Posted on 02/18/2010 6:06:02 PM PST by Delacon
A number of commentators have recently taken up the notion that libertarianism has become a significant force in contemporary American politics. This conviction is partly based on the assumption that, by being different from both liberals and conservatives, libertarians can enter coalitions with both, thus boosting their political power beyond their numbers. For example, David Kirby and David Boaz of the Cato Institute recently argued that, although unaware of the appropriate label for their beliefs, a significant number of Americans have “libertarian leanings” and that they are not only swing but bellwether voters; their support for Republicans, for example, ominously dropped 13 points during George W. Bush’s years in the White House. Several libertarians have argued that progressivism is, at the very least, as much a natural ally of libertarianism as is conservatism, and have advocated a fusion between the two, dubbed liberaltarianism.
On the face of it, this is not an unreasonable argument. However, our polling data at Zogby International indicate that libertarianism does not play as significant a role as the media hype would suggest. Very few people claim adherence to libertarian philosophy. Among those who do, a majority identifies with the political Right because of the large role economic freedom plays in libertarian ideology. For the most part, libertarians are a fraction within the conservative coalition — not a stand-alone movement.
Here are some of our data that show this. As a rule, we at Zogby ask two questions about ideology: a qualitative one, where people can choose a political label — progressive, liberal, moderate, conservative, very conservative, or libertarian — and a quantitative one, in which we ask them to position themselves on a 1–9 ideological scale, where 1 is extremely liberal and 9 is extremely conservative.
In all our surveys, almost all our respondents answer both questions. Our December 2009 survey results are typical. First, we found 2 percent of likely voters describing their ideology as “libertarian.” Second, over 90 percent of these self-described libertarians were willing to position themselves on a continuum between Left and Right — although they were free to say they were “something else” or “not sure.” Of those who answered the question, 89 percent chose 5 or higher, with most choosing 6, 7, or 8. Here are the average scores for various ideological groups on our 1–9 scale in our December survey:
Average ideological score on a 1-9 scale | |
Progressive
|
1.7 |
Liberal
|
2.8 |
Moderate
|
4.8 |
Conservative
|
7.1 |
Very conservative
|
8.3 |
Libertarian
|
6.4 |
Total
|
5.2 |
To be sure, libertarians and conservatives have quite different views on a number of issues. For example, when we ask questions about foreign policy, we find that voters who describe themselves as libertarians often hold views that are a combination of those held by progressive and very conservative voters. Here is just one example:
However, different as conservative and libertarian positions can be on some issues, this appears not to matter very much. The reason is that economic issues are central to the libertarian worldview, and on these issues, libertarians have far more in common with the Right than with the Left. According to our July 2009 survey, 69 percent of conservative and 68 percent of very conservative adults share the view of 64 percent of libertarians that “Economic freedom is the foundation for all other freedoms.” In that survey, we asked: Which of the following issue categories is most important to your current ideology: social/cultural issues (abortion, gay rights, gun control); economic issues (free markets, free trade, union rights); foreign-policy issues (intervention in other countries, national defense); or environmental/energy issues (government subsidies, global warming)?
Which of the following issue categories is most important to your current ideology: | |||||
Social/ Cultural |
Economics | Foreign Policy | Energy/ Environment |
Other/ Not Sure |
|
Progressive
|
35% | 23% | 8% | 25% | 10% |
Liberal
|
34% | 24% | 7% | 25% | 11% |
Moderate
|
19% | 40% | 12% | 16% | 12% |
Conservative
|
24% | 47% | 15% | 5% | 9% |
Very conservative
|
38% | 37% | 13% | 4% | 8% |
Libertarian
|
17% | 60% | 8% | 4% | 11% |
Total
|
25% | 38% | 12% | 14% | 11% |
In the past, we at Zogby were often pestered by libertarians. “We are unfairly forced in your surveys,” they complained, “to choose between two crude views neither of which captures our philosophy.” It was in reaction to their insistence that they are fundamentally different from both liberals and conservatives that we added the “libertarian” category on our ideology question.
In this, we were not alone. Theories have been developed to accommodate ideological patterns that do not fit the somewhat limited Left–Right continuum. For example, The Political Compass has attempted to map attitudes toward economic and social freedom more accurately by creating four possible ideological types (authoritarian Left, authoritarian Right, libertarian Left, and libertarian Right). More elaborately, Brian Mitchell’s Eight Ways to Run the Country uses attitudes toward hierarchy and use of force to establish eight political types, two of which serve merely to disentangle the Hayek from the von Mises variety of libertarianism.
