Posted on 02/15/2002 6:50:19 AM PST by DoSomethingAboutIt
That's true, but the effect is unintended.
Unsnswerd by him:
If the government should punish evil, shouldn't there be laws against taking false gods, adultry, and coveting thy neighbor.
What should be done about those evil homosexuals?
If some kid doesn't honor the parents should he be placed in juvenile hall or put on probation?
CJ does not understand that one can lead a moral life, but believe that the government should not punish each of his neighbor's sins.
Probably the worst part of his case is that he repeats the same lines on these threads without advancing his case or answering questions.
So what's yur beef? The principle that private associations have the right to choose their members has been upheld. Why isn't that good enough for you?
I advocate voluntary morality, self-discipline, and fear of God. I live it and I teach it to my children. My children and I could live very easily and well within a libertarian society. We will never see it because libertarians and socialists believe they can have liberty without religion and morality.
The problem with the libertarian vision of a good society is, they can't get there from where most libertarians are. They live a half-truth, which is the worst sort of lie.
-- Of course it would kevin.
-- But the true genius of our constitutional republic would be realised if it's basic libertarian principles were reinstated and honored by courts & government officials.
We would then have a society that worked, --- dispite immoral, undisciplined, irreligious people.
Self interest & fair treatment under minimal law work. Our nearly hundred year experiment in big brother government has not. - #32 posted by tpaine
People will be voluntarily moral, self-disciplined, and God-fearing or they will be ruled by tyrants or nannies. Government intrusion isn't something I seek. But it is an inevitable consequence of a society that believes it can live like hell but reside in paradise.
You simply deny reality. The first hundred years of our republic belies your conclusion. Are you claiming that the prohibition movements of the 1900's were brought on by the victorians of the late 1800's?
I advocate voluntary morality, self-discipline, and fear of God. I live it and I teach it to my children. My children and I could live very easily and well within a libertarian society. We will never see it because libertarians and socialists believe they can have liberty without religion and morality.
--- Not so. -- We can, if we simply enforce our original constitutional concept. -- It has been corrupted by a prohibitionist big brother socialism. Which you support. Can you say it isn't so?
The problem with the libertarian vision of a good society is, they can't get there from where most libertarians are. They live a half-truth, which is the worst sort of lie.
-- Unsupported hogwash. You hate libertarianism, - and cloak your hate with specious generalizations.
You got that right.
Of course, the language is inflammatory, but the concept is correct. Why is one set of rights fundamentally more important to our liberal legislators than another?
Shalom.
Strange group he leads here on FR. -- Their agenda clearly is anti-constitutional on indivdual freedoms.
So if the "county commissioners" and "99.9% of the electorate" of your town decide that this years gay pride meeting will be held in the basement of your church, you fully support that. After all, people have a right to decide what type of community they want to live in.
Just clarifying your position.
EODGUY
It is clear that no single individual should ever be given the right to determine society--mentioning Stalin's Russia or the Third Reich should suffice to make this point. The question is rather: should a majority be given the right to set the rules for a minority?
The Libertarians argue that this would have--is having--dangerous consequences. Four wolves and a sheep voting on dinner, as somebody wrote on another thread.
I do completely agree with this reasoning. Rules set by a majority may hurt minorities, including myself. So what alternatives do we have?
The Libertarians propose a simple set of unambiguous rules which, as they claim, would maximize individual liberty. Fine, I say, let's do it! Do it ... but how? The Democrats in Congress would never agree to it, so we'd have to follow the recipe outlined in the Declaration of Independence, and overthrow the Government.
Can we do that? It depends on who is stronger. God created our world so that the fittest will survive--so, in the end, the rules are set by those who are the fittest and strongest. God gave the strongest the right to set the rules, and no man can take it away from them.
The wolves will eat the sheep, unless the sheep has a gun. Or a brain. Or an ally. Or, most preferably, all three.
This should suit everyone, as long as you intend to work hard, use your brain, make friends, maximize your wealth by doing honorable business, and strengthen your will by having a good relationship with the Lord. These are the things that Conservatives do. These are the things that have made America the strongest nation on Earth--and, if we keep on with our determination, these are the things that will make Conservatives the strongest group within America. And we don't apologize.
The lack of answers to it stuck out like a sore thumb. I noticed the anti-libertarians ran from that question like rats from a sinking ship.
So, am I to understand that you agree with us in prinicple, but not in practice, because liberals wouldn't agree to go along with it?
The point I was trying to make was that you need to be strong in order to win. A principle is only worth anything if it's practicable, and the only principles that are practicable are those of the winners. I was saying that, in my opinion, Conservatives are the most likely to be the ultimate winners. This opinion is based on the fact of the United States having become the strongest nation in the world by adhering to Conservative principles.
Liberals have won ground because they promise the weak to protect them. We need to win this ground back by revealing the Libs for the frauds they are. It will be an uphill battle, as they have gained control of most of the media.
It's an interesting experience to go back to reading "conventional media" after reading FR. Especially after reading threads about Libertarianism. Everyone agrees about the need for limited government, for minimizing taxes, and so on--no matter which side you are on. After this, listening to a Liberal seems like listening to a radical idiot. Not only seems, is, but to non-Freepers, it sounds like mainstream opinion. Perhaps it would be a good idea to take this Libertarian-Conservative debate out to the popular media?
I know how it feels, but you should remember they think the same thing when they hear us.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to take this Libertarian-Conservative debate out to the popular media?
It doesn't suit their agenda. They reject the basic premise of the debate (the need for limited government, for minimizing taxes, and so on). Even airing the debate would undermine their goals. So we have to find our own media outlet.
Hence, the forum we're on right now.
-------------------------------
By fighting to restore the constitution, as per it's original intent.
-- Read the first section of the 14th amendment. - Investigate why it was passed.
It was intended to restore the balance of power tween fed & state to maximize individual liberty. It has been ignored, just as much of the rest of our constitution is being subverted by both parties.
This site is dedicated to constitutional restoration, yet most here are unable to see that party politics are directly contrary to that goal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.