Free Republic

Sad - but true, even for small L libertarians .... But then, where else can you go and get your vote counted? 130 posted on 11/21/01 11:35 PM Pacific by YoursIn Liberty

Where can your vote go? To that Candidate who best reflects your individual beliefs.

Historically, I have split my vote between the "Libertarians" and the "Republicans"... based purely on who best represented my views. Party label is completely irrelevant to me -- I only care about who best represents my beliefs.

After all, Elections are won by Thousands (state) or Millions (federal) of Votes. I only have One little vote for each Candidate listed -- my own.

I am certainly not going to waste my vote by assigning it to someone I don't believe in. Given that my vote "counts" for maybe one-millionth of an electoral decision, I am going to assign my vote to the candidate who most closely represents my little portion of the ideological spectrum. At least let the "powers that be" know where I stand, one-millionth of a point at a time.

Great post. As much as Harry is making folks uncomfortable right now, I'm proud of him. He's a brave man. He's telling the truth. 125 posted on 11/21/01 11:19 PM Pacific by Demidog

Please post the "Hannity & Colmes" Transcript, if you should happen across it... I did not catch the interview myself, so I am working from second-hand impressions here (never the best source).

Thanks in advance, Uriel

I am adamantly pro life and also against the death penalty.

As a Calvinist Christian, I am strictly Anti-Abortion and strictly pro-Death Penalty (for Murder and other capital offenses). Calvnists adhere religiously to the Law of Moses, in both cases.

IMHO, Our Founders correctly apprehended the appropriate consideration of this question when they left all matters of Common Crime under the purview of the Sovereign States. Since we are (constitutionally) not a "Nation-State" but rather a "Union of States", only the punishment of Treason, Piracy, Counterfeiting and the like belong to the administration of the Feds. All questions of Murder law and Capital Punishment law, etc., are to be reserved to the Sovereign States. (In My Humble Opinion... and, as I understand the, the Opinion of Our Founders)

Interesting. What actions of the "Atheist Libertarians" do you find antagonistic? You're absolutely right that religious conservatives should want the government to leave them alone, especially with regard to their children's education.

Glad you asked.

Oh, gee, lemme think about that for about one tenth of a second. How about (allowing me the advantage of hyperbole for a second), every time a christian conservative says something critical about drugs, or porn, or homosexuality, or some other social vice... all-too-many of my libertarian comrades seem insistent upon turning the debate into some kind of "First Amendment" Free Speech issue.

NEWS FLASH!!! As long as the STATE controls the Property in question, we are not talking about a "first amendment" issue. We are talking about "division of spoils", which is ALWAYS going to be adversarial in character.

Not to make the "christian right" out to be some sort of "liberal" ideology, but I would submit to you that the primary motivation of the Christian Right may be characterized as being analogous to a favorite liberal mantra -- "it's for the children". Only difference -- and a HUGE difference it is -- is this: for the Christian Right, it's about OUR Children. And that makes all the difference in the world.

80% (or more) of my Orthodox Presbyterian congregation home-schools their children. Know why? 1.) It's morally Right; and 2.) We have to. Our Children are to be raised as Reformation Calvinists... but what place has that kind of "intolerant" religion in today's Public Schools? None. It can't be taught. Public Schools afford us no benefit whatsoever... and yet, we still pay Taxes, don't we?

A figure close to $7,000 per child, per year the Government Schools spend on Marxist, Atheist education these days, is it?

Public Schooling is the anathema of old-time Gospel child-rearing. If you want to capture the hearts and minds of Christian conservatives.. and I speak only my own opinion... give them the opportunity to protect their children from the evils of Government Schooling, without having to pay outrageous Extortion to the Government Monopoly Education system.

Give us our Land back.
Give us our Money back.
Give us our Children back.

Meaning no offense to my atheist collleagues... we will out-breed you. (after all -- that sounds like a fair, free-market, darwinian challege, doesn't it?)

Understand that at least 80% of the disagreements you will face with christian conservatives (hard-core Reconstructionists excepted) are the result of the Government Schools. Try this:

• 1.) Next time a christian conservative attacks Drugs, say this: I agree with you 100%. You know that 80% of kids who use drugs, get them from there Public School peers? Get your money back. Get your Children back. Abolish Public Schools.
• 2.) Next time a christian conservative attacks Pornography, say this: I agree with you 100%. You know that 80% of kids who use pornography, get it from there Public School peers? Get your money back. Get your Children back. Abolish Public Schools.
• 3.) Next time a christian conservative attacks Homosexuality, say this: I agree with you 100%. You know that 80% of kids who are exposed to homosexuality, get it from there Public School peers? Get your money back. Get your Children back. Abolish Public Schools.