Let us for a moment follow these writers’ assumption that a person’s ideology is solely determined by his policy views. And let us also assume that social and economic liberties can largely be disentangled and that libertarians are as close to liberals on social issues as they are to conservatives on economic ones — a view implicit in the argument for liberaltarianism. Still, our data show that different aspects of ideology are not equally important for a person’s ideological identity, and, somewhat ironically, that this is especially true of libertarians. For all their insistence that liberty has multiple facets, libertarians appear to cherish one of them much more than others. This means that liberaltarians should not hold their breath waiting for self-described libertarians to join them.
Of course, as Kirby and Boaz point out, few people use the libertarian label to describe themselves. Part of the elusive promise of libertarianism as a political force is the assumption that there are plenty of unconscious libertarians, who have a broad, vague preference for both economic and social liberties. However, one has to wonder how much these people care about either of them. If they have not bothered to learn the name of their presumed philosophy, the chances that they are applying it with vigor and consistency to multiple domains must be rather slim. Libertarians proper might indeed derive their issue positions from general principles. But a vast majority of voters do not. Realistically speaking, libertarian philosophy is too abstract for a significant number of voters to have bothered to study it, let alone embrace it.
Political philosophy is cognitively complex and, in principle, allows for endless distinctions to be drawn and combinations of beliefs and convictions to be made. Yet when we look at people — as opposed to ideas — we see that a vast majority of voters have no problem with a binary choice. The Political Compass’s ratings of American politicians typically leave two and sometimes three of their four quadrants empty. Mitchell admitted that, of his eight ideological types, only three play a significant role in American politics.
One reason for this is that ideology is not only a theoretical but also a social category, and someone’s ideological identification depends not only on what he believes about policy but also on what sort of person he wants to be seen as being. Among libertarians, some see themselves as liberal intellectuals made better by their knowledge of economics and hence eager tutors to the partly benighted liberal elite. Others resent liberal intellectuals and feel a psychological kinship with modest men relying on common sense.
As a result, political coalitions depend not merely on compatibility of ideas among various factions but also on psychological affinities that particular people have for one another. Ed Kilgore points to secularism as a possible bridge between libertarians and liberal intellectuals. But he also points out the unacceptable eagerness — from the liberal point of view — with which libertarians have embraced the tea partiers. Our own data suggest that most libertarians find the company of conservatives to be more congenial than that of liberals. As Kirby and Boaz point out, libertarians sometimes part company with Republicans. Yet it is less clear how often, psychologically speaking, they part company with conservatives.
Politics is a social endeavor where practice trumps theory and results trump reasons and justifications. A robust political force should not need so much theoretical refinement and so much data collection for its power to be recognized. The libertarian movement is decades old, has its own party and tens of thousands of pages written on its behalf, and still struggles to be recognized and appreciated. Yet the political significance of the tea-party movement was recognized within months of its coming into existence, without anyone having predicted its arrival and with many still struggling to understand what the tea-partiers stand for. In the end, we find it unlikely that a significant group of voters committed to their philosophy — whatever that philosophy might be — would fail, decade after decade, to put into high office anyone seriously supportive of it.
— John Zogby is president and CEO of Zogby International, a global polling and market-research company. He is the author of The Way We’ll Be: The Zogby Report on the Transformation of the American Dream (Random House, 2008). Zeljka Buturovic is a research associate at Zogby International and co-author of the forthcoming book Trišno Rešenje (Market Solution).
I would further add that my libertarianism comes in large part from my Christianity. For example, I believe it is a sin to rob or steal because God says so (I Cor. 6:10, Rom. 13:9, etc.). Consequently, it would be wrong of me to take a gun and threaten my neighbor, taking his money under threat of force, regardless of what good intentions I might have for the money. The number of people committing an act do not change its sinful nature, so it would be equally wrong for two or three friends and I to conspire & jointly rob my neighbor at gunpoint. And similarly, it is wrong for me to join with 300 million other Americans in robbing my neighbor at gunpoint.
Furthermore, God is extremely libertarian in his approach to us. He, being omnipotent, has the power to compel whatever He wants, but instead grants us free choice and lets us live with the consequences of our actions.
