Here come the 'liberaltarians'?

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | Sunday, December 24, 2006 | Robyn Blumner

[Sunsong]

”The libertarian vote is up for grabs in a way it may have never been before. A compelling case is being made for the economically conservative yet socially liberal libertarians to switch their political allegiances from Republican to Democrat, a trend that has already begun.

”Brink Lindsey, a scholar with the libertarian nonprofit Cato Institute, lays out the reasoning in "Liberaltarians," a provocative essay in The New Republic. He explains that the defining ideology of the American right for the last 50 years has been conservative fusionism, which recognized the common interest in both social and economic conservatives to protect traditional values from the intrusion of big government.

”But when social conservatives came to power and started to use big government to impose their cultural vision on others, the libertarian disaffection began.

”Libertarian voters were repulsed by the religious right's impulses to deny gays the right to marry and to interfere with Michael Schiavo's decisions about his wife Terri's end of life. Then, when an entirely Republican federal government abandoned any pretense of small government by spending uncontrollably, nation-building in Iraq and replacing science with theology, the trickle became a stream.

[Col Sanders]

The very idea that human beings have individual rights not subject to the whims of an earthly monarch, but subject to the laws of Yahweh, is directly from Moses.

Not this s**t again...Do you honestly go from thread to thread looking for ways to interject your beliefs that everything comes from god?

Humans have rights not because of some imaginary being, but because they have the ability to communicate and reason with each other. If I wish to pass through your property I am free to ask and you are free to allow or deny. We associate freely with each other or not due to our ability to communicate and reason with each other. Those who cannot or will not use reason are either mentally ill or criminal. In either case, we typically attempt treatment or rehabilitation and failing that, we confine and control. In the latter, we sometimes execute depending on the offense.

Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.

I've already addressed this on another thread - Repeating it here, and on every thread to which you post, still doesn't make it a fact. You believe that were it not for a mythical supreme being lording over them with the threat of being thrown into a lake of fire for all eternity as punishment, all christians would turn into murdering, raping, lying, cheating, stealing thugs. I happen to have a higher opinion of them than you apparently.

The mythical rights of men and women are also meaningless. The very concept of rights is also founded in religion.

As I stated previously, the concept of rights is founded on reason, not religion.

The founders, many of whom were Deists and not fundamentalist christians, based their governmental beliefs on reason - The reasoned musings of guys like Frederick Bastiat and John Locke. Thomas Jefferson even went so far as to take the bible and extract only the teachings of Jesus, which he viewed as the finest moral blueprint, leaving behind the supernatural aspects, which he believed to be hogwash. The end product is called the Jefferson Bible and is availalbe in many places on the web for free.

Per Jefferson, he was rescuing the Philosophy of Jesus and the "pure principles which he taught" from the "artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms as instruments of riches and power for themselves."

"...to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them... that all men are created... Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world... with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence..."

You will note of course, the he first mentions the "Laws of Nature" and then "Nature's God." Think about Jefferson and realize how many different iterations he and Franklin went through when writing the Declaration and tell me why he specifically chose those words...Also tell me what you think "Supreme Judge of the world" meant - I assume you believe they meant god - They did not. The Declaration was written specifically to the other civilized nations of the world so they would understand why we started a war with Britian.

Regards,

Col Sanders

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Do you honestly go from thread to thread looking for ways to interject your beliefs that everything comes from god?

I am an atheist. I am not an orthodox atheist or an ecumencal atheist - - there are no such things...

---

Humans have rights not because of some imaginary being,

The very concept of rights is also founded in religion.

Since the enlightened person is freed from any superstitions about some "God," they are free from having to worry about "rights." Only raw power counts and humans are just meat puppets for the powerful...

Morality is an esoteric ideal, no more real than those hobgoblins that seem to appear before us in a dream.

Returning to Plato's Euthyphro, Socrates advanced the argument that piety to the gods is impossible if the gods all want different things...

Morality is impossible, because all humans have different morals... Claims of morality is sophistry without some higher power defining what it is.

Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.

---

I've already addressed this on another thread

Thank you for showing your sophistry...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Do you honestly go from thread to thread looking for ways to interject your beliefs that everything comes from god?

I am an atheist. I am not an orthodox atheist or an ecumencal atheist - - there are no such things...

---

Humans have rights not because of some imaginary being,

The very concept of rights is also founded in religion.

