Posted on 11/07/2013 4:59:55 AM PST by Kaslin
The Constitution Party is a mess. For every freedom they say they want to restore, there are two they would restrict.
Or is this another political Party you are completely clueless over?
In what way does legislation make people more virtuous?
It's the other way around -- virtuous people make and keep just laws that deliver not perfection, but "the most good for most of the people, most of the time." John Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
For the first 200 years, we were united under a common understanding of Western JudeoChristian morality, and the system, with all its flaws, worked. Not every citizen was a believer, but so many accepted or at least accommodated this received morality that the common ethic exerted a profound influence even on unbelievers. The "civic religion" enshrined in our Founding documents kept U.S. society not just relatively united, but helped the nation thrive -- E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one) and "all for one and one for all."
Since the mid-1960s, we have been in a time of increasingly and relentlessly radical individuality, in which judiciaries take the concept of individual political rights under a common Constitutional policy stemming from the Bill of Rights to great lengths of personal, anti-Constitutional, anti-religious and hedonistic extremes. The result is "every man for himself", the battle of "one against one" and the law of the jungle, which even now is bringing about fascist tyranny in response. It's a sociopolitical regression to the times before the morality of personal responsibility taught by Christ, or even before Judaism's enshrinement of the rule of law under one God for the common good; but the left calls it "progressive."
To sum up, law cannot "make" a person virtuous in his heart; but it can constrain a lack of virtue in the minority; and it can protect a virtuous majority against government imposition of evil.
This overbroad statement applies to all groups of any kind, not just Libertarians.
To convince others that Libertarianism is a good thing, it helps to acknowledge what generalities, principles or platforms exist in the Libertarian camp, for the purpose of discussing what their logical political outcomes would be.
Only by implementing a tyrannical State. You trade virtuous freedom for enforced servitude. Any power you give to government can and will be used against you when the winds of political power shift.
Better is to return to a state of freedom where the cost of poor individual choices are no longer born in part by others. This encourages virtuous behavior in a way that a government gun to your head has never been able to accomplish.
I only can speak for myself.
What is obvious to you (that even a mortal sin can be forgiven) what not obvious to Lutherans with respect to disobedience to the state prior to the Hitler thing. In any case, with respect to the kinds of things you would the coercive force of the state to deal with, thanks for the warning.
Punish?
My guess is that these people voted for the candidate that best matches their political philosophy.
Do you think people should vote otherwise?
Do you think the duopoly of republicans and democrats will stay in power forever?
Parties that once upon a time were free market, limited government groups eventually became catch-all collections of people who were dissatisfied with the two main parties.
Some of the LDP or Free Democrats or Liberals (names vary) really are still limited government believers. Some are "fiscal conservatives and social liberals." Some look for a position between the two main parties (Labour or Socialists or Social Democrats and Conservatives or Christian Democrats).
Some are even further left than the Socialist or Labour parties, because they don't have to worry about blue-collar social conservatives. And some are socially conservative themselves.
If the libertarians ever do catch on here -- and that's hard because electoral system favors a two party duopoly -- you'll find all kinds of people supporting all kinds of candidates, many of who wouldn't by any means be libertarians or classical liberals.
An established, semi-permanent position on the ballot is valuable real estate for all kinds of entrepreneurs, speculators, and con artists to exploit.
Was the German majority's passive acceptance of Hitler's Nazism due to Christ's or Luther's teaching? Emphatically no. As in all denominations, the actual number of nominal Christians who truly believe the faith, know the scriptures and are willing to walk the walk is probably less than 10% at any given time. Those who attended Lutheran churches prior to Hitler's ascendancy were there for a variety of reasons, including family tradition, cultural habit and the place of the church as the main center for community gatherings and even entertainment in the days before pop culture and media took over most people's free time. So the 80 to 90% in the pews who were not paying attention are roughly equivalent to today's "low-information" voter in the U.S. But it was not their Lutheranism or (mis)understanding of sin that formed their passivity in the face of fascism and persecution. Reinhold Neibauer and other prominent Lutherans tried to turn back the tide, but were overwhelmed by the great majority who were fascinated by evil in their midst. Just like today, as people vote for openly corrupt "rock stars" who offer them goodies.
