Posted on 05/09/2014 6:19:54 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat
So now you are going to start spamming us with Lew Rockwell articles rather than you own opinions and positions in your own words?
Subject: articles
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 22:53:23 +0000
From: bob.wallace@att.net
To: Webmaster@freerepublic.com
Your site is permanently banned from posting any of my articles from LewRockwell, Strike the Root, Libertarian Enterprise, Price of Liberty, and Endervidualism.
Bob Wallace
To: Starfleet Command
It is for the exact same reason why we don’t allow anything from racist sites like Stormfront, conspiratorial propaganda like Alex Jones, radical liberal sites like Huffington Post (where Lew Rockwell writes), pornography, violence, etc. This is a private site, by and for Conservatives. This is about a FREE REPUBLIC. In a Free Republic, private property rights are honored, including the desire of this site to remain a Conservative forum versus a soapbox for every crank in the world.
The First Amendment says the government cannot restrict free speech, it does not give anyone the right to come on your or my private property and yell whatever they want to. It is a restriction on government, not a restriction on the standards you set for your property.
If you look at the posts here, it is pretty clear what the community thinks of Lew Rockwell.
By the way, people aren’t banned for just expressing their view, it is how they express that generally gets people banned or if their view is, for example, racist propaganda.
27 posted on 1/16/2009 11:56:58 AM by Admin Moderator
The thread so far has 181 comments. At least eleven individual FReepers on this thread are at ease with and even in agreement with the small-l libertarian philosophy of smaller government.
At most five individual FReepers on this thread, dominated in posts very heavily by one individual, accuse small-l libertarian thinkers of supporting, advocating, and enabling heinous moral abominations, and by extension grievously insulting the honor and integrity and basic human decency of .. well, ELEVEN FReepers at least, not to mention countless lurkers.
FIVE measly people who willfully indulge in false witness to "support" their arguments, versus ELEVEN level-headed patriots who understand, as does Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz, that small-l libertarian principle is the foundation of limited government, which is in turn the foundation of living MORALLY.
Jim and Admin Mods, how is it that you have deleted posts and chastised Yours Truly for doing MUCH LESS than the one hysterically anti-libertarian poster on this thread has done here and over many months past.
How many FReeper donations aren't you getting because of newbies who come here looking for kindred spirits -- which more than doubles the non-kindred spirits on this thread in REAL numbers -- but who are made to feel so unwelcome by what looks like more than a few guys accusing said small-l libertarians of wanting to enable and legalize child porn and abortion?
Hullllo?
"By some accounts" conceals a lot. Déjacque wasn't the first person to call himself a libertarian by any means, and given all the vicissitudes of a word like "liberal" down through the years, maybe she shouldn't imply that an obscure figure like the anarcho-communist Déjacque somehow owns the word "libertarian."
Wow, that sounds menacing, you count five conservatives opposing 11 libertarians, and send JR a message.
This is a conservative site, Lew Rockwell is a libertarian site. Strange post, you get into JR's finances, and mention him losing money by not restraining his conservatives and letting them resist libertarianism, and you complain that someone at FR disagrees with libertarianism.
Since this is a conservative site, and libertarianism is against conservatism, then of course it will be challenged and exposed here.
It’s like calling everyone who disagrees with obama a RACIST.
Would advise you both to quit stalking each other. FR is a big place.Just avoid each other.
Would also advise you both to unwind your panties. Must be pretty uncomfortable with them all wadded up like that.
No it isn’t at all, you don’t think that libertarianism is largely based on opposing the social conservatism and national defense positions of conservatism?
Based on opposing two legs of the stool?
>> What isn’t chronicled are the folks who went home to their children and got up early the next morning to go to work or church.
Of course because that’s not a popular talking point.
Interesting posts on the thread. Thanks for posting some of the info up thread. Very informative.
Unfortunately, I violated the first rule of troll management on this thread: don’t feed them. Oh well. Live and relearn.
Sage advice. Wish I had remembered it up thread.
“Of course because that’s not a popular talking point.”
Yeah, you’re right. It really isn’t. Only depravity and perversion are discussed. Not decency or humanity. Sinister as it has the effect of attracting those who would tend toward depravity and discouraging those who aren’t.
Would you go ahead and add me on? Not a libertarian, but I agree with y’all enough.
Ping.