Find Common Ground... or put another way, find Common Enemies. If the principle objective of all but the most Authoritarian christian conservatives is simply the social dangers to our Parental Right to bring up our kids according to a Fundamentalist world-view (and, I believe, it is)... then the common ground should be obvious. The Enemy here is Collectivism -- this is not a "Free Speech" issue, this is a matter of the STATE collectivizing the educational dollars of Fundies and non-Fundies, an arrangement whicb is doomed to failure. In such a context, Freedom of Association is a positive good -- give fundies their money back, gove non-fundies their money back, and abolish the Collective (public schooling). If you want allies, make it plain to Fundamentalists that "libertarianism" is not the Enemy... but rather, the Enemy is the State insistence on Collectivizing the educational training of wholly-disparate elements (Fundamentalists and non-Fundamentalists), and the Fundies' friends are those who propose to De-Collectivize this abomination -- i.e., the libertarians.

In other words, Fundies care for their Kids. If you want a libertarian social policy in regard to "social vices", don't make your first argument the First Amendment -- noble as it is, it just won't sell.

Make your first argument the abolition of collectivism:

In exchange for returning to Christian Parents the $7,000 per-child, per-year they are currently spending on Godless, Marxist public schools... money and time which they could then employ to educating their child in the Christian home- or private-chooling curriculum of their choice.... Christian Parents will agree to permit Joe Ganga down the street to smoke his wacky weed in peace, so long as he does not interfere with our kids.

That's a bargain many Christians would take, IMHO.

You are much too tough......;) 97 posted on 11/21/01 10:03 PM Pacific by He Rides A White Horse

LOL!! Well, see my #92... I don't just hold my Christian brethren to a higher standard, I take care to spread the work around... ;-)

To: Liberty Teeth I agree completely. It is high time for the LP to fashion a foreign policy as good as its domestic policy. Browne had the snot beat out of him, deservedly and resoundingly, by Al D'Amato. Here in the People's Republic of Travis, the Libertarian Party aired the entirety of Ramsey Clark's completely stupid Neighborhood Bully "we deserve to be attacked" screed. Tonight, Browne echoed the stupidity, he actually complained that "we are bombing innocent people." It was glorious to see him stomped by D'Amato. The Libertarian Party of the USA needs to realize that foreign policy is, well, "foreign." Other people and other governments may not think like we do, or at all. They may have no concept of the "Libertarian Truce." It is a Constitutional responsibility for the Government to be prepared for such cases. That means to meet violence with violence, a currency that even animals understand. It simply isn't possible to defeat bin Laden by debating Austrian economics. 84 posted on 11/21/01 9:44 PM Pacific by toddhisattva

100% agreement with your post.

....which is, by the way, a rarity for me, toddhisatva -- as I normally consider you one of those obnoxious atheist libertarians who considers the Religious Right to be the "enemy"... and on that subject, has it yet occurred to you that the "Religious Right" are the group, through the agency of private and home schooling, most likely to "opt out" of the single largest economic drain on personal Economic Liberty and Property Rights, the so-called "Public Schooling" system??

Christian Libertarians like myself would find it a whole lot easier to convince our home-schooling conservative christian friends that the Leviathan STATE is our long-term enemy, were it not for Atheist Libertarians like yourself who seem insistent upon antagonizing the Christian Right, thus convincing them that "libertarians" are the Enemy.

Not a Personal Attack... but certainly a Personal Rant, on my part -- perhaps you see where I am coming from.

To: Captain Shady Classic liberals are the true conservatives of today...libertarians are not. 58 posted on 11/21/01 9:10 PM Pacific by rwfromkansas

"Classical Liberal".
"Libertarian".

Respectfully, my young FRiend... Define the difference.

If you don't care for the particulars of the "Libertarian Party Platform", feel free to disregard them (in whole or in part). Attend only to the core philosophies in question.

But I would submit to you that, if you think about it, the only truly Biblical question involved is whether or not it is the duty of the State to enforce the Entire Law of God (All Ten Commandments)... or whather the duty of the State is to enforce the Civil Law of God (the latter Five Commandments).

Meaning no disrespect to our anaBaptist friends, Calvinist Presbyterians have always been more thoughtful on this subject than the anaBaptists (I speak only my own opinion here). ALL agree that at least 80% of the modern Warfare/Welfare State operations are Biblically illegitimate; hence, Presbyterians -- at any rate, those Calvinist Presbyterians thoughtful enough to immediately discount the anti-nomian silliness of modern "liberal" christianity, including "liberal presbyterianism" -- have always come down on ONE of TWO possible sides:

• 1.) Either the adoption of Theonomic Reconstructionism, meaning that you favor State Enforcement of the Entire Law of God (which would necessitate the State punishment of both Islam and Orthodox Judaism, in keeping with a Psalm 2:12 understanding of the First Commandment); OR
• 2.) the adoption of Theonomic Libertarianism, favoring only the enforcement of the Second Table, the Civil Law of God, State punishment of Murder, Adultery, Theft, Fraud, and Coercion -- and nothing else whatsoever.