What’s with that widget, or whatever it’s called, for the second link? What’s the purpose? It seems to just open the thread in a new window.
re: a significant number of Americans have libertarian leanings”
Most people are not ideoligically consistent. They oppose welfare for others. But that special program they favor is not welfare, it it good for society.
Most people are NIMBY. They don’t want government to tell them what they are permitted to do with their own person or property. But telling others what to do with their property is different.
Progressive, liberal and moderate philosophies are inherently compatible with logical inconsistencies. One can be a progressive and favor welfare for some, but not others.
For better or worse, libertarian philosopy inherently requires logical consistency. That is both its strength and its weakness.
Good! If you are a libertarian, then you haven’t drank the final dose of Kool Aid, yet. As long as the gov’t can print money, it isn’t a ponzi scheme. It might be a “We’ll pay you back in inflated dollars” scheme...
parsy
I couldn't agree with you more; Christianity is about charity and limited government, not about government forceably taking from one to give to another. I rarely argue with libertarians over free market economics, as most of them are biblically based.
Furthermore, God is extremely libertarian in his approach to us. He, being omnipotent, has the power to compel whatever He wants, but instead grants us free choice and lets us live with the consequences of our actions.
Unfortunately your unvirtuous "choices"; the choices that God speaks clearly against; effects the lives of others.
"All law is based upon morality, and morality is itself based upon religion. Therefore, when the religion of a people is weakened, so also is its morality undermined. The result is a progressive collapse of law and order, and the breakdown of society. Men, though, see law as a limitation on their liberty, and Christianity is held to be the most restrictive with its emphasis upon Biblical law as the foundation for morality and liberty. Humanistic man wants total liberty, but he does not realize that total liberty leads only to total anarchy, and that leads to the death of law and liberty. Unless every mans liberty is limited by law, no liberty is possible for any one."
R. J. Rushdoony
If I may revise the late R. J. Rushdoony's last sentence:
"Unless every man's liberty is limited by either self restraint through God's laws, or limited through coercion by man's laws, no liberty is possible for anyone."
If you're talking about personal salvation, then I agree. But as shown in R.J. Rushdoony's quote that I provided for Sloth, immoral acts (true moral behavior is based on God's laws and only God's laws) effects the lives of others.
If man needs a savior, as the article you quoted touts, libertarians believe he must be left to find that savior on his own. It is not the role of government to lead him to it, or even nudge him in a direction
Au contraire my friend. Again, if we're talking about personal salvation, i.e. a "ticket"to the afterlife, then you are correct. However, it is the role of government to do good. Attached is an excellent link by Dr. Archie P. Jones entitled "Civil Government: The Neglected Ministry".
"The Lord established three fundamental institutions for the governance of men: family, the Church, and civil government. While these three institutions are separate spheres of authority under God, they clearly have mutually supportive, interwoven functions. The performance or lack of performance of each inescapably influences the functioning of the other two."
"...the magistrate, the ruler, "is the minister of God to thee for good" (vs. 4). The ruler is God's minister, His diakonos. He is a deacon, a laborer, a ministrant, an attendant to people for God. As the derivation of diakonos shows, he is one who runs errands: God's errands. In particular, he is to be a Christian teacher and pastor."
Link to Civil Government: The Neglected Ministry
This is antithical to what theocrats believe. Look at Islam. In an Islamic state, you are coereced by the state into finding what the state deems as appropriate salvation. The penalty for refusing to take the path that the state has chosen for you is usually severe.
As shown in the post to Sloth, "Christianity is held to be the most restrictive with its emphasis upon Biblical law as the foundation for morality and liberty."
I deal with comparisons of Christianity and Islam almost on a daily basis. The following link will hopefully help you understand the MAJOR differences between the two:
Link to Christianity vs Islam
If that's not convincing enough, I have a link that talks about rampant homosexuality in Afghanistan: "U.S. troops in Afghanistan are having a hard time understanding what is a strange Afghan cultural practice to them. The practice can be summed up in the ages old Afghan phrase, women are for children, boys are for pleasure.
Jefferson (a devout deist) publicly scoffed at the dogma prescribed by some religions, but he also recognized the moral role that law had to play
Yes, Jeffeson loathed the dogma of the Church of England, but truly did recognize God's moral laws and the role they played in the Christian nation that he help found.
