Tea Party Patriots Org strikes Libertarian Iceberg...

I fear this misrepresents(little l) libertarianism. There is restraint and there is limitation. The individual is encouraged to practice liberty only so far as it does not require the compulsion of others or the impedance of their own rights. Sadly this very sort of consideration appears to be tragically lacking in your own political philosophy.

The libertarian ideology demands that atheism be imposed on the public square. They preach and use State power to impose amorality and atheism on the public through state enforced political correctness and a leftist distortion of the first amendment’s religious freedom.

Libertarian ideology is not netural on freedom of speech, thought and association - by far. They have zero tolerance for the sight and sound of religion in the public square and will use state power at all levels to silence and supress it. Just like the commies.

A free market comes with the ability of people to self regulate - to be good so they can survive an thrive in freedom or self determination. Self regulation comes from character development which is absent from libertarianism’s social ideal of state imposed atheism. Atheism goes hand in hand with a Soviet system of economics and it’s police state. What the state (the ruling elite) impose socially and politically as it serves them, is mandated on the people.

For example, libertarians have no problem with public schools imposing the atheist “truth” that homosexuality is wonderful when they know that many of their fellow citizens who operate from a Judeo Christian social framework do not share that beleif and observation of human life with them. They have no problem with imposing their amorality and atheism on everyone with the power of the state.

So...libertarians are either self deluded or they are liars. Dishonesty is fine within the belief structure of atheism if it serves the advancement of materialistic self gain and state social dominance over those religious people with Western morals and ethics that they love to socially dictate to with unconstitutional state power.

If libertarians were really advocating for social freedom, they would demand that the State respect the rights of all Americans in moral and social issues and keep out of those private areas of American life in public education and all aspects of government. In other words, social freedom means supressing the government’s ability to impose social beleifs on everyone - atheist or otherwise.

Freedom respects self determination and self determination means freedom to freely believe and associate in life in a way that promotes one’s happiness and success whether moral or atheist. This is outside the liberatarian social ideology of state imposed atheism and amorality.

”The libertarian ideology demands that atheism be imposed on the public square. They preach and use State power to impose amorality and atheism on the public through state enforced political correctness and a leftist distortion of the first amendment’s religious freedom.”

You seem to have gotten libertarianism confused with the ACLU. Given the name of that organizations –as well as those involved with it that have identified themselves as civil libertarians- such a connection is as much to be understood as they are to be expected. However the two have little in common with each other.

Libertarians (right little libertarians at least . . . just like any other word there are groups laying claim to it –specifically the anarcho commies- that are not of the variety we have been discussing in this thread) generally do not seek to increase state or police power for any purpose. It would also be nearly impossible for the real libertarian to endorse the use of such powers on the public square. The goal of most libertarians is the maximization of private property of the individual . . . this goal is not at all served well by granting the state new police powers (or encouraging those already assumed to exist) for the purpose of controlling a public square that should not exist in the first place.

”Libertarian ideology is not netural on freedom of speech, thought and association - by far. They have zero tolerance for the sight and sound of religion in the public square and will use state power at all levels to silence and supress it. Just like the commies.”

I am unclear as to what you mean by “neutral on freedom of speech, thought and association”. No doubt I have misinterpreted your suggestion (apologies in advance) but I can find no value at all in being neutral on these topics. I am emphatically of the belief that the free expression of thought, speech and association are positives and must be respected by the state. I cannot see how the general libertarian ideology deviates from this.

As for comparing libertarians and commies . . . again you must be thinking of the ACLU. For further clarification on the matter might I suggest a reading of Ludwig von Mises’ “Planned Chaos”. I believe you can find it online for free. I am sure you will enjoy it immensely . . .as I did.

“Self regulation comes from character development which is absent from libertarianism’s social ideal of state imposed atheism.”

State imposed state atheism may be a goal of the ACLU. But as for libertarianism self -regulation is one of its cornerstones. If you are to survive and succeed without the nanny state controlling your decisions and your actions then you must practice self-regulation. If you do not then there is no mechanism to protect yourself from yourself. You will suffer the consequences of your actions. You allow will be allowed to subsidize your errors by the usurpations of the labors and properties of others.

If anything this world view is far more humane than the alternative. For otherwise you are breeding nothing but generations of –for all of their state imposed moral “superiority”- of devolved thieves who subsist of the benefit drawn from the misery and suffering they cause others. Besides the morality the state agrees upon has little to do with the Judeo or the Christian. You will be told that it is only moral that a person that has lost his/her usefulness to the state must be liquidated for the good of the more productive classes. Oh yes there will be death panels. And they will be justified in the name of morality. The libertarian approach to negating this possibility is to remove control from the public sector by reducing the public sector wherever possible. A man/woman with land is a free man/woman. A man/woman on public property is a ward of the public.

”Atheism goes hand in hand with a Soviet system of economics and it’s police state. What the state (the ruling elite) impose socially and politically as it serves them, is mandated on the people.”

Atheism goes hand in hand with the Soviet system because that level of totalitarianism requires that rights actually be considered privileges afforded by the state and to be shared community by the subjects of the party/state. I am sure there are any number of libertarians that are agnostic or atheist. But libertarian ideology cannot exist without the notion of natural rights of man. Rights granted by the created that cannot be given or taken away by governments. Even deists like Jefferson had to concede this point.

”For example, libertarians have no problem with public schools imposing the atheist “truth” that homosexuality is wonderful when they know that many of their fellow citizens who operate from a Judeo Christian social framework do not share that beleif and observation of human life with them. They have no problem with imposing their amorality and atheism on everyone with the power of the state.”

Again there is a sliding scale (like everything else) in libertarianism. But most, and I hate to generalize here but there is no way around it, likely believe that the problem with public schools teach “homosexuality” or don’t teach “homosexuality”. The problem with public schools is they are public. The problem is that the state uses its police power to remove property for some so that others can be compelled into 12 years worth of state sanctioned indoctrination.

”Feedom respects self determination and self determination means freedom to freely believe and associate in life in a way that promotes one’s happiness and success whether moral or atheist. “

You’d better be careful about expressing beliefs like that. Some people might get the notion that you’re a libertarian. :)

On its face, defaulting on Social Security may be immoral, or morally neutral depending on circumstances. In the present set of circumstances, a prime cause of default would be due to abortion, and therefore, defaulting would not only be immoral, the degree of immorality would be compounded accordingly.

For example, if the government defaulted because the good faith payments of participants in the SS system were mismanaged by known incompetents, or the money was stolen, the default would be immoral. But if the money is lacking because potential taxpayers were aborted, the default would be based on the murder of babies, which would increase the level of the default's immorality.

Such is one of the unintended consequences of Roe v. Wade. Another is the “necessity” of death panels to keep the seniors from “bleeding the system dry.” Healthcare resources are not infinite, but the crux of the matter is that the number of young taxpayers paying into the system are less so, as are the individuals available to become doctors, nurses, technicians, scientists, inventors, etc.

