Posted on 08/19/2014 11:10:06 AM PDT by jazusamo
Political junkies will remember how former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels was being groomed to run for president in 2012 before he made his foolish statement that the next president should "call a truce on the so-called social issues." Americans do not want a leader who is unable or unwilling to articulate and lead on important social issues.
Four years after the Daniels misstep, many have failed to learn that lesson. The New York Times has proclaimed the "libertarian moment" has arrived, by which they seem to mean libertarian ideas about marriage and the family.
We hear people say the libertarian view is to "get the government out of marriage." But where did that slogan come from? There is simply no basis for that notion in the works of classic libertarian writers.
As a Harvard graduate student, I was present for what could be considered the beginning of libertarian thought in America. It was the first American speech by Friedrich Hayek following the worldwide success of "The Road to Serfdom," which had been read by millions of Americans through its publication in the Reader's Digest.
The thesis of Hayek's great book is that government efforts to redistribute the benefits and burdens of economic activity inevitably involve a loss of individual freedoms, which could lead to a totalitarian state, as happened in Germany and Russia. Now, 70 years later, Hayek's basic idea is part of most Republican stump speeches and forms the basis for Republicans' adamant opposition to Obamacare.
But nothing in "The Road to Serfdom," or in any of Hayek's later works or those of his fellow Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, questioned the value or necessity of civil marriage in a free society. There is nothing to suggest that regulation of marriage was somehow inconsistent with individual freedom.
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
Bookmark
Those benefits are also what has driven the same sex marriage agenda in my opinion.
I hope my mind functions half that well at 90.
Amen...She’s an amazing lady.
Moral Absolutes Ping!
Freepmail Responsibility2nd or wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list. FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search [ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
The good don’t always die young.
Mrs. Schlafly doesn't isolate the nexus here, but does come close (to have gone there would have been a distracting digression that would have required too many column inches to allow in this medium).
There are four possible sources of authority in life: The family, G_d, employers, and the state. To a child, not yet of working age, the employer does not apply, leaving only the almighty state.
Marx supposedly wanted to dispose of all but the state, yet no matter what, but production, defense, or any "ordered" system must be hierarchical to function: collective "consensus" has NEVER worked by common consent. Hence, "communism" always led to tyranny and thus was essentially fascism, as is evidenced by the fact that Marx' Manifesto was financed by the wealthiest bankers in Europe. It was to be a means of concentrating power for the manipulation by the few, cloaked in a supposedly cultural altruism. G_d's system of voluntary charity focuses upon families united in faith as the source of temporal authority and thereby liberty, Marx' exact opposite.
Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.
—Rabid Marxist Libertarian Pope Leo XIII, 1880
Freegards
Only shallowly. Most gays tend to be better off than nongay squares.
It’s just a desire to punk the country.
I don’t think American government as it exists now is QUALIFIED to regulate marriage. It is a freak show with warped ideas today, and it might as well be told to butt out. You might as well ask your atheist neighbor to conduct your Sunday school.
Selwyn Duke fairly recently wrote on this, title (approx)
“We’re All Social Issues Voters”
If you read the article carefully, you’ll understand that the concept of the government being completely ambivalent about marriage is untenable because society cannot be ambivalent about marriage. Someone MUST officiate when marriages fail or are contested, and that function falls to the civil courts, an organ of government, by default.
We might “call a truce on social issues,” but the Left has no intention to ever call a truce. And “social issues” are a Trojan horse for every fiscal issue.
Well that, and a malicious,Satanic desire to force us to accept their perversions as normal. Let them do what they want, I don't care, but let them keep it to themselves.
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.