...with respect to the kinds of things you would the coercive force of the state to deal with, thanks for the warning.
I am afraid your grammar is confusing to me. I am not sure what you mean to say there.
You trade virtuous freedom for enforced servitude. Any power you give to government can and will be used against you when the winds of political power shift.
You are trying to make moral equivalence between the legal recognition of timelessly upheld cultural virtues based on Natural Law with "enforced servitude" such as that enacted by fascists who work tirelessly against nature. But because both approaches involve government use of power does not mean they are the same. They are opposites. Government is for all the people, not just the minorities who feel irritated by human traditions supported by Natural Law. And most people are unable to resist the power of Natural Law -- they must submit in some degree or fight in some degree, but they cannot make it go away. The Natural Law of Human Being is a fixture of our universe, like physics, chemistry or math. So if you have to have government, and most people agree that we have to have at least some government of some kind, it's better to have a government that aligns with Natural Law. I think you and I agree that the present government is far, far from that standard.
Benign political freedom is not the freedom to do whatever you want, whenever you want. It is the freedom to do the right thing, reinforced and supported by a culture that values the power of Natural Law.
It is impossible to declare or elect a completely abstract and completely individualized state of freedom where one's actions affect only oneself. Human life by its very Nature exerts a powerful demand from birth for community and relationships. That is why the Founders' recognition of a God of higher intelligence than our own, who handed down his guidelines for how to get along with one another here, enshrined a common set of values that united people.
Rebellion against God's stated preferences in favor of a self-defined form of freedom is an impossibly overwhelming task-- there is too much information and too much complexity to start from scratch! Such an individual achieves adulthood and starts making decisions about sex, drugs, making babies and other political behaviors based on his or her appetites rather than a reasoned and informed point of view, since a truly educated intellect takes decades. Therefore children bear the poor individual choices of a loose-cannon approach to morality. And as a practical matter, against what standard can the inevitable clashes with other libertarianated people's self-defined freedoms be adjudicated?
Better is to return to a state of freedom where the cost of poor individual choices are no longer born in part by others. This encourages virtuous behavior in a way that a government gun to your head has never been able to accomplish.
Just as we can never "return to a state of freedom" (where-- the Garden of Eden?) even less can we "return to a state of freedom where the cost of poor individual choices are no longer born[e] in part by others.
With regard to some of the favorite Libertarian themes -- sexual liberties without marriage, the freedom to abort and the freedom to use drugs recreationally at one's discretion -- these acts harm children who did not ask to be conceived, just as careless sex and drug play harm the adults who use either one to alter reality.
The only truly non-political form of sex is masturbation. I'm just guessing here, but my guess is that the vast majority of people consider that a second-rate experience. Any sexual contact between two persons is political, and any form of sexual contact that results in a human being conceived or born involves a third political entity due to the inability of children to protect themselves until they are well grown. Where you have any political acts, you have regulation. And when the state does not hold the nuclear family as the preferred legal and moral standard, you have what we have today: feral youth murdering each other and complete strangers, failing in school, and single-parenting even more culturally illiterate and functionally anarchic "citizens."
The mistake many make in trying to eliminate the JudeoChristian heritage from law, or believing its origins in Natural Law are evil because some people fail to uphold those laws, is in thinking that Natural Law is merely an intellectual construct that can be voted up or down. But it is not. Declaring Nature to be without effect does not stop its power.
Outlawing a nation's ability to pass laws in support of traditional morality is just as coercive in principle as passing such laws in the first place. This world is not a blank slate. It does have transcendent, ageless and immutable laws that are stronger than humans' ability to "set asunder." People can wish there were no God; they can say there is no God; they can try to believe there is no God with all their strength. But doing so cannot render God null and void. He's above all that.
Being a person who would use the coercive power of the state against people who smoke or drink and who knows what else, it is not surprising that you would say “emphatically no.” Social conservatives do assert themselves with moral certainty.
While there were exceptions, the Lutherans of Germany did not resist Hitler. The German resistance to Hitler was overwhelmingly Catholic. And, why was this? It was because from the time of Thomas Aquinas, Catholics have embraced a duality of government. The sphere of civil government being distinguished from the sphere of church government. Martin Luther argued that the German princes could and should unite these two spheres of government (as Aquinas would describe that), and once a prince had done so, subjects were not free.