Hard line libertarians don't get that it's always the *immoral* action that gives rise to those nasty long term unintended consequences that just may end up biting them in their *own* butts.

But libertarian ideology cannot exist without the notion of natural rights of man. Rights granted by the created that cannot be given or taken away by governments. Even deists like Jefferson had to concede this point.

If this is the case, then why don't libertarians enthusiastically embrace the social issues, since the principles of which are found in the same Natural Law as is found the natural rights of man?

“You seem to have gotten libertarianism confused with the ACLU. Given the name of that organizations –as well as those involved with it that have identified themselves as civil libertarians- such a connection is as much to be understood as they are to be expected. However the two have little in common with each other.”

I was involved in libertarianism and I know they have confused themselves with the ACLU and the Left’s cultural cleansing agenda. They see religous people and religion as their central enemy. In that, they work to oppress religious freedom and moral free speech and teachings in society claiming it is a violation of church and state.

At the same time, they do not lift a finger to get the left out of the amoral forced re-education social effort. They don’t lift a finger and in fact, they will readily shout down a conservative who objects to the Left’s cultural cleansing. There are exceptions, but the party is socially radical/atheist and demands it be imposed on everyone in business, government and institutions.

“Libertarians (right little libertarians at least . . . just like any other word there are groups laying claim to it –specifically the anarcho commies- that are not of the variety we have been discussing in this thread) generally do not seek to increase state or police power for any purpose.”

YOu don’t seen the conflict between the terms anarcho and communists? Anarchists are for the purpose of creating social chaos so that communism can be installed to bring order to morally and intellectually ignorant people. They are quite at home and active in the libertarian party. This is so opposite of freedom - self regulation and self determination, that this element of Libertarianism has rendered it a menace to our country right beside socialism.

“It would also be nearly impossible for the real libertarian to endorse the use of such powers on the public square. The goal of most libertarians is the maximization of private property of the individual . . . this goal is not at all served well by granting the state new police powers (or encouraging those already assumed to exist) for the purpose of controlling a public square that should not exist in the first place.”

It is not impossible at all for Libertarians to be for the power of the police state imposing a socialist culture and belief structure on the public. They do it all the time. They openly and actively support the oppression of their conservative opposition’s freedom of association and moral based speech.

To be neutral, libertarians would have to demand the government be silent on all moral and social issues - atheist amorality and religion. At the same time they would have to protect the right of Christians to say and beleive whatever they want and the same with atheists in the public square. They would oppose power of any kind trying to enforce a set of social thought on the public as this is violation the spirit of American freedom. All diversity and multicultural crap would be replaced with individual meaning and freeom. Libertarians are not neutal as they will go after government and institutional moral speech of Christians but not atheist amoral speech. By default they choose to impose atheism on the public as the state and cultural religion.

“I am unclear as to what you mean by “neutral on freedom of speech, thought and association”. No doubt I have misinterpreted your suggestion (apologies in advance) but I can find no value at all in being neutral on these topics. I am emphatically of the belief that the free expression of thought, speech and association are positives and must be respected by the state. I cannot see how the general libertarian ideology deviates from this.”

We are talking about official state speech asserting authority on social beliefs and morals/amorals; not the speech of individuals. The speech of individuals will become much less angry and divisive when there is no fight to get the State power to oppress the other guy’s speech and freedom of association. That is what the whole “culture war” is about. If the State is to continue preaching amorality to the children of people who are moral, for example, those people are going to fight to replace that amoral speech with moral speech. Freedom is better served with teaching kids a moral character rather than an immoral or amoral character of nothingness and no meaning. Socialism is served by teaching and imposing amorality or immorality on the public.

In reality, the State has no right to immpose any moral or immoral belief structure on institutions or in the public square. People have the right to say and beleive whatever is true to them in the public square. Libertarians work to keep out moral speech in the name of separation of church and state and freedom but in the vacume they have permitted the immorality of the atheist belief structure to replace it. They see nothing wrong with that or claim it is not important. Hence, we are seeing our society break down as the commies desired. Self rule requires a moral eduction because all morals are developed ultimately to live one’s life independent, successful and free. They will fight against the public voice of holding public and private officials to standards of moral character.

One thing I was freaked out by was the rejection of the ideal of mercy. In a free society w/o government social programs, free people have to socialize and organize themselves to help those who are helpless. It is done voluntarily, but it is a notion and truth that is central to the awareness and character of free people. Without that part of the American character, socialism is a promise. When we measure character as free people, we used to reward those who privately take mercy on others in our communities.

“As for comparing libertarians and commies . . . again you must be thinking of the ACLU. For further clarification on the matter might I suggest a reading of Ludwig von Mises’ “Planned Chaos”. I believe you can find it online for free. I am sure you will enjoy it immensely . . .as I did.”

I have read the Utopian fantasies of libertarianism and found it to be lacking in the depth of the collective or cultural wisdom needed to create a society of people with the character, wisdom and knowledge of independence and freedom. Plus I have watched and heard them speak and see lack of wisdom and self awarness runs deep in the group. I have interacted with them on Libertarian forums and there is a love of anachary and immorality and a hatred of and rejection of the “judgement” which limits of morality/independent and responsible survival. I see an emphasis of freedom being confused with the freedom to self destruct and crap on society (especially the freedom of immoral sexual self destruction) and that comes out of the hammock mentality that we call socialism. There is total denial of the consequences of sexual immorality on the human being and on the society at large.

“State imposed state atheism may be a goal of the ACLU. But as for libertarianism self -regulation is one of its cornerstones. If you are to survive and succeed without the nanny state controlling your decisions and your actions then you must practice self-regulation. If you do not then there is no mechanism to protect yourself from yourself. You will suffer the consequences of your actions. You allow will be allowed to subsidize your errors by the usurpations of the labors and properties of others.”

I know this is what libertarianism is supposed to be about -self regulation. But to have that in a free society, you need to educate people in a self-regulating culture about choices and that means you have to say what is a good idea in behavior and what is a bad idea in behavior. You have to express public judgement or discernment so kids can learn how to be self regulating.

We are not born with the cultural wisdom of our American ancestors and moral understanding. We are not born understanding the risks and consequences of the choices we make. Liberatarians would be pushing moral and character education, if they were trying to reach an ideal of self-regulation for free people to survive and thrive. They do the opposite. They are disrespectful and hateful to moral instructions, lectures and concepts the public square because this “judgement” impedes on their idea of “freedom.” They claim to be neutral on the foundation of self-regulation which means there is no basis of knowledge for self-regulation. Hence you have amoral, stupid peasants - perfect objects for Marxists.

As stated above, in a free society it is recognized that the merciful and loving voluntary labor and property of others is necessary to help those who can not survive on their own because of sickness or other circumstances. We have never been a people who will sit by while the old and the handicapped die without love and mercy, in the gutters.