My ultimate point is: real libertarians do not put stake in issues. Real libertarians are propoents of the philosophy of individual soveriegnty and self-ownership
You're confusing real liberty with what libertarians define as liberty in today's world. As shown in R. J. Rushdoony's statement in my reply to sloth: " Humanistic man wants total liberty, but he does not realize that total liberty leads only to total anarchy, and that leads to the death of law and liberty. Unless every mans liberty is limited by law, no liberty is possible for any one."
I really should have posted the revised sentence of Rushdoony's statement that I added to Sloth's post to make it even clearer: "Unless every man's liberty is limited by either self restraint through God's laws, or limited through coercion by man's laws, no liberty is possible for anyone."
Speaking of Thomas Jefferson: this is also the same man that said "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gifts of God?-that they are not to be violated except with his wrath?" (Page 167 of the 1060 page book entitled "The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States".).
While Jefferson by today's standards might be called a liberal unitarian, he by no standards was a moral relativist atheist.
Which brings me to my next point: Christians and libertarians have different defintions when it comes to the word "liberty" (i.e. "freedom"). Libertarians at worst are moral relativist atheists that believe all moral decisions should be made in their "sovereign" mind. Those decisions usually come from the mindset (as I'd mentioned before) involving direct injury to another person due to said libertarians actions.
At best, libertarians (like yourself) are "ala carte" Christians, they get to "pick and choose" which of God's laws they want to abide by. Your statement of being pro-life; followed by your stance on the legalization of drugs proves just that.
Now we've come to the "nitty gritty" part of the debate: I consider myself a Christian conservative. I feel "free" because I don't partake in things like pornography, prostitution or drug abuse. While all human beings constantly struggle with sinful temptations, through my "moral self restraint" I don't need laws to keep me from hurting others; hence I feel "free" in two senses of the word (free from the sinful behavior itself, and free from man's laws).
Libertarians on the other hand think that they're "free" if they have the freedom to do pretty much anything, as long as it doesn't directly hurt another person. They fail to see that they are "slaves" to those things that God see's as sinful; and they fail to see that they are indeed slaves to a government that esentially has a cop on every corner, a camera in every public area and a metal detector in every doorway; all due to their immoral behavior, which indeed DOES hurt society in general.
Remember my earlier post my friend: "...the magistrate, the ruler, "is the minister of God to thee for good" (vs. 4). The ruler is God's minister, His diakonos. He is a deacon, a laborer, a ministrant, an attendant to people for God. As the derivation of diakonos shows, he is one who runs errands: God's errands. In particular, he is to be a Christian teacher and pastor."
Therefore it is civil government's duty to legislate according to God's laws. With that in mind, let's see what God says about intoxicants:
Corinthians 6 verses 19 - 20 Revised Standard Version:
19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own;
20 you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
I found the attached link written by two conservatives showing the threat of illegal drug legalization. The following shows bibical sources proving their point: " There are, however, much deeper roots to the conservative objection: The conservative philosophy is grounded in and guided by eternal truths; it does not separate itself from God. It moves toward God, and it understands freedom in the way God intended freedom to be exercised.
A Biblical verse that explains this is Paul's Galatians 5:13-14: "For you were called for freedom, brothers. But do not use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh; rather, serve one another through love. For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"
Note the caveat, the "but" that follows, "For you were called for freedom, brothers." This is not a hedonistic or uncontrolled freedom."
http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/PrintFriendly?oid=18179
A similar tact was taken by the prohibitionists...
While biblical verses are aplenty on the use/misuse of alcohol, let's talk secular for a minute.
Prohibition was overturned at a time when our country was still dominated by a Christian culture. The people had "moral restraints" and made laws for those that didn't when it came to alcohol. While some of the following laws still exist today, they've been loosened if not totally abolished in many places throughout the US.
Intoxicated in public ordinances (i.e. a night in the drunk tank).
Open container laws.
The prohibition of the sale of alcohol on Sunday.
Regulations on who and when alcoholic beverages can be sold.
In general our society has become one of much less virtue; and you want to open up the floodgates promoting drug usage to our current society knowing the devastation that alcohol use has done to our society? (Here's comes the standard libertarian speech saying "There will be victims along the way to true individual liberty".).
And do you really think that 'metal detectors' are the fruit of immoral libertarian behavior?