They still try to say they are “Conservative”, but still avoid the main topics that divide Conserv/Lib (Libertopian and Liberal)... and we both know, it goes beyond that... Not even worth pinging them, they will still deny/avoid :po
Equating all libertarians with the Libertarian party is like saying ALL conservatives are Republican. We know that is not the case. I am going to try to outline a few positions for you, and if you still think they are leftist when I am done then all I can say is you may want to learn the difference between statism and liberty.
Marriage: I and many other libertarians agree that when one gets married they are actually getting married twice. Once in the eyes of God and once in the eyes of the state. We can argue whether government should be involved in marriage (I don’t think it should) but the fact of the matter is that it is for the forseeable future. Because of this, as a libertarian, I am OPPOSED to gay marriage. I have other reasons for opposing it as well but for now we will leave it as a religious issue that cannot be resolved because God and the Bible are clear on their position toward gay marriage. However, because the state is involved, I am not opposed to civil unions that are only recognized by the state. This way no one has their 1st amendments rights trampled upon nor can they be forced to partake in a gay marriage.
Illegal Immigration: I am opposed to it. I do not believe in open borders. There are many reasons for this; security being one of the main reasons. I have no problem with legal immigration and it should continue, though the entire immigration system needs reformed. And no, I am not advocating for amnesty, just in case you were going to try to put those words into my mouth.
National Defense: one of the few legitimate functions of government is to protect the borders of the U.S. and its citizens. I believe in a strong national defense and a military capable of deterring attacks on us and our citizens. I do not believe in “cutting and running”, nor am I against unilateral action to protect our interests. On the flip side the military is not to be used as a global police force.
Gays in the Military: Sex has no place in the military. I do not want gays serving openly. But I also do not want heterosexuals openly serving either. Leave your sexuality at home, the military has a job to do. It should determine, based on a system of merit, who advances in the ranks, and who may even join for that matter.
Abortion: We all have rights and responsibilities. An unborn baby has the right to life. Just because it may be inconvenient to a mother who does not want to be pregnant does not warrant it a death sentence. The “choice” for the mother ended when she chose to have sex and take the risk of pregnancy. Her lack of proper decision making for her own life should not cost the unborn child his life. I have no issue with the government protecting the child’s right to life, as that is one of the few basic legitimate functions of government.
Child Porn: libertarians believe in consent. That is ADULT consent. Since child porn and pedophilia do not involve this, the perpetrators are robbing the children of their right to life, liberty, and property. They should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
I am sure that not all libertarians agree with me, but may do. Just as many Republicans and conservatives do not always agree. Tagging all libertarians as you have as being leftist is no different that what the Democrats do to African Americans, and we all know what we think about the thought processes of liberal Democrats.
No, the party is a perfect and pure, and true representation of libertarianism.
Do you personally agree with libertarianism fully, evidently not.
You then listed a hodge podge collection of your personal beliefs, at least one was out of place, you described “illegal” immigration, rather than “immigration” which libertarianism has a position on.
You are OK with gays in the military, didn’t address “civil unions” being recognized as the same as marriage in federal law in the military, federal employment and immigration.
You abandon libertarianism and join the conservatives on abortion and national defense.
You describe a libertarian position on child porn that they have not taken yet, and if anything, has been blocked by libertarians, when an attempt was made for them to vote on opposing child porn.
But worth resisting the urge to feed just the same. About all I can do is hope that newbies and lurkers have the same fortitude. Even when I do that, I get accused of stalking. This could have been an interesting thread.
They don’t defend libertarian positions, they only argue that they don’t share them.
Weird.
Another clear moral plus in the libertarian take is that it would necessarily refrain government from undertaking the role of charity, and give it back to a moral populace. Charity is a moral act, voluntarily given as such and received as such by the poor who benefit. When youth groups, service clubs, churches, hospitals, organizations, engage in charity, it is a moral act and received as such.
When government - which the Federal and state governments have done -- presume to take over the role of charity via welfare and special preferences and hand-outs, it becomes an AMORAL act and is received as an entitlement. Forced charity is amoral and nourishes promiscuity and sloth, as we have clearly seen.
That's just one of many of the moral and social malaises created and nourished almost solely by government; take government out of the mix, and we'd still have poverty, but there'd be better morality.
Government is solely a force, that is all government is. It is "a dangerous servant and a fearful master," as GWashington supposedly said. It makes sense to use such a dangerous servant sparingly.
Then again, I used to think that that's what "Republican" was, the quest for smaller government. Now it's a maligned and libeled libertarianism.
God... a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive.
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.