Socialists came in and replaced our extensive private charities with mandatory government “charity” for the helpless and poor. It was a key part of leftist cultural cleansing of our American culture to get rid of private charities because they taught morality to the public and had influence and respect. That web of private charity grew out of constitutional freedom. But charity is a necessary and urgent aspect of the character and society of free people and that is where Christianity (religious freedom and expression in the public square) was once central and necessary to society. Libertarians should be preaching private charity for the spiritually broken, poor and handicapped if they wanted a culture of freedom to got the the economic freedom they love.

“If anything this world view is far more humane than the alternative. For otherwise you are breeding nothing but generations of –for all of their state imposed moral “superiority”- of devolved thieves who subsist of the benefit drawn from the misery and suffering they cause others. Besides the morality the state agrees upon has little to do with the Judeo or the Christian. You will be told that it is only moral that a person that has lost his/her usefulness to the state must be liquidated for the good of the more productive classes. Oh yes there will be death panels. And they will be justified in the name of morality. The libertarian approach to negating this possibility is to remove control from the public sector by reducing the public sector wherever possible. A man/woman with land is a free man/woman. A man/woman on public property is a ward of the public.

We agree that the public sector is abusive and evil and needs to be limited to it’s constitutional structure. In that States and localities have the power to impose social norms that the Congress does not have the power to do. There is public property and private property in our constituitonal design. I am not interested in Libertarians reinventing that more to their liking because they have no wisdom and care; no expressed or dominate National character beyond a free for all of untempered self service and greed. The speech on public property of citizens is not to be controlled by public officials. Currently it is controlled by public officials in a body of amorality and inanity we call political correctness where all other speech and belief is suppressed. In the past, we stuck up for one another’s freedom of religion (moral speech) in the face of official oppression, whether we liked the ideas or not. We knew that moral speech/debate and discussion was necessary for developing a character of self regulation and public policy. We did not take kindly to private organizations and businesses disrespecting this freedom of speech and imposing some wacky CEO’s internationalist amoral principals on American workers, either.

“Atheism goes hand in hand with the Soviet system because that level of totalitarianism requires that rights actually be considered privileges afforded by the state and to be shared community by the subjects of the party/state. I am sure there are any number of libertarians that are agnostic or atheist. But libertarian ideology cannot exist without the notion of natural rights of man. Rights granted by the created that cannot be given or taken away by governments. Even deists like Jefferson had to concede this point.”
____________________________________-
I am glad you said “Libertarians are agnostic not atheist.” That is the central problem. There will be no void in the character of a society. If you suppress Christians in the public square in an effort to be neutral, what are you leaving to fill the void? Atheism; immorality. In Europe Muslims are filling the void. What goes with a culture of Atheism? A police state - Communism. That is why liberals impose an amoral/immoral culture on the public in politics, law, art, music, education, business, etc. Libertarians help them out in unthinking and unwise silence and often in cheering them on confused that the idea of freedom means acting and advocating immorally in the public square. Misery loves company.

Thinking public and private leaders can just avoid all discussion of morality and wisdom is the central mistake Libertarians have made. In this way, they advance the culture of communism and kill the constiution’s culture of self determination. If you want free markets you have to be preachers and rewarders of a public and private sector character of honesty, mercy and wisdom. Libertarians are devoid and even hostile to the moral culture that goes with freedom.

Being a Christian I would put it to you in this way. If you oppress or ignore morality in the private and pubic sector, you are leaving a void that will be filled by morality’s opposite - evil. Hence the massive theft of the banksters...making deals with the devil to cancle loan qualification standards (a moral imparative of their business) to please corrupt politicans. I can’t even believe that I find myself arguing with liberatarians who have rejected the idea that there is a spirit of good and and a spirit of evil open to human beings and in human life.

“Again there is a sliding scale (like everything else) in libertarianism. But most, and I hate to generalize here but there is no way around it, likely believe that the problem with public schools teach “homosexuality” or don’t teach “homosexuality”. The problem with public schools is they are public. The problem is that the state uses its police power to remove property for some so that others can be compelled into 12 years worth of state sanctioned indoctrination.”

Again, you are the typical libertarian who is trying to ignore the imposition of immorality and even disease on the children you expect to grow up to be free people. The truth is that there ARE public schools right now and you have abandoned them to teachers of self destruction and dependence - socialism. You don’t understand how serious it is to liberty that our society be of high character in all it’s assertions of power especially in it’s dealing with children. Their characters are formed in childhood and what they are taught in pubilc culture is what they will do as adults.

Since we have public schools, if you really cared about liberty, you would be knocking heads of public officials who are imposing deadly social lessons on other people’s free children. Doing this does not preclude the mission of creating a private education system. This is the cental wisdom of cultural freedom Libertarians lack and even outright reject.

“You’d better be careful about expressing beliefs like that. Some people might get the notion that you’re a libertarian. :)”

I am a Christian American constitutionalist. I see a difference between right and wrong guidelines in life and I know Americans need to understand these guidelines (whether presented in religious terms or scientific terms) to survive and thrive in life. I see the moral imparative of mercy and charity for all free people to understand so that we can be free but not careless and cruel to the weak. I love the human spirit and I am weary of it being abused by the void left by liberals and libertarians for evil to enter and abuse the human spirit and it’s survival in freedom. By the same token, I am weary of shallow hypocritical podunk preachers who do not understand morality any deeper than a quote from the Bible which they do not even understand. We need Christian intellectuals involved in morality.

But libertarian ideology cannot exist without the notion of natural rights of man. Rights granted by the created that cannot be given or taken away by governments. Even deists like Jefferson had to concede this point.
_______________________________________________________—
From Lauren: If this is the case, then why don’t libertarians enthusiastically embrace the social issues, since the principles of which are found in the same Natural Law as is found the natural rights of man?

That is a great question for the libertarian who wrote the statement you addressed. YOu addressed his quote to me by accident but I want to address it.

Libertarianism’s soical ideology comes from Rand. Rand was an escapee of communist Russia. She came with the communist social ideology that religion is oppressive as it was used by the royal elite to keep people down economically and socially. And it was used like this. You can understand this point of view it you see it as coming out of the days of the Kings and Queens who selectively used Christianity to harm their political and social enemies and keep total control for themselves.

Likewise she witnessed the absolute poverty in spirit and material of the communist economic system. She saw absolute, unregulated free enterprise as the ideal. The story goes, if it is a bad business practice the business will fail and solve the problem of bad business practices.

So she advocates an amoral/atheist (agnostic) public culture where people are free to be as bad as their impulses move them and she advocates a free market in a society with no culture based moral restrictions on the greed and dishonesty of people, either. If it makes a profit, that is great! If it makes you suffer and die, so be it. Die in the gutter. You did it to yourself.

