Posted on 05/25/2024 2:09:16 PM PDT by Jonty30
Remember the “New Atheists”? They were a big deal 15 or so years ago, bashing irrationality and superstition in bestselling books like “The God Delusion,” “The End of Faith” and “God Is Not Great.” Some of them ultimately ended up as believers, others turned to ayahuasca, and Richard Dawkins recently admitted to being a “cultural Christian.” He still doesn't believe in the big J.C., but acknowledges his worldview was shaped in a Christian context.
In a similar way, I've always been a cultural libertarian. A son of the Mountain West, my traditional conservatism is heavily dosed with a “leave me the hell alone” contempt for Washington, Wall Street and anyone else who dares to tell me what to do. It’s more instinct than ideology. When policy wonks argue how government can best solve a problem, I’m the guy in back muttering, “Why should government be involved at all?”
That said, I’ve never described myself as a full-blown libertarian—never joined the party, haven’t even read “Atlas Shrugged.” Despite admiring the libertarian movement, I’ve always sensed a hollowness at its core that didn’t jibe with human nature.
(Excerpt) Read more at discoursemagazine.com ...
Me too. That’s the only time that libertarianism can work, is when you have a people who can self-govern.
That sounds ominous, what does it mean?
“Then the Californians, New Yorkers, etc. descended and the independents were kicked to the curb.”
Denver is mostly Hispanic.
“””””“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” -— John Adams”””””
Christian social conservatism is primarily what Libertarians want to defeat, it is the early American, that they are in rebellion against, except for those generation’s smaller government which was lost as America moved away from all that Christianity and its many rules and limits.
What Libertarians get right: neither the Ds or Rs actually stand for anything and voting for either and expecting change of any kind is pure madness.
They don’t understand the need to be contained in a jar, so to speak. Where you have definable limits, but you are free to act as you wish within the limits.
For us, our limits is natural law. If we abide by natural law, we can prosper.
The self-styled independent types tended not to live in Denver. I was talking about Colorado as a whole, which was still mostly White when I lived there.
I remember one of the questions to identify political bent for the Nolan Chart was, "should peaceful people be allowed cross borders freely?" As our Founding Fathers understood it, the answer is a resounding, Yes! Yet in our day and age, who will be the arbiter of determining who is peaceful and who will wake up and recognize an invasion? Just to let you know how invested in this I was, I once sat next to David Nolan at a $100.00 dinner.
The fact that every ballot within the LP convention must have the choice "NOTA" (none of the above), means an inevitable schism is always just around the corner. A schism like there was after 9/11 when those in the Libertarian Party who saw the attacks by Islam was initiation of force (thus requiring a principled libertarian response), and those that thought the use of force by Islam was retaliation for initiation of force by the the US (Paulists, etc.) against Islam, caused half of the the LP to grab their balls and go home.
The Founding Fathers had the right balance. Leave the individual to self-govern and only what he cannot reasonably be expected to do himself give it to the next level government.
All political positions have their limits. The Founding Fathers may have wanted to allow people into the country freely, but they denied them the vote until they became citizens.
The generations of voters who founded America would be lynching libertarians.
There was very little immigration to America for the first couple of generations and Catholics were almost non-existent until they were allowed to start coming in by the politics of the 1840s.
For fun try and find a source that lists immigration for say 1790 and 1800 or even 1810, they used to be available but I can’t find them now.
“most self-proclaimed libertarians are not libertarians. They want to do what they want, but they want socialism to save them when it goes wrong.”
Got an example?
Marijuana. They want to smoke their dope, but they want treatment paid for when they can’t quit the hard stuff. I.a truly libertarian society, they have to seek and pay treatment themselves or die by their bad decision.
What does natural law say about the libertarian sexual morality and legality in this new post Christian America?
Good point!!
I’ve never seen them want government provided treatment. They do want to smoke, but they don’t ask for rehab that ive ever seen.
Agreed.
The Founders disagreed and won,
at least until now.
-fJRoberts-
Losertarians.
“”””most self-proclaimed libertarians are not libertarians. They want to do what they want, but they want socialism to save them when it goes wrong. It’s an impossible philosophy to maintain, because you are trying to hold opposite style philosophies in your mind simultaneously.””””
The individual Libertarian would correctly argue that he personally doesn’t do (at least while he is still able to function if he is using) that and that his party opposes that.
The real issue is their agenda and how it creates a voter base that does lead to what you are saying, the LP agenda breaks people, breaks communities, breaks cities, breaks individualism and commonsense, and Christian influence and creates big government voters for more socialism.
We are seeing the fruits of social liberalism/libertarianism and it is making life in America unbearable and enabling the worst of the left.
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.