Posted on 10/17/2010 2:46:47 PM PDT by citizenredstater9271
In The Federalist No. 51, arguably the most important one of all, James Madison wrote in defense of a proposed national constitution that would establish a structure of "checks and balances between the different departments" of the government and, as a result, constrain the government's oppression of the public. In making his argument, Madison penned the following paragraph, which comes close to being a short course in political science:
The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.[1]
The passage that refers to the angels is a rhetorical masterpiece, so memorable that it has become almost a cliché.
(Excerpt) Read more at mises.org ...
In 2010 we stand at the precipice of either stopping our 80 year decline or falling face down into an oligarchical tyranny.
More propaganda from the right arm of the Libertarian Party: The Mises Institute.
“In the United States, for example, the state at one time or another during recent decades has confined millions of persons in dreadful steel cages because they had the temerity to engage in the wholly voluntary buying and selling or the mere possession of officially disapproved products. Compounding these state crimes (of kidnapping and unjust confinement) with impudence, state officials brazenly claim credit for their assaults on the victims of their so-called War on Drugs.”
You guys really need to quit trying to associate the Founding Fathers with your movement. They stood for everything that you’re against (God and His laws for one).
When has mises.org ever been against God? Ron Paul is a CHRISTIAN. Same thing w/ Lew Rockwell. They believe total free market capitalism is the ONLY form of economics according to the Bible.
Who’s going to stop them? The government? Ha. Every movement tries to associate itself, in some way, with the founding fathers. Even communists say that they are following the ideal of doing the most for the people.
In the end, the fact that it’s the American experience that first the people established themselves then the government established itself makes it easier for the Libertarians to associate themselves with the founding fathers than anyone else. The pioneer spirit and all that.
Be careful of using the word “total”. Total implies that people are allowed to get away with anything they want including cheating and lying. The fact is that there must be some rules to govern honest commerce or we will be reduced to bartering.
If a company is doing something wrong in a totally free market, people will just voluntarily CHOOSE to NOT associate with the company. And it would work b/c without the state intervening in the market there's NO monopolies. So if Company X was dumping waste into the river the townspeople would just shop at Company Y instead. The market fixes itself, no government needed.
Right here: Link to Mises homo marriage article
Ron Paul is a CHRISTIAN.
I like the way CHRISTIAN (as in REAL CHRISTIAN) James Dobson put it in an interview awhile back:
"Ron Paul is unqualified: to lead a Sunday school class, let alone a nation. Ron Paul has long worked with the Libertarian Party, and he spoke at its 2004 National Convention, and yet he has never repudiated that party, even though...
The Libertarian Party is:
Pro-legalized abortion
Pro-legalized euthanasia (killing of sick and handicapped people, etc.)
Pro-legalized homosexuality
Pro-legalized pornography
Pro-legalizing drugs (Crack cocaine, etc.)
Pro-legalizing suicide
Pro-legalizing prostitution
Etc.
Remember as well that Ron Paul was only one of five Republicans to vote for repealing DADT. The list of his anti-Christian insanity is endless.
Same thing w/ Lew Rockwell.
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr is the founder, a former president and currently the chairman (since 2009). What kind of "CHRISTIAN" would promote things like same sex marriage, the legalization of recreational drugs, and of course "free trade" with the "Butchers of Beijing"? (to name 3 things).
Then there's "devout atheist" Walter Block (since Murray Rothbards "trip south", many are calling Block "Mr. Libertarian").
Check out the new "Mr Libertarians" justification for child molestation in this article written by him.
Link to Walter Block article
They believe total free market capitalism is the ONLY form of economics according to the Bible.
Yet they sell out US Sovereignty and the American worker so that they can make an "easy buck" in some 3rd world country.
So tell me where the Bible says that one should trade with tyrants that force abortions on their own people because they've committed the heinous crime of having a baby girl?
The Butchers of Beijing are godless atheists that have committed tens of millions of murders, not to mention other atrocities such as political slave labor camps.
The Mises Institute and all of the people involved with it are a disgrace to God and to our Christian founded nation.
Bull sht.
Let's compare notes. You show me where the Libertarian Party (or any libertarian for that matter) talks about God and adhering to His principles and laws, and I'll show you how the Founding Fathers talked about that subject.
The austrian school is the only school aligned with the Bible. The Bible says the gov. should not be taking away our money through taxes.
As shown in this 2007 interview with John Lofton, Ron Paul doesn't even think homosexuality is a sin:
Link to Ron Paul/Lofton interview
He doesn't believe in evolution or global warming or vaccines. He is pro-life and has never voted FOR abortion, only for letting states decide if they want it legal or not. same thing w/ homo marriage.