Take the libertarian central banksters as an example. Clinton made a deal with them to deregulate the banking industry - a key ideal of libertarianism - if they would stop imposing the hateful qualification standards for loans that kept poor people from getting loans. The banksters went for it figuring that people are responsible for making their own economic messes - and who are they to judge? In the end they crashed the economy with their moral ignorance and rejection of the honor and duty of business leaders in a free society - to not rip off investors for their own profit and power. Their decision to be subhuman rats in ripping off investors by droping loan standard protections, has made everyone poor but them. That is libertarianism in practice. It lacks the cultural imposition morality and wisdom - like Ann Rand preaches. It is not how American ancestors preached! They knew freedom comes with clear moral responsibilities. They riducled and punished theives especially the ones in power - like the banksters and other employers and politicans.

This ignorance of moral and wisdom cultural responsibility that goes with constitutional freedom runs rampant in libertarian circles because it is a cult of Ayn Rand. It is like the cult of Lenin or Marxism - a Utopian ideology that is devoid of human nature’s reality. It is like dealing with savages who have no values, knowledge or wisdom of operating in a free society where they can abuse people anyway the desire for their profit - without the only sin - moral judgement! Like communists!

Get every individual to agree to the identity of the author of the Natural Law and then you will have your basis for the control of their lives with it. Until then you must accept that the only Natural Law that can be universally respected is that you do not have the authority to subvert the rights of others or remove their property just as they have no such authority to do that to you. Of course not everybody respects this. And so governments, in their only proper form, are created to protect the rights and the property of the individual. But I’m sure you’re already familiar with the various sorts of ideas on social contract.

Bookmark

"I was involved in libertarianism and I know they have confused themselves with the ACLU and the Left’s cultural cleansing agenda. They see religious people and religion as their central enemy. In that, they work to oppress religious freedom and moral free speech and teachings in society claiming it is a violation of church and state.

Since you've introduced the anecdotal then what can I say then my experience with libertarians and libertarianism has been completely contrary to yours. What you have described is adverse to libertarianism . . . or at least right libertarianism. Perhaps you should introduce your friends/former friends to some new reading materials and get them to categorize themselves more properly.

"YOu don’t seen the conflict between the terms anarcho and communists? Anarchists are for the purpose of creating social chaos so that communism can be installed to bring order to morally and intellectually ignorant people. They are quite at home and active in the libertarian party. This is so opposite of freedom - self regulation and self determination, that this element of Libertarianism has rendered it a menace to our country right beside socialism."

Your assumption that I've condoned the grouping of the terms anarcho and communist together is based on a misinterpretation of what I wrote. But there are indeed groups out there that call themselves anarcho-communists. I didn't create them. I didn't get them together. I'm not an administrator on their facebook page. But they exist. And some of them also call themselves socialist-libertarians. The point was to make it clear that I am talking of a specific group of "libertarians", but that there are many and some of them are as authoritarian as any statist.

On a side note there is a certain canonicity to those that that use the term anarcho-communist. It is the correct Marxian view to believe that after the worldwide revolution of the proletariat and the establishment of the true socialism that the state will simply wither away. This is, of course, preposterous. People will not submit to the slavery inherent in socialism without the power of the state to force them. But don't blame me for the notion. I did not write the Communist Manifesto either.

To be neutral, libertarians would have to demand the government be silent on all moral and social issues - atheist amorality and religion. At the same time they would have to protect the right of Christians to say and beleive whatever they want and the same with atheists in the public square. They would oppose power of any kind trying to enforce a set of social thought on the public as this is violation the spirit of American freedom. All diversity and multicultural crap would be replaced with individual meaning and freeom. Libertarians are not neutal as they will go after government and institutional moral speech of Christians but not atheist amoral speech. By default they choose to impose atheism on the public as the state and cultural religion.

This reasoning has, seemingly, collided with logic. How is it that atheism is to be prohibited from being displayed in the public square? Should there be special atheist symbols created? Perhaps special habits can be constructed and devotional hymns could be written to accompany the performance of significant atheist rituals. Once these have all been properly created and identified we can ban together and prohibit them from ever being used in public. I am joking -of course- but the consequence of the state not being able to establish a religion is that public property cannot be used to endorse religion. I don't like it. Which is why I strongly support the decrease of as much public property as possible.

The position that governments cannot erect church's, mosques, temples, or scenes of The Nativity or buraq the magic horse flying to a faraway land does not amount to individuals being restricted from freedom of religious expression or speech. I carry a Bible with me everywhere I go. My wife wears The Cross. My step-son wears funny evangelical t-shirts to his school. I've been to many a study or service in parks or other community places. It is when these rights are violated by government that the state has crossed the line in subverting the religious rights of the individual. Not when they fail to establish a compulsion. This distinction is very important. Once it is established that governments can contribute to religious messages in the public square then how much longer will it be before the burqa is mandatory?

"We are talking about official state speech asserting authority on social beliefs and morals/amorals; not the speech of individuals. The speech of individuals will become much less angry and divisive when there is no fight to get the State power to oppress the other guy’s speech and freedom of association. That is what the whole “culture war” is about. If the State is to continue preaching amorality to the children of people who are moral, for example, those people are going to fight to replace that amoral speech with moral speech. Freedom is better served with teaching kids a moral character rather than an immoral or amoral character of nothingness and no meaning. Socialism is served by teaching and imposing amorality or immorality on the public."

Freedom is not served by the state teaching kids anything. It is not served anyone else deciding what is right or moral for my kids to know. I will teach my kids the difference between rights and wrong. I will place my kids in a church of my choosing in the attempt to instill virtues. Socialism is served by puclic education . . . period.

"In reality, the State has no right to immpose any moral or immoral belief structure on institutions or in the public square. People have the right to say and beleive whatever is true to them in the public square. Libertarians work to keep out moral speech in the name of separation of church and state and freedom but in the vacume they have permitted the immorality of the atheist belief structure to replace it. They see nothing wrong with that or claim it is not important. "

It breaks my heart that so many can see the battles but have no idea what the war is about. It is as if they have already conceded the fact that we must exist in a world of ever expanding government control and power over your life through the existence of the public square. It doesn't matter whether the authority is moral or amoral. It matters that the authority does not encroach upon our rights or property. There is no need for any sort of "vacuum" or "what they have permitted" they do not need this power. They do not need this authority. We do it no harm by acquiescing to all of its hunger for power just so long as that power is "moral" enough for those persistent enough to decide what is moral for the rest of us.

Hence, we are seeing our society break down as the commies desired.

We are seeing the break down of society because we are seeing the breakdown of self sovereignty, the ability to profit from our labor and what we are allowed to do with those profits that remain. And the nanny staters and the statists are hand in hand with this one. Not unlike Germany and Russia for a time during WW2.

Self rule requires a moral eduction because all morals are developed ultimately to live one’s life independent, successful and free. They will fight against the public voice of holding public and private officials to standards of moral character.

And who is going to give this education? And how are individuals going to be compelled to partake in it?

