, sexual promiscuity, teen/unmarried pregnancy, and drug use being obvious examples. With no social safety net to bail you out financially and no government to cover your medical bills, there is much more of an incentive to lead a moral life than under a nanny state.
Now, it is true that libertarianism is incompatible with a system where the government mandates individuals to live a moral life. Some will choose to live immoral lives regardless - the difference is that you won't have to subsidize that kind of behavior.
That being said, the alliance between fiscal libertarians and social conservatives is not one of logical necessity. The most obvious counterexample is someone like William Jennings Bryan, who on theological and social questions was a "conservative" by today's standards while being economically to the Left of Obama.
In other words, there's no necessary connection between what we call social and economic conservatism, it's just the coalition of convenience that we have today. Similarly, there's no logical connection between economic socialism and immorality, although as I said in another post, it is much easier to live a dissipated and immoral life with a nanny state propping you up.
Only at their most extreme. Most people have more sense than that.
"In other words, there's no necessary connection between what we call social and economic conservatism, it's just the coalition of convenience that we have today."I agree. One nuance - I believe economic conservatism (survival, production, and abundance) drives broad-based social morality better than statist imposition of rules against immorality.
Rules against immorality seeks to minimize the worst of behavior from a minority of actors. Broad rules that entangles all.When there's a clear connection between cause and effect from a Natural Law perspective, the social system works best. When it's distorted by man's impositions on actions according to the definition of the majority, the results are chaotic. It also creates an ever growing police force who are no longer producers, dedicated to identifying and regulating behaviors, having become powerful masters over both producers and takers.
Economic conservatism seeks to maximize opportunity for the best of behavior from a majority of actors. Broad principles that uplifts all.
The Pilgrims starved when they first came to America because they instituted a collective property economic model. High producers became resentful of low producers who received a disproportionate share of the output. High producers reduced their output and this caused a community crisis until the collectivist rules were rescinded.
I believe economic conservatives are more in tune with this aspect of society. "If a man will not work - then let him not eat". Work fulfills the sustenance needs and keeps everyone too busy for anything but occasional mischief.
"Similarly, there's no logical connection between economic socialism and immorality, although as I said in another post, it is much easier to live a dissipated and immoral life with a nanny state propping you up."Agree. But based on the afore mentioned reasons, I believe true liberty provides a platform for greater good than manufactured morality (economic socialism).
Free people are more committed, therefore energetic, therefore prosperous, out of the abundance more generous, and therefore virtuous to others less fortunate.
America has been the standard for over a century. I don't see this continuing because we've adopted the statist / collectivist model of society.