Yet he thinks that abortion should be a "states rights matter" (as shown in the above link). Since when is murder (since abortion is done out of convenience 99% of the time, it's murder) a "states rights matter"? The punishment for murder is a state rights issue (depending on the jurisdiction of where the crime was committed), but voting to decide who should live and who should die was NOT what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they coined the words "states rights".
The austrian school is the only school aligned with the Bible. The Bible says the gov. should not be taking away our money through taxes.
Here is an excellent post by an intelligent Christian lady from another blog regarding Austrian economics and Christianity:
"I think there is no Biblical quote that more directly addresses Christians who still sympathize with the Libertarian way of thinking. “Is Austrian Economics Unbiblical?” How can it be Biblical, knowing that Ludwig von Mises was a Humanist, and he never made it a secret that he is indebted to great humanists (atheists)? Then, why are Christians, who are rejecting Evolution and Evolution’s ideological fountain, Humanism, looking for a solution for their economical problems in Humanism? Is this not “faltering between two opinions”?
What is wrong with Austrian Economics? Not so much that is in it, but what is missing from it. The leadership of God is missing from it.
This is the gist of the matter. How can you separate God from Economy? Why do Christians, who claim Christ is King over every course of their action, all of a sudden, when it comes to Economy, pretend that He is irrelevant? Do you think you benefit more from foreign idols? This is what the ancient Hebrews did; they could not choose who gives them more, Baal, or God. Believe me, the Lord gives more. As the old Prophet said, we should go back to Him.
To be specific, God is missing from Mises’ theory, because he specifically rejected Max Weber’s basic social principle, the direction of the “Ideal Type.” Thus, the disciples of Ludwig von Mises are clueless; wondering, which is the right way to go, most of the time—a typical predicament of Humanists. They have no leader, except themselves and their strongest desires.
The first Christians accepted Christ’s leadership not only in the Church, but in Economics too. Thrown out to the world, they supported themselves by doing the manual work of slaves. Knowing this, Martin Luther preached that God had placed all vocations on the same plane. This was developed by Calvin. Soon, lower class religious nobles, who up until then were engaged in mischief or in constant soldiering (because they thought of work as “coarse” and “demeaning”) now became “entrepreneurs.” This is how “Capitalism” began.
Max Weber knew that following the “Ideal Type” created a moral environment that is essential for economic success. He called this environment “Protestant Work Ethic.” He could have called it “Biblical Work Ethic” because that’s what it was. Entrepreneurship, hard work, commitment, frugality, self examination, strict moral purity characterized the adherents of the Ideal Type. Ask yourself the question, who leads the nation to prosperity? This type, or the dope smoking, porno-reading, work evading fornicator?
Do you really think that the nation’s economic failure has nothing to do with atheism? Think again. Even the best “economic system” will fail if it is not supported by the Biblical Work Ethic."
Even if Dr. Paul is wrong on abortion and gay marriage how does that make him wrong on economics? Returning America to the free capitalist market our founders intended for is my #1 issue. Read more mises.org and you’ll learn why.
Why do you think our modern Libertarians share our founding fathers religious principles? That seems kind of bizarre.
Our founding fathers were guided, in part, by the ideas of church governance from the Scottish Reformation, by John Locke’s ideas on Natural Rights and Montesquieu’s ideas of the separation of powers. This is pretty basic stuff.
He also doesn’t think the state, Federal or local, should recognize marriage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84
Libertarians take their basically good idea, minimal government, to the extreme.
Yes b/c marriage is for the CHURCH. The gov. has no right to involve themselves in our marriages.
So the children my wife and I have are just people with no legal tie to us?
You and your wife associate yourselves w/ your kids and your kids associate themselves w/ you and your wife. No gov. control invovled.
Marriage has long been recognized as a community event. The Scriptures have much to say about the conduct of married people but nowhere in Scripture is the power to marry relegated exclusively to the church.
Furthermore, the government can, under the Constitution, create laws that are rationally related to explicit constitutional mandates, and therefore marriage is of legitimate interest to the government because heterosexual marriage is the principal generator of new citizens, every one of whom inherits those inalienable rights that drive our entire system. These citizens therefore rightfully come under the shield of the police power of the state, and the law’s inherent encouragement of marriage is designed to create the safest, healthiest environment possible for these children.
By contrast, statistically, the number of gay unions that naturally produce children is ... zero. The government has neither a compelling nor even a rational interest in defending gay unions, whereas the potential for children fully justifies the large body of law designed to foster the well-being of those children that heterosexual marriage so naturally produces.
The state should have nothing to do w/ marriage. Marriage is between you and your church.
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.