And what is this deal of holding private officials to standards? That's not America. That's the old Soviet Union. Freedom doesn't mean having to answer to other people. As for public officials I'm all for holding them to ethical and legal standards. But before we get there let's just diminish their importance in our lives. There is absolutely no reason why The President of the United States should be so important to me as he is. He should have nowhere near the power or authority over my life that he does. That is where the real problem begins, and that is as well where we will find the solution.

One thing I was freaked out by was the rejection of the ideal of mercy. In a free society w/o government social programs, free people have to socialize and organize themselves to help those who are helpless. It is done voluntarily, but it is a notion and truth that is central to the awareness and character of free people. Without that part of the American character, socialism is a promise. When we measure character as free people, we used to reward those who privately take mercy on others in our communities.

I reject the notion that I must be socialized. I reject the notion that I must be organized. There is no need to reward those that privately take mercy on others in their community. That is not mercy. That is exploitation or manipulation. Socialism is only a promise where the authority is such that the people are not free or able to benefit from their own labor. Freedom and the ability to profit will keep socialism in check. A strong middle class with great freedom because they have much private land to practice their freedoms on is the check of socialism that we need. Marx was wrong to suggest that socialism would spring from a free market. Socialism springs from agitators fooling serfs that later find out life was actually better under the Kaisers and the Czars than it is under their new masters.

As for charity . . . in a free and productive society the blessings flow so freely that the surplus is more than enough to help the "helpless". And I've no doubt that the number of helpless would decrease drastically once it was understood that all were free to succeed as they liked. And if there is to be an organizing let the Church's do it amongst their congregations. Out of their desire to conform to the scriptures written by an inspired James. Let the world see that this charity is born of love and obedience in one's own life . . . but not out of manipulations brought on by those that feel they are superior enough to their neighbors to start making the decisions for them.

I have read the Utopian fantasies of libertarianism and found it to be lacking in the depth of the collective or cultural wisdom needed to create a society of people with the character, wisdom and knowledge of independence and freedom.

There is no greater utopian fantasy than the notion that command controls (whether described as governments or merely as cooperatives or communities) can be entrusted with the creation of societies or economies. The notion is antithetical not only to libertarianism but conservatism as well and all points at which they meet. We are seeing the error of this assumption in almost every moment of our lives these days. I am not my community. I do not want my community deciding what society it is I am living in or creating a society that it demand I exist within. I want the freedom to associate with whom I choose. I want the freedom to be me . . . not the proxy of anyone else. Collectivization and central planning do not bring freedom. Socialization does not bring independence. They bring the sort of collectivist authority that all despots desire.

Plus I have watched and heard them speak and see lack of wisdom and self awarness runs deep in the group. I have interacted with them on Libertarian forums and there is a love of anachary and immorality and a hatred of and rejection of the “judgement” which limits of morality/independent and responsible survival.

Judgment? Whose judgment? By what authority are they to be judged? Who is going to judge them? What is to happen to them when they are found "guilty" of violating the sensibilities of the overly zealous and interventionists? Will they be fined? Will they be imprisoned? Will they be executed? Perhaps an alliance should be formed with reactions Islam. If we impose Sharia law then surely these cretins and reprobates will be forced into compliance with what is necessary for "responsible survival".

I see an emphasis of freedom being confused with the freedom to self destruct and crap on society (especially the freedom of immoral sexual self destruction) and that comes out of the hammock mentality that we call socialism. There is total denial of the consequences of sexual immorality on the human being and on the society at large.

"I know this is what libertarianism is supposed to be about -self regulation. But to have that in a free society, you need to educate people in a self-regulating culture about choices and that means you have to say what is a good idea in behavior and what is a bad idea in behavior. You have to express public judgement or discernment so kids can learn how to be self regulating.

What you describe is not a free society. What you describe is a Caliphate.

We are not born with the cultural wisdom of our American ancestors and moral understanding. We are not born understanding the risks and consequences of the choices we make. Liberatarians would be pushing moral and character education, if they were trying to reach an ideal of self-regulation for free people to survive and thrive. They do the opposite. They are disrespectful and hateful to moral instructions, lectures and concepts the public square because this “judgement” impedes on their idea of “freedom.” They claim to be neutral on the foundation of self-regulation which means there is no basis of knowledge for self-regulation. Hence you have amoral, stupid peasants - perfect objects for Marxists.

I am beginning to wonder just how big the state is going to have to be to hand out all of this freedom. I am wondering what new police powers are going to have to be assumed to enforce compliance to the new definition of liberty. How much of my property will I have to sacrifice for the education (or re-education) camps needed to train people in how to obey the community sanctioned standards of freedom. How big is the public square going to have to be before everyone can be fit into it and everyone can be owned by it?

Self-regulation doesn't need a committee on public safety for its implementation. We've had enough Robespierre’s and Stalin’s and Hitler’s for now. Early on mankind learned what fruits were feasts and what fruits were poison by experience and example. The fool that squanders his property and resources for the pleasures of the moment will be swept away with nothing but poverty and disease for companions. He will remove himself from society and serve as a cautionary tale. Those that don't heed the warning will soon suffer the same. Without our freedom to fail we have no freedom to succeed. And a society where the self-appointed controlling authority grants itself the power to dictate what is right and how we must conduct ourselves in the name of the children . . . well that sounds like something straight out of Michelle Obama's freedom hating mouth.

As stated above, in a free society it is recognized that the merciful and loving voluntary labor and property of others is necessary to help those who cannot survive on their own because of sickness or other circumstances. We have never been a people who will sit by while the old and the handicapped die without love and mercy, in the gutters.

Socialists came in and replaced our extensive private charities with mandatory government “charity” for the helpless and poor. It was a key part of leftist cultural cleansing of our American culture to get rid of private charities because they taught morality to the public and had influence and respect. That web of private charity grew out of constitutional freedom. But charity is a necessary and urgent aspect of the character and society of free people and that is where Christianity (religious freedom and expression in the public square) was once central and necessary to society. Libertarians should be preaching private charity for the spiritually broken, poor and handicapped if they wanted a culture of freedom to got the the economic freedom they love.

Libertarians do preach private charity. They do preach charity of the Church and of the individual. As for a culture of freedom creating the economic freedom . . . well it is a bit more complex than that. There is no freedom without economic freedom. Without economic freedom we are all dependent on the benevolence of those that might put conditions on their charity. Not that I mind conditions on charity. Your property should be yours to dispose as you wish. If you want to withhold a loaf of bread or a bowl of soup until the end of a sermon then so be it. But please don't suppose it is right to force your audience into captivity by first denying them the economic freedom to provide for themselves.

We agree that the public sector is abusive and evil and needs to be limited to it’s constitutional structure. In that States and localities have the power to impose social norms that the Congress does not have the power to do.

This is of course supposing that incorporation by the 14th amendment is incorrect. I'm ambiguous on that topic. I'm very much interested in the Constitutional guarantees protecting citizens from fanatics banding together and deciding that poor Protestants like myself can't have any meat on certain Fridays of the year. At the same time if it is to be a federal government then clearly all power must be derived from the states and it is the responsibility of the citizens of those individuals states to draft protections for their freedoms or find states that have already done so.