The American Revolution represented an exercise of the principle that revolt against tyranny is obedience to God, influenced intellectually by the Enlightenment, and also influenced by English history, and reflecting John Calvin’s kind of middle position between Aquinas and Luther. Calvin, concerned with the potential for anarchy were every man to consider himself free to revolt as well as concerned that the state might become tyrannical, wanted the decision to revolt to be made by a local government. Thus, in our Declaration, Jefferson writes not only of the right of revolution but of a proper consideration of the gravity involved.
see p. 726 of the following:
No, many of those who let Obama win do not share his philosophy.
Do you think people should vote otherwise?
Yes, when your country is at war, you should coalesce and "vote" against the enemy.
Do you think the duopoly of republicans and democrats will stay in power forever?
Two things wrong with that comment:
One, the democRATs are not democrats, but rather a blend of Socialists and Communists.
Two, half the Republicans are Socialists.
To answer the question in general...I don't care what they are called, but yes, I want TWO opposing parties.
Why? Because a majority is 50% plus one. Otherwise the plurality party runs the show, including the control of the committees.
Well, the article clearly uses the term referring to the political party. The LP Platform is clearly stated in print.
How’s that Lindsey Graham and John McCain worship working out for you? Big fan of Chris Cristy are you... Autographed photo of you and Bob Dole on your wall?
Nope!
Like I said, they're RINOs...a term which differentiates them from Republicans. They need to be expunged.
To review:
The thread addresses.......Libertarians!
Well maybe you little-bitty, teensy-weensy "l" libertarians should infiltrate them and steal their name...and then make the Constitution Party platform truly fit the title.
How many of them can there be?
Apologies to you and the others for tardiness in replying. I was not on the computer yesterday.
I certainly agree with you that Reagan's quote on the importance of libertarianism to the conservative movement is greatly over-emphasized. I also believe that it does not reflect his actual conduct as a public official.
As POTUS, Reagan presided over the re-armament of the US that banrupted the USSR out of existence without a single shot being fired.
As governor of California, he made mistakes. One was to sign a bill legalizing abortion (the normal "libertarian" position) and then he was genuinely shocked to see the massive numbers of abortions that occurred in the very first year of legalization. He then and there changed to pro-life (libertarianism notwithstanding) and, knowing that he could not get legislation through the California General Assembly to repeal, personally joined the effort to repeal the abortion legalization statute by referendum (an effort that failed).
Reagan never supported "gay""marriage" but he did advocate decent treatment of "gays" by government, When State Senator John Briggs proposed a referendum banning public employment of "gays," Reagan left his own 1976 POTUS campaign against Gerald Ford to return to California and campaign successfully against the Briggs Amendment. That was to ensure equal rights and not a re-definition of marriage or any affirmative action efforts.
Reagan was NEVER a 1930's style isolationist even as a Democrat in the 1930s and 1940s nor as a Republican thereafter. I realize that was not one of the last three items which you find desirable.
If Reagan ever advocated abolition of Social Security or Medicare, I am certainly not aware of it and I was one of his state chairmen against Ford. Reagan was a conservative and not a disruptive radical libertarian. As a recipient of both Social Security and Medicare, I suppose I may be viewed as biased but, as a YAF state chairman during my student days, I refused to distrubute YAF's position papaers against Social Security and/or Medicare when my interest was merely as a taxpayer and a Catholic Christian.
As to the Tenth Amendment, I cannot imagine Reagan advocating that it be rigorously or scrupulously applied. Again, he was not a radical or a utopian. Enforcement of the Tenth Amendment as written has been ignored for most of the history of the Republic for good or for ill. Henry Clay wanted to build roads and canals. Sometimes he won and sometimes he lost. We have been building roads ever since. If conservatives devote themselves to strict enforcement of the Tenth Amendment (and consequently the abolition of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and probably 60% or 70% of all federal expenditures), that will be the end of any chance that the conservative movement will EVER elect another POTUS, another Congressional or Senatorial majority, most governors, etc. Conservatism will become a curiosity, a footnote to history and regarded as having disappeared as a political mass suicide.