Yes, metal detectors are the fruit of IMMORAL BEHAVIOR. Behavior that is based on moral relativism, not God's laws. When a woman walks into a building and starts shooting her co-workers because she didn't get tenure, biblical scripture and things like "thou shalt not murder" are the last things on her mind.
So it's now immoral to concealed carry?
The right to keep and bare arms is not only a constitutional right, but an "unalienable right" (something given to us by God that can't be taken away by man under any circumstances). Don't confuse something like a gun that is used for good, yet has been hijacked by evil as well, with drugs that are inherently used to get hiiiiiiiigh and escape reality.
http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm
I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know. -- Thomas Jefferson
While Thomas Jefferson was only one player in the Founding of our Christian nation (one of the least religious), his actions speak louder than the words you've posted:
" Mr. Jefferson, says Randall, was a public professor of his belief in the Christian religion. In all his most important early state papers, such as his Summary View of the Rights of British America, his portion of the Declaration made by Congress on the causes of taking up arms, the Declaration of Independence, the draft of a Constitution for Virginia, &c., there are more or less pointed recognitions of God and Providence. In his two inaugural addresses as President of the United States, and in many of his annual messages, he makes the same recognitions, clothes them on several occasions in the most explicit language, substantially avows the God of his faith to be the God of revelation, declares his belief in the efficacy of prayer and the duty of ascriptions of praise to the Author of all mercies, and speaks of the Christian religion, as professed in his country, as a benign religion, evincing the favor of Heaven. Had his wishes been consulted, the symbol borne on the national seal would have contained our public profession of Christianity as a nation. He contributed freely to the erection of Christian churches, gave money to Bible societies and other religious objects, and was a liberal and regular contributor to the support of the clergy.He attended church with as much regularity as most members of the congregation, sometimes going alone on horseback when his family remained at home. He generally attended the Episcopal church, and, when he did so, always carried his prayer-book and joined in the responses and prayers of the congregation. The establishment of the University of Virginia occupied the closing years of Jeffersons life. His wish was to make the institution rival the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge in England, and afford opportunities for young men to become thoroughly accomplished in every branch of learning. A part of his plan was a theological seminary in connection with the university. Rev. Mr. Tucker, of Virginia, in the Presbyterian synod, met in 1859, said that the establishment of a theological seminary near the University of Virginia was carrying out the original idea of Mr. Jefferson. He had seen in Mr. Jeffersons own handwriting, the pains-taking style of the olden time, a sketch of his plan. The University of Virginia was the crowning glory of that great mans life, and he felt it his duty to vindicate his memory, as he had it in his power to do, from any intention to exclude religious influences from the institution. He had invited all denominations to establish theological schools around the university, so that all might have the literary advantages of the institution, without making it subservient to one denomination.
From "The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States: pages 168/169.
Back to Dr. Archie P. Jones' article entitled "Civil Government: The Neglected Ministry:
The teaching, pastoring function of the ruler or magistrate is of crucial importance. We are popularly told today that the government should not seek to enforce morality especially (Surprise!) Christian morality because "you can't legislate morality." Clearly, this contention is at best a half-truth, and as such is a dangerous distortion. It is a distortion which fits quite well with the Humanist canard that "you can't mix religion and politics." All law commands human action; it seeks either to restrain or to urge particular actions. It necessarily says either "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not," and it backs these commands to action or restraint with coercion, with sanctions enforced by the power of the sword. The sword and the word are united in law. And because the word commands action by men, the word of law is necessarily a morel teaching, a teaching which seeks to guide the ruled along a particular way of action, of life. This way of life which the law-word commands is what the ruler or lawgiver considers good, and for this reason it is again inevitably a moral teaching, of one sort or another. By teaching men to obey the ruler or lawgiver's commands, via the punishment of those who disobey, who break the law, and by his personal example, the magistrate can do nothing else than teach people moral principles."
I highly doubt that Mr. Jefferson would disagree with that my friend, as the constitutional republic that he help found was based on the rule of law (God's laws, not the whims of man and his laws).
If Mr. Jefferson didn't agree with this statement: "All law commands human action; it seeks either to restrain or to urge particular actions. It necessarily says either "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not," and it backs these commands to action or restraint with coercion, with sanctions enforced by the power of the sword." would that not make him an anarchist?