There is public property and private property in our constituitonal design. I am not interested in Libertarians reinventing that more to their liking because they have no wisdom and care; no expressed or dominate National character beyond a free for all of untempered self service and greed.

Yes, the nerve of the greedy libertarian. The unmitigated gall to believe that you should be able to use your gifts to succeed and provide for your family. That you should only be limited by the willingness to work hard and work smart. Why if they could only learn to be a little more compassionate. If they could only learn to be self sacrificing like those other guys that want to take away their property and control the citizen's thoughts, speech and action in the name of communal morality. Ughh the utter repulsiveness of those greedy enough to want no control over their neighbor or their neighbor's property . . . its enough to make you want to break out the Pete Seeger records and join a commune.

The speech on public property of citizens is not to be controlled by public officials. Currently it is controlled by public officials in a body of amorality and inanity we call political correctness where all other speech and belief is suppressed.

That is actually horrifying. Please give me some examples so I can address it in the various places that I blog.

In the past, we stuck up for one another’s freedom of religion (moral speech) in the face of official oppression, whether we liked the ideas or not. We knew that moral speech/debate and discussion was necessary for developing a character of self regulation and public policy. We did not take kindly to private organizations and businesses disrespecting this freedom of speech and imposing some wacky CEO’s internationalist amoral principals on American workers, either.

Again the issue is not that they are doing this . . . although that is an issue. What we should focus on is limiting their ability to do this. Not just moving them out of the way so that we can replace them with a person wielding the same authority under a different banner.

I am glad you said “Libertarians are agnostic not atheist.” That is the central problem. There will be no void in the character of a society. If you suppress Christians in the public square in an effort to be neutral, what are you leaving to fill the void? Atheism; immorality. In Europe Muslims are filling the void. What goes with a culture of Atheism? A police state - Communism. That is why liberals impose an amoral/immoral culture on the public in politics, law, art, music, education, business, etc. Libertarians help them out in unthinking and unwise silence and often in cheering them on confused that the idea of freedom means acting and advocating immorally in the public square. Misery loves company.

I never said libertarians are agnostic but not atheist. Some are atheist, some are agnostic, some are Christian, and some are Buddhist and so on and so forth. Personally I have little patience for the intellectual vapidness required to be a proper atheist. Proving a negative requires a perfect knowledge. The sort of perfect knowledge that could only exist in the very God whose presence would invariably disprove their entire philosophy. It is a conceit that could only be found in an egoist with far more faith than brains. An agnostic on the other hand seems reasonable. I disagree of course. But they have not been so fortunate as me. I know there is God. But my faith is of a different variety than is to be found in the atheist. My faith is in something . . . rather than in nothing. The problem is there being a void that is filled is that there is a void to begin with. The solution is to remove the medium. End the public square.

As for immorality in art, music etc. I am in the one in control of my iPod. And I very much want to keep it that way thank you very much.

Thinking public and private leaders can just avoid all discussion of morality and wisdom is the central mistake Libertarians have made. In this way, they advance the culture of communism and kill the constiution’s culture of self determination. If you want free markets you have to be preachers and rewarders of a public and private sector character of honesty, mercy and wisdom. Libertarians are devoid and even hostile to the moral culture that goes with freedom.

Preachers and rewarders of private sector charity, honesty and mercy and wisdom is a field in which nothing but authoritarians and socialists can grow. And what kind of morality is it that expects charity to be performed out of greed for reward rather than a stirring of the soul?

Being a Christian I would put it to you in this way. If you oppress or ignore morality in the private and pubic sector, you are leaving a void that will be filled by morality’s opposite - evil.

Being a Christian I find it frightening to oppress with citizens in the private sector with your morality. Christians should be concerned with the souls of the individual. An acceptance of Christ is a very personal matter. It must, like charity when it is altruistic, be born out of a sincere desire and conversion. It must be true. It must be greeted in the proper way. I wonder how many forced into an apostate Christianity by an apostate Church of the Middle Ages are in heaven today?

I am not against protecting the rights of individuals to preach in the public square. To discuss their religion. To carry signs (No libertarian I know does). Nor am I against students reading their Bible's in public schools. In praying. In meeting around the flag pole. None of these actions violate the establishment clause in any way. A case could be made that so long as the public schools are not receiving federal money -even conceding to the existence of Constitutional incorporation- that teacher led prayer or religion classes would be an infraction either. But there again the probelm is the public square encroaching into the private lives of individuals.

Hence the massive theft of the banksters...making deals with the devil to cancle loan qualification standards (a moral imparative of their business) to please corrupt politicans.

These actions were of CRA were brought about by coercion of government and the power of the Federal Reserve to control the money supply and how much money cost individual banks. Those in favor of this called it moral. They forced there morality upon me. The consequence of this action was the destruction of the economy as well as a massive reduction in the value of my dollars. But again . . . it was moral was it not? This was done to help the poor and the disadvantaged? Those that manipulated the system into allowing this theft were merely just "Preachers and rewarders of private sector charity, honesty and mercy and wisdom ". It would be immoral to have let all the greedy people keep the money they earned. It is moral to steal it from them and give it to the less fortunate. How can we have a free society if we do not laud such morality? How can people be expected to self-regulate themselves without a controlling force teaching them the value of such merciful charity? Yeah sure . . . let’s just import that success story into every aspect of our lives.

"Again, you are the typical libertarian who is trying to ignore the imposition of immorality and even disease on the children you expect to grow up to be free people.

And you would have them grow to be slaves. I leave it to your own conscience to decide which is worse.

The truth is that there ARE public schools right now and you have abandoned them to teachers of self destruction and dependence - socialism.

Public schools are socialism. At their very inception they are socialism. You cannot separate one from the other.

You don’t understand how serious it is to liberty that our society be of high character in all it’s assertions of power especially in it’s dealing with children. Their characters are formed in childhood and what they are taught in pubilc culture is what they will do as adults.

Please re-read that statement and appreciate just how condescending and authoritarian it is.

Since we have public schools, if you really cared about liberty, you would be knocking heads of public officials who are imposing deadly social lessons on other people’s free children. Doing this does not preclude the mission of creating a private education system. This is the cental wisdom of cultural freedom Libertarians lack and even outright reject.

Your assumption has made something out of you that I, in my younger years, foolishly gloried in being. I am constantly at the school. I am knocking heads. I am doing the best that can be done with the socialist offal sandwich that is the public school system. And I teach morals at home. I am the example to my children. That job is already being filled. So please stop trying to take it away from me.

I am a Christian American constitutionalist. As a Christian I would think your care for freedom of religion would be more than it is. How would it be if the moral step-fathers of your community suddenly decided that a reading of Martin Luther's "Here I Stand" or Jonathan Edwards "Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God" amounted to heresy? Or what would you do if you lived in a place where a use of the Rosary was greeted as the same? Or what if it was decided that all Bibles must only be printed in Latin? Or that you needed to start facing Mecca at least five times a day?