Ronald Reagan did not enjoy political infallibility but he came as close as we are likely to witness in the White House or in our politics. He was a very fine man, with a good heart, a good mind, an experienced backbone and a heightened sense of personal decency increasingly hard to find in our nation's politics.
I well recognize that there are or have been libertarians and even some among Libertarian Party leadership (Doris Gordon and John Walker for two) who have been quite pro-life but they never enjoyed anything close to majoritarian status in LP circles despite valiant effort. I also recognize that there are libertarians who are all too enamored of the idea that politics ought to be an intellectual parlor game in which some sort of philosophical purity tournament over fine cigars and vintage wines is more vital than the actual practical ability to elect to public office candidates such as Ronald Reagan who give us in office the majority of what we want at the expense of a few far out issue positions.
2. Disarmament of individual citizens (absent certain rare circumstances) is specifically prohibited by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution as applied by SCOTUS in recent cases out of Chicago and DC, as you are likely aware. Disarmament is the gutting of American military power by gutting its inventory of weapons to be used abroad wherever our nation's leaders see fit (which makes it imperative that there be no more Obozos in the White House and a lot fewer of his enthusiasts in Congress and Senate: Dennis KooKoocinich was no conservative on foreign policy nor was George McGovern).
3. The Middle East Wars and the Vietnam War before them were tragic examples of the spinelessness of our leaders and their refusal to recognize MacArthur's maxim: "In war there is no substitute for victory." One might add, swift and devastating to describe such victory.
4. At this late date in history, I definitely have a problem with strict enforcement of the Tenth Amendment which has not even been loosely enforced for about two hundred years or longer (Louisiana Purchase of 1803, anyone?)
5. As this thread is entitled "The Trouble with Libertarians," each issue I addressed is relevant to the topic, however uncomfy some make you.
Right after 9-11-2001 Harry Browne, Libertarian leader and candidate, said it was America’s own fault we got attacked.
As a matter of fact, Ron Paul did something along that line, too.
1. The China trip ("Surely, Mr. Chairman, this IS a great wall!") leading to admission of Red China to the UN and its Security Council in place of the Nationalist Chinese government of our ally Chiang Kai-Shek.
2. Wage and Price Controls.
3. Decoupling of the dollar from its relationship to gold reserves.
4. Creation of the Environmental "Protection" Adminsitration.
5. An attempt to create a national heaklth insurance scheme. (Catastrophic health care insurance)
6. Fecklessness in pursuit of the Vietnam War, leading to the loss of same and the consolidation of Soviet communist tyranny by proxy over Southeast Asia.
7. Employing Henry Kissinger (ever puckering up for soviet leadership posteriors) to craft a foreign policy of "detente" or surrendermonkeyism abandoning the people of Russia and its satellites to continued slavery and oppression.
Shall I go on???
Many of your responses on this thread have been admirable. I do not mean to demean you in any way by the enthusiasm of the foregoing paragraphs. God bless you and yours!
C'mon...I said he sucked.
Of course, laying appropriate major blame on the spineless wimps of the aristocrat class of GOP treasonweasels, does not excuse "libertarians" who claim to love liberty for effectively giving McAwful his margin of victory by admission.
Libertarians don't actually owe their votes (strictly speaking) to a solid GOP candidate like Ken Cuccinelli, but then actual conservatives owe such libertarians absolutely no respect when the acts and omissions of those "libertarians" elect a McAwful, especially when McAwful's/Obozo's cronies fund the appearance of the none too libertarian Mr. Sarvis on the ballot as a "Libertarian" which he seems not to be.
After the bank robbery, we blame the perps who drew their guns on the bank personnel and lugged the loot out the door but we also blame the getaway driver(s). May the "libertarians" who voted for Sarvis in Virginia enjoy the Virginia for which they are responsible over the next four years.
I hope that the "libertarians" find the babykilling, the advance of the agenda of the pervert-American community, the looting of Richmond to fund Demonratic coffers and interests, the gun control efforts, the doper lifestyle ratification, the tax hikes and business regulations and the rest to be to their liking since it will also be their legacy.
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.