Since the enlightened person is freed from any superstitions about some "God," they are free from having to worry about "rights." Only raw power counts and humans are just meat puppets for the powerful...

Morality is an esoteric ideal, no more real than those hobgoblins that seem to appear before us in a dream.

Returning to Plato's Euthyphro, Socrates advanced the argument that piety to the gods is impossible if the gods all want different things...

Morality is impossible, because all humans have different morals... Claims of morality is sophistry without some higher power defining what it is.

Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.

---

I've already addressed this on another thread

Thank you for showing your sophistry...

[Nonstatist]

And unlike a liberal State like say, Maryland, people around here are pretty conservative

Oh, of course. How else would you explain a staunch conervative like Senator Nelson?

The Terry Schiavo case may be an overreach by a bunch of pro-lifers but it is nothing like nationalizing health care or banning trans-fats or using RICO to round up protestors or all the other crapola the Democraps pull as a matter of national policy.

Anybody who can't separate the flotsam from the sewage just doesent read enough, or is easily influenced or something like that, IMO.

[photodawg]

you all three engaged in ad hominem attacks on libertarians on this thread.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

You can't pursue ad hominem attacks on a generalized group or class of people. An ad hominem attack is a "personal" attack. If you took generalized comments on libertarians personal, you were in error. If I attack Barac Obama for having big ears, that is an ad hominem attack. If I attack liberalitarians for being potheads that is not ad hominem. If you identify with liberalitarinaism but don't smoke weed, understand that personally those comments don't apply to you. However you have in no way refuted the assertion that most liberalitarians smoke pot and that governs much of their motivation for their stance on freedom. you are simply the exception which proves the rule and perhaps might want to more closely examine the company you keep. If, that is, you are capable of that high a level of understanding. No pun intended of course (smile)

[Junior]

No we weren't.

Speak for yourself.

[Oztrich Boy]

You can't pursue ad hominem attacks on a generalized group or class of people. An ad hominem attack is a "personal" attack. If you took generalized comments on libertarians personal, you were in error. If I attack Barac Obama for having big ears, that is an ad hominem attack. If I attack liberalitarians for being potheads that is not ad hominem.

You are wrong

[patton]

I imagine you have pet names for every Jew you encounter, every black, every person that is not a member of your clann and cult, and you use them frequently, when you encounter these folks on the street.

Or ... perhaps not.

[mrmargaritaville]

I consider myself a Libertarian-I would vote for a Democrat-like Zell Miller, but given that there are no "Zell Miller Democrats" any where on the horizon the notion that I would vote for a dem is preposterous.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

If I attack liberalitarians for being potheads that is not ad hominem. If you identify with liberalitarinaism but don't smoke weed, understand that personally those comments don't apply to you.

Quite possibly the most stupid thing I've read on FR in quite some time.

"If I attack Jews for being cheap and you're a jew but you're not cheap, understand that personally these comments don't apply to you."

Yeah, that'll fly, genius.

[Cold Heat]

They are totally comfortable with the government getting involved in every aspect of life, as long as it's their side of the swamp that's doing the controlling.

Yeppers! And when it began to happen on our side of the fence, the storm clouds began to accumulate.

This storm has only just begun, and that is the unfortunate truth of the matter.

It was not easy to get as far as we did, but it sure is easy to lose all we gained, and then some. The 2008 disaster now looms large, and if the RNC cannot see what they collectively did by allowing base politics to run the show, nothing on this earth can save them.

[rurgan]

In the last 6 years Republicans in Congress fought for smaller government while Democrats in Congress were for an even larger government:

1.Republicans and Bush passed tax cuts with 90% of Democrats voting against them.
Again the GOP fought for smaller government (tax cuts) while Democrats/Marxists fought for larger government. More tax money in the hands of politicians means more government programs.

2. Democrats opposed Bush’s and Republican efforts at social security privatization and private school vouchers. Again the GOP fights for smaller government (privatization of trillion dollar government programs) while Democrats/socialists are for larger government

3.Republicans and Bush appointed some conservative judges even in the face of stiff Democrat opposition. Blameless Democrats are still obstructing appointments of some judges to the appellate courts.It will be harder for Hillary to take more of our freedoms away with chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito on the Supreme Court and Janice Brown on the appellate court.