As a Constitutionalist I don't know how you can justify such impositions. Certainly it may be that incorporation is an invalid argument . . . but the Constitution is clear in it's protections of the Citizens from a powerful, all intrusive state. Strange that you do not hold to those sympathies.

I see a difference between right and wrong guidelines in life and I know Americans need to understand these guidelines (whether presented in religious terms or scientific terms) to survive and thrive in life.

I do too. For example it is wrong to steal. It is wrong to try and control other people. It is wrong to make slaves of men in the name of either societal or their own good.

I see the moral imparative of mercy and charity for all free people to understand so that we can be free but not careless and cruel to the weak. I love the human spirit and I am weary of it being abused by the void left by liberals and libertarians for evil to enter and abuse the human spirit and it’s survival in freedom.

The cruel and the weak are not ours to be careless with. They are not our property. They are not our children. It is far better to work to remove the inhibitions to their success than it is to strangle them with our moral love and costly charity.

I can't say that I love the human spirit. That is why one should supplant it with The Spirit of God. But that can't be done for you. And that can't be done at the behest of the state or do gooder busy bodies so gracious as to condescend upon us immoral savages and forge for us chains wrought out of their own perfect compassion.

I’ll wait for the movie.

As I read your critique of this organization I see someone who understands America’s true and only basis.

Very well done.

If we as a people will not return to America’s moral foundations this free republic cannot possibly survive.

Spoiler Alert

It was the one armed man!

“...But there are indeed groups out there that call themselves anarcho-communists. I didn’t create them. I didn’t get them together. I’m not an administrator on their facebook page. But they exist. And some of them also call themselves socialist-libertarians. The point was to make it clear that I am talking of a specific group of “libertarians”, but that there are many and some of them are as authoritarian as any statist....”

We agree. Alot of people who pass themselves off for libertarians are socialists. A lot of Conservatives do the same.

“This reasoning has, seemingly, collided with logic. How is it that atheism is to be prohibited from being displayed in the public square?”

The State enforced absense of religious speech in the public square is what? Another way to look at it: The State enforced absense of God in the public squre is what?

If we are to have religious freedom, we have to have freedom of speech and representation where ever we are without State harassment and punishment. The ‘wall’ the communists erected in our constitution that demands the absense of God in the public square is the imposition of atheism in the public square.

“Should there be special atheist symbols created? Perhaps special habits can be constructed and devotional hymns could be written to accompany the performance of significant atheist rituals...”

I don’t care what atheists do as long as I have the freedom to express my beleifs and ethics in the public square - anywhere I choose - as much as they have the right not to express a beleif in God.

“The position that governments cannot erect church’s, mosques, temples, or scenes of The Nativity or buraq the magic horse flying to a faraway land does not amount to individuals being restricted from freedom of religious expression or speech.”

We celebrate cultures in the US. Our public square would be sterile without the sight sound of the people who live there. The constitution restricts the Congress from establishing a religion for the Nation. It does not prohibit religious community members from participating culturally in the public square like everyone else does. The Marxist invention of a wall in our constitution has given soicalists the freedom to establish the current empty diversity race cultures which are devoid of truth, freedom and spirit. That is oppressive.

“Not when they fail to establish a compulsion. This distinction is very important. Once it is established that governments can contribute to religious messages in the public square then how much longer will it be before the burqa is mandatory?”

Is not the government contributing to your religious message by permitting you to conduct a Christian meeting in the public owned park? What if your wife worked for the government? Would they not be contributing to your religion by permitting her to wear a cross? Leftists would disagree. They have “progressed” in Europe to ban all sight, activity and sound of Christians out in public in the name of separate of church and state.

“Freedom is not served by the state teaching kids anything. It is not served anyone else deciding what is right or moral for my kids to know. I will teach my kids the difference between rights and wrong. I will place my kids in a church of my choosing in the attempt to instill virtues. Socialism is served by puclic education . . . period.”

We definently agree that education should be private; not public. But it is public right now and they are imposing a state religion of amorality and atheism on all kids and that is unconstitutional and we should not let it pass unless we want a public conditioned for socialism in the future.

We can do more than one thing at a time...working to end socialism in the schools and working to make it impossible to even do schools with no right for the state to assert anything - moral or amoral to other people’s kids.

Liberatarians are sticking their heads in the sand instead of standing up to the socialists imposing their social beliefs on other people’s kids. That is unconstitutional. To do nothing is to condone it which precludes a future of freedom.

“It breaks my heart that so many can see the battles but have no idea what the war is about. It is as if they have already conceded the fact that we must exist in a world of ever expanding government control and power over your life through the existence of the public square. It doesn’t matter whether the authority is moral or amoral. It matters that the authority does not encroach upon our rights or property.”

It breaks my heart, too, and I agree with you. We should not have to engage in any struggles like this if we had the constitution, still and if we agreed to live free and independent rather than collectively in government institutions. Giving all parents vouchers for their choice of education for their kids and phasing out public school buildings and teachers unions would be a great start to dismantling the monster.

“There is no need for any sort of “vacuum” or “what they have permitted” they do not need this power. They do not need this authority. We do it no harm by acquiescing to all of its hunger for power just so long as that power is “moral” enough for those persistent enough to decide what is moral for the rest of us.”

Idealism is great. But we are not ideal and we have to assert ourselves into the ring like the Marxists did when they took over everything. We have to be persistent and involved. Even if we were able to undo their web of control, there would never be an end to the battle. Some people seem wired to be collectivists and they need to be directed into private life projects and out of public life.

“We are seeing the break down of society because we are seeing the breakdown of self sovereignty, the ability to profit from our labor and what we are allowed to do with those profits that remain. And the nanny staters and the statists are hand in hand with this one. Not unlike Germany and Russia for a time during WW2.”

Yeah, that is what is scarey. More scarey, is we have a whole herd of meglomaniacs wanting to rule the whole freaking world now. That will be WW3.

“And who is going to give this education? And how are individuals going to be compelled to partake in it?”

Ideally, it would be parents of children who are compelled to partake in it. But currently it is mandatory that children and young adults partake in amoral, humanist education by the State through the public schools and political correctness in our Universities.

“And what is this deal of holding private officials to standards? That’s not America. That’s the old Soviet Union. Freedom doesn’t mean having to answer to other people. As for public officials I’m all for holding them to ethical and legal standards.”

No excuses and don’t wait - hold them to ethical and legal standards right now. But whose ethics? I say Western ethics - our ethics that gave birth to freedom rather than humanist non-ethics that gave birth to communism/fascism/socialism. As majority of voters, we can easily do that and must do that.

“But before we get there let’s just diminish their importance in our lives. There is absolutely no reason why The President of the United States should be so important to me as he is. He should have nowhere near the power or authority over my life that he does. That is where the real problem begins, and that is as well where we will find the solution.”