Think hard, my Covenantal FRiend.

These are the only Biblical possibilities.

Perhaps it is time you chose sides.

Choose carefully. You will be graded.

Hey Uriel you are one of the people on my personal Thanksgiving list:>)....it will be good when you get settled in, and can return to FR,with some regularity! 16 posted on 11/21/01 7:59 PM Pacific by RnMomof7

Yes, I look forward to it as well.

May God greatly Bless all the little Pilgrims 'n Indians in your extended family this Thanksgiving Eve.

I must disagree, Uriel..........I'm what one might deem a 'fundie'.........but something is getting lost here......... 91 posted on 11/21/01 7:25 PM Pacific by He Rides A White Horse

Well, I'm fairly libertarian... and I'm 100% Fundie to the core. No apologies about it.

(Remind me to tell you sometime about the sainted Dr. J. Gresham Machen, the libertarian-fundamentalist founder of my own Orthodox Presbyterian denomination).

But I'm afraid I don't fully apprehend your request for commentary... tell you what -- pose me a question, I'll do my best to answer. (But be quick about it, FRiend -- I have a Thanksgiving fellowship dinner to attend tomorrow!!)

To: Uriel1975 Congratulations on the new job and digs! Have a great Thanksgiving. 11 posted on 11/21/01 7:16 PM Pacific by nunya bidness

You too.

(I see that Mullah Omar just put a $50 Million bounty on Bush's head... To which I can only say -- God willing we catch and kill these guys, but if not, will someone in the Republican Party Hierarchy let Ron Pauls' Bill out of Committee for once, so we can respond to these guys IN KIND before the rest of Congress feels it necessary to pass more "Patriot" Bills??!!)

Just a thought. ;-)

#50 is just an ad hominem drive-by shooting of a post.

Not worth my time to rebuke;
Not worth yours either.

However, Thanks for the Bump. My new job is going well, and, God Willing, I close on my new house December 5.

Will probably re-join the "libertarian wars" after that time. (although, I must admit, I've only agreed with maybe 50% of Browne's writings since September 11... and I did vote for the guy)

Thank you, RnMomof7, for keeping me bumped on threads of interest while I continue devoting my time to acclimating to the new job and closing on my new house (God Willing, December 5).

FWIW, I have been more impressed with Franklin Graham of late than I have been in years.

Notice what Franklin Graham did not say... he did not attempt, as did Falwell and Robertson (at least at first), to define the horrific events of September 11 as a kind of quid pro quo "Judgment" of God. Luke 13 should warn preachers against such attempts to telepathically "read" the Mind of God -- "There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."

Notice also what Franklin Graham did say -- "We're not attacking Islam but Islam has attacked us. The God of Islam is not the same God. He's not the son of God of the Christian or Judeo-Christian faith. It's a different God and I believe it is a very evil and wicked religion." Allah is not Jehovah-Y'shua, God of our Salvation. Islam is not some "variation" of the same basic religion. Islam is a satanic counterfeit, and is, therefore, fundamentally evil in the Eternal scheme of things. One which encourages a twisted (and often violent) "morality" of a sort, I suppose; but one which has denied billions of souls all Hope of Heaven.

Franklin Graham has, in short, not made a personal opinion claim (of which I feel Falwell and Robertson were guilty), but rather something far more subversively dangerous to the existing post-modernistic "mush god" faith of the modern age... He has made a Truth claim.

True and False. Right and Wrong. Black and White.

That old Reformational Gospel that no matter how "meritorious" a religion may be in the Eyes of Men, it is either Godly or Satanic at its core -- it either Saves, or it Damns.

Such radical, Biblical ideas have been virtually unheard-of from the otherwise "good-hearted" Graham Family Clan for the better part of 30 years.