All this bashing of the GOP by the liberal media just helps Democrats/Socialists lead America and the world on the road to socialism ,totalitarianism and economic failure as happened in the USSR.

There were close to 200 Democrat congressmen in the House. Republicans had only a narrow majority. If the GOP majority was overwhelming then I could understand Liberal media's constant criticism of the GOP. It only took a few McCains , Chafees,Collins to side with Democrats for Democrats to have victory. And these RINOS did side with the Democrats on several occasions. But Democrats get a pass even though they all had a vote and influence on policy especially when they allied themselves with RINOS, and the liberal MSM to DRIVE big government policy.


Republicans did some good:

1. tax cuts that have stimulated the economy,
2. conservative judges: Janice Brown, Roberts,Alito , huge accomplishments.
3, invasion of Afghanistan
4. attempting social security privatization
5. not giving in to pressure for Amnesty for illegals.
6. attempting private school vouchers.
7.Not giving in to pressure for socialized government control of health-care
8.The deficit has been cut in half three years ahead of the president's 2009 goal
9. not giving in to global warming taxes and regulation.
10 cutting discretionary domestic government spending
11. Medicaid cuts
12. low unemployment
Democrats opposed all these measures and will drive America the other way on all these issues toward socialism, economic decay, and totalitarianism

I don’t agree with any government involvement in health-care at all. But Bush’s Medicare drug benefit program does allow private companies to compete in it. That is not perfect but much better than the Democrat plan to have the government's Health Care Financing Agency to manage the new benefit. Republicans favor private health insurance options. Again Democrats are for government not private businesses managing Medicare prescriptions.

That's difference is important, because competition is the key to reforming Medicare's antiquated benefits and its highly bureaucratic structure as well as containing its costs as the massive baby boom generation retires.


Bush did make some bad policy decisions . But he is only one person and doesn’t speak for all Republicans.

Is the GOP perfect? Far from it. What is? The party does need some reform There are several RINOS like McCain that need to be kicked out of the party for starters. the Democrats are just socialists and need to be opposed. And by supporting the GOP the Democrat party can be stopped.

[patton]

Thanks. Glad I am not not the only one to have issues with this.

[Col Sanders]

Francis,

Back in the "good ole days" of the Internet, there used to be a couple of chumps who hung out on the political alt.* heirarchy newsgroups. These guys must have been either college professors with very little to do, or handicapped guys who never left their respective computers.

Some of us on the groups often wondered if they were bots because they would manage to posts hundreds of replies every day. They never posted their own stuff, just replies to the posts of others.

They would repeat themselves constantly, adding all caps or asterisks to emphasize their points as if doing either would make them more believable or truthful.

They would berate their opponents, constantly change the subject, inject deliberate contradictions and/or deliberately obfuscate the original point of the argument - Anything to keep it going not for the sake of the argument, but for the sake of themselves.

You are either one of them, or one of their offspring - In either case, arguing with you is a worthless exercise in futility from which I shall now withdraw.

Regards,

Col Sanders

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

constantly change the subject, inject deliberate contradictions and/or deliberately obfuscate the original point of the argument

Thanks for describing your tactics...

[donmeaker]

The surest way of taking out the Commerce Clause garbage is by Amendment. Alas, Amendments are really hard. In 230 years we have an average of what, one every 8 years? I wonder, what would be your short list of amendment worthy SCOTUS errors?

[tacticalogic]

Maybe, but it turns the idea of a government of limited, enumerated powers upside down and establishes the precedent of a goverment of limited, enumerated restrictions. It would become incumbent on the States to explicitly reserve for themselves whatever power they didn't want the federal government to assume.

[donmeaker]

Since it is pretty obvious that the enumerated powers thing is capable of being interpreted into ever more powers, what do you propose?

[tacticalogic]

I believe the proper course should be an amendment, but an amendment specifically authorizing whatever we think we need to keep that's currently being done under the substantial effects doctrine. The first thing we'd have to do is convice people that what we're doing now is messed up, and that their favorite little piece of the federal pie isn't worth what all the rest is costing us.

[Heroic_HPOA]

Well, on the issue of gay marriage, anyone who has reflected on the issue at all knows that it isn't a constitutional one. It is a question of democracy: do the people have the right to exclude certain members of their species from organizing in any manner they see fit?

But, I think that ultimately it will be a utilitarian question: will social stability suffer or benefit from allowing this kind of union?