You can’t wait to get anywhere before you act to get corrupt and unethical people out of office. I agree it should not matter so much because they should not have much power and importance in society. But they do and we are where we are. We must deal with this now so we can work to get rid of it. We need a smart plan and strategy and activists to ride it through. Ethical Libertarians should lead that instead of leaving the fight to poduk preachers and congregations.

“I reject the notion that I must be socialized. I reject the notion that I must be organized. There is no need to reward those that privately take mercy on others in their community. That is not mercy. That is exploitation or manipulation.”

Everyone is socialized by one force or another. For me it was mostly my parents as schools knew their place and were afraid to cross it. You are no special exception. YOu have been soicalized whether you like it or not and you are socializing your children, too. Beyond government, Christians have always reached out to those who have been anti-socialized so they can learn to be sucessful in life. It does not come by osmosis. You got yours handed down to you. Lucky you.

How are you going to get anything to change if you refuse to organize with like minded people? You think you live in a freaking bubble and that your children are safe from all the Marxist buble heads being indoctrinated all around you? That is why you have to organize unless you don’t. Then you can just stop pretending to give a hoot and keep living utopia in your head until you can’t anymore.

“As for charity . . . in a free and productive society the blessings flow so freely that the surplus is more than enough to help the “helpless”. And I’ve no doubt that the number of helpless would decrease drastically once it was understood that all were free to succeed as they liked.”

That is true. To be free a society must be at least majority good. If the government was not involved in “charity” naming taxes “alms”, the poor in body and spirit would be a lot better off...that is if free people did what they are supposed (in the soul - not the government!) to do with charity.

“And if there is to be an organizing let the Church’s do it amongst their congregations. Out of their desire to conform to the scriptures written by an inspired James. Let the world see that this charity is born of love and obedience in one’s own life . . . but not out of manipulations brought on by those that feel they are superior enough to their neighbors to start making the decisions for them.”

Yep. The Christians should lead the way in charity and teaching love and gaining success as a free human being.

“... Collectivization and central planning do not bring freedom. Socialization does not bring independence. They bring the sort of collectivist authority that all despots desire.”

Our founding fathers were a collective who planned and brought about freedom. Ofcourse you have to organize with others, make a plan and work the plan to have freedom restored! Or you don’t really HAVE to. But then you can stop pretending you give a damn except in your head and surrender all to very organized Marxists.

“Judgment? Whose judgment? By what authority are they to be judged? Who is going to judge them? What is to happen to them when they are found “guilty” of violating the sensibilities of the overly zealous and interventionists? Will they be fined? Will they be imprisoned? Will they be executed?”

Easy there. I was talking about matters of merit. We should give merit to ethical and honorable people over unethical and dishonorable people when awarding opportunity. The good guys should win again.

“Perhaps an alliance should be formed with reactions Islam. If we impose Sharia law then surely these cretins and reprobates will be forced into compliance with what is necessary for “responsible survival”.”

While liberal courts enforce a pretend constitutional wall to suppress the free speech and free association of Christians, they are going to permit Muslims the right to create their own ideal of religiously governed communities. They will forgo the requirement of equality before the law and they will let Muslim enforce shria law on other Muslims as they have done in Europe.

Yeah, we are going to have to be well organized and funded legally and socially to fight that off.

“What you describe is not a free society. What you describe is a Caliphate.”

I don’t think I suggested chopping off anyone’s head. I spoke of Christians asserting Western ethics in their lives and in what they have power over. Like the founders did. Like everyone did before the socialists cleansed the culture and replaced it with amoral dunderhead humanism and political correctness.

I am beginning to wonder just how big the state is going to have to be to hand out all of this freedom. I am wondering what new police powers are going to have to be assumed to enforce compliance to the new definition of liberty. How much of my property will I have to sacrifice for the education (or re-education) camps needed to train people in how to obey the community sanctioned standards of freedom. How big is the public square going to have to be before everyone can be fit into it and everyone can be owned by it?

You don’t understand anything about American history outside of a structure of govenment and p.c. revised history lessons.

There is a civil life that is going to be around without a socialist government. When I speak about a culture of freedom I am not talking about the government doing it. I am talking about free people doing it in civic life. If we were ever fortunate enough to unload monster government, we would have to create a new civil life and narrative to replace the current amoral socialist/collectivist one. People would be free to reject it or accept it. If they reject it, they are going to suffer consequeces of their own making. We agree on property and charity. Actually, you are quite unique as a libertarian who is a Christian with western ethics and who knows about charity.

“There is public property and private property in our constituitonal design. I am not interested in Libertarians reinventing that more to their liking because they have no wisdom and care; no expressed or dominate National character beyond a free for all of untempered self service and greed.

Yes, the nerve of the greedy libertarian. The unmitigated gall to believe that you should be able to use your gifts to succeed and provide for your family.”

You confuse taxation with alms and voluntary serve out of a character of empathy and compassion with socialism’s mandatory volunteerism in our discussion. I was addressing the former. It is a character void in Libertarian circles where I have traveled. You are a conservative libertarian rather than a liberal libertarian. Most I have dealt with are amoral liberals and that is not a culture to support constituional freedom. Humanism is the culture of socialism.

“That you should only be limited by the willingness to work hard and work smart. Why if they could only learn to be a little more compassionate. If they could only learn to be self sacrificing like those other guys that want to take away their property and control the citizen’s thoughts, speech and action in the name of communal morality. Ughh the utter repulsiveness of those greedy enough to want no control over their neighbor or their neighbor’s property . . . its enough to make you want to break out the Pete Seeger records and join a commune.”

There are going to be people who decide to organize communes. They did it in early America...until they starved to death and then they tried it in the 60’s until they overdosed. I don’t like “communal morality” either; but I do think there is right and there is wrong and their is good and there is evil and there are decisions that help us in life and there are decisions that hurt us in life. Christians are going to have to teach people about that like they used to do.

“That is actually horrifying. Please give me some examples so I can address it in the various places that I blog.”

You want examples of current events in which public officals create institutional policy of amorality and political correctness and where they suppress moral speech and political incorrectness? Clarify this and if it is what you want, I will spend some time to help you out there.

“I can’t say that I love the human spirit. That is why one should supplant it with The Spirit of God. But that can’t be done for you. And that can’t be done at the behest of the state or do gooder busy bodies so gracious as to condescend upon us immoral savages and forge for us chains wrought out of their own perfect compassion.”

You said that nicely. That is civic public interaction - blogs, speeches, coaching others - that I talk about when I address the teaching of ethics of a civil society of a free country that we should promote - privately, volunteerly, without police... I would choose to hire you rather than someone with a humanist social orientation. If we ever get free, as a Christian man, you are going to be coaching others a lot. You are going to be surrounded by a lot of hurting people who have no idea how to survive free. The left calls it “lilly white” culture.