I have been pretty worried about the Graham Clan for a little while now:

• Billy has been preaching a "feel-good" Gospel of Works and Psychology for years;
• Ned Graham, who seemed to be the real "evangelist" of the family (with his certainly-commendable "East Gates" evengelistic ministry to China) has been revealed as, apparently (I cast no stones, I merely report), a drug-abuser and adulterer -- which are, I hasten to add, comparatively minor sins of the flesh if covered by the Blood of Christ (for what sin cannot be covered by The Blood?) -- but these sins have been compounded immeasurably by Ned's apparent determination to continue acting in a Pastoral/Presbyteric role, oblivious to the demands of Church Discipline (much like another fallen hero of my youth, pro-lifer Randall Terry).. while the Elder Graham, the unimpeachable reverend Billy, has knowingly turned a blind eye.
• Franklin, on the other hand, I had more-or-less "written off" to the "Social Gospel" movement with his "Samaritan's Purse" charity... not that there is anything wrong with Charity, mind you (it is a Good Work!!) -- but bread in the stomach does not, in and of itself, Save a man's Soul. HOWEVER, perhaps Franklin's face-to-face encounter with the persecution the Church encounters in the charitable Mission Field has sharpened his appreciation of Truth and Falsehood, Right and Wrong... and he has thereby come to a dogmatic (and correct) opinion of where "Islam" stands.

I will be shocked, yes SHOCKED, if Franklin Graham, eldest heir to the Graham Empire, should happen to develop into a more doctrinaire, resolute, and robust Preacher of the Gospel than his all-too-compromised father. The apple does not fall far from the tree.

But, all the same, I wouldn't mind seeing it, God Willing.

Blessed Thanksgiving,
Uriel

The Word had been Spoken... re-phrase... "The Word has been Spoken". Apologies for the awkward grammar.

That is NOT how prophecy works. Go back and study your Scripture. 29 posted on 11/21/01 4:22 PM Pacific by Poohbah

Gee, and here I didn't have you figured for a fellow Bible-thumper, my wargaming FRiend.

Kudos for your correct understanding. We are not now awaiting "new" revelation. The Canon of Revelation is closed. The Word had been Spoken. Now we read... and listen... and watch... and pray and remain faithful.

And here I had taken you for an armchair military-intelligence specialist... little did I know, there was an amateur theologian lurking underneath those C3I and throw-weight calculations. ;-)

Oh knock it off. When the chips were down for Whitmann in NJ, the conservatives swallowed their pride, held their noses, and helped elect her. Meanwhile, when the conservative Bret Schundler won the primary very handily, the RINOs decided to have a snit-fit, sat home, and actively campaigned for the Democrat.

Exactly correct.

What do you think of this?

If I was being routed by an enemy force, I too would claim it was a "strategic withdrawal". Troop morale, and all that.

But I take everything I am reading -- from all sides -- in this "quasi-war" with a grain of salt.

This is slightly off topic, and may or may not be significant, but I'm going to ask anyway. Does anyone recall ever seeing a libertarian post anything derogatory about his or her neighbors, or are there any libertarians reading this who do not like their neighbors? 28 posted on 11/13/01 6:24 PM Pacific by tacticalogic

That's a plausible theory actually. Look at all those who are first to call the cops, CPS etc on their neighbors.... 31 posted on 11/13/01 6:34 PM Pacific by Demidog

While any matter of Aggressive Force would warrant a call to the local coppers, I suspect that if it is simply a matter of a neighbor being rude, crude, disorderly, or just plain ornery, a libertarian might see if he could resolve the situation by calmly, peacefully field-stripping and cleaning his guns in plain view on his front porch... while whistling a happy tune. "Howdy, neighbor!!"

At least, that's the sort of thing I can imagine L. Neil Smith or Robert Heinlein doing.

"An armed society... is a polite society" -- Heinlein

This is slightly off topic, and may or may not be significant, but I'm going to ask anyway. Does anyone recall ever seeing a libertarian post anything derogatory about his or her neighbors, or are there any libertarians reading this who do not like their neighbors? 28 posted on 11/13/01 6:24 PM Pacific by tacticalogic

That's a plausible theory actually. Look at all those who are first to call the cops, CPS etc on their neighbors.... 31 posted on 11/13/01 6:34 PM Pacific by Demidog

While any matter of Aggressive Force would warrant a call to the local coppers, I suspect that if it is simply a matter of a neighbor being rude, crude, disorderly, or just plain ornery, a libertarian might see if he could resolve the situation by calmly, peacefully field-stripping and cleaning his guns in plain view on his front porch... while whistling a happy tune. "Howdy, neighbor!!"

At least, that's the sort of thing I can imagine L. Neil Smith or Robert Heinlein doing.

"An armed society... is a polite society" -- Heinlein

Libertarians have taken over the city of Leadville, Colorado. On November 6, local voters gave registered Libertarians a voting majority on the seven-member Leadville city council. Four council seats are now occupied by Libertarians.... Located just west of Denver, Leadville has the distinction of being America's highest incorporated city, at a perch of more than 10,000 feet. It has a population of about 2,800 residents.

"Top of the world, ma"!!

Or is it, "king of the mountain"?