My arguement to you was that the prohibiton of certain substances for consumption is the fruit of specific brands of religous dogma...not God's specific, codified law in the Bible -ie: Thou shalt not kill, thou shall not committ adultery, etc. You haven't really provided any proof to the contrary on that.
Genesis 9:20-27 A man of distinction and the tragic consequences of his drunkenness. Genesis 19:30-38 Drinking results in Lots debauchery of his own daughters. Leviticus 10:8-11 The Lord commanded Aaron and his sons not to drink either wine or strong drink while rendering service for God. Numbers 6:3 The vow of the Nazarite excluded drinking wine and strong drink. Deuteronomy 21:20 "Drinking is one of the attributes of a stubborn, rebellious, and disobedient son." Judges 13:4, 7, 14 Samsons mother was expressly commanded by the angel of the Lord not to drink wine or strong drink. I Samuel 25: 36-38 "Nabal, an evil, drinking man was smitten by the Lord." II Samuel 11:13 "By the use of strong drink, David led Uriah into a fatal trap." (there's many many more).
Bible and Alcohol
Speaking of which - if it's government's job to legislate God's law...why is there no federal statute making adultrey a crime? Since this is more noticably codified in God's law than the consumption of substances...it would reason based on your logic, that there would be a federal mandate against it.
You know as well as I do that those laws were left up to the individual States:
Adultery - Criminal Laws, Enforcement Of Statutes, As A Defense, Divorce, Cross-references
Regarding your link showing statistics from the 1920's and Prohibition: Remember we were dealing with largely a religious people back then. This was pre 1963 when atheist Madeline Murray O'Hare had God removed from our public school system. Since then, God has been removed from many sectors of public life. It wasn't like that back then. How about we look at what alcohol has done to our society post 1920...more specifically, today:
In the U.S. on an annual basis, more than one third of pedestrians killed by automobiles were legally drunk.
As many as 3 million Americans over the age of 60 are alcoholics or have serious drinking problems.
In the United States, research has demonstrated that continued alcohol abuse is one of the major risk factors for violence in intimate relationships.
According to recent studies, it has been discovered that approximately 53% of adults in the United States have reported that one or more of their close relatives has a drinking problem.
Studies have shown that the drinking patterns of employed women are different from those of women not employed outside the home, with less abstinence, increased consumption and greater frequency of drinking occasions observed among employed women.
There are approximately 14 million people in the United States addicted to alcohol and millions more who display symptoms of alcohol abuse, including binge drinking.
Low to moderate doses of alcohol can increase the incidence of a variety of aggressive acts, including domestic violence and child abuse.
Twenty one percent of workers reported being injured or put in danger, having to re-do work or to cover for a co-worker or needing to work harder due to others' drinking. Approximately 14 million Americans, about 7.4 percent of the adult population, meet the diagnostic criteria for alcohol abuse or alcoholism.
Alcoholism and alcohol abuse are the third leading cause of the preventable deaths in the United States. Nearly one-fourth of all U.S. people who are admitted to general hospitals have alcohol problems or are undiagnosed alcoholics being treated for the consequences of their drinking.
In one U.S. study, employees who were in serious trouble with alcohol showed significant improvement in drinking behavior and job adjustment during the months immediately following an intervention to confront the alcohol abuse that was negatively affecting their work.
American work roles with little or no supervision and those characterized by high mobility are associated with increased rates of problem drinking.
One of every 130 licensed drivers in the United States has been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.
Up to 40 percent of the U.S. industrial fatalities and 47 percent of industrial injuries can be linked to alcohol abuse and alcoholism.
In the U.S., 25% of all emergency room admissions, 33% of all suicides, and more than 50% of all homicides and incidents of domestic violence are alcohol-related. In the United States, the correlation between the battering of women and alcohol abuse is the highest for men who believe that male control and power over women are acceptable in various situations.
(They always neglect to state one of my favorites: those poor innocent little babies that are born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (I'll spare the pictures my friend).
Alcohol abuse statistics
An overbearing, energetic government that makes criminals out of people for their exercise of free will and human nature what we libertarians refer to a 'moral tyranny', and we have plenty of statistics to back up that notion.
As shown, by legislating something that is against God's word, you only "urge particular actions".
Look at what other unGodly legislation besides alcohol has done to our society: Pornography, hugely responsible for the breakdown of the nuclear family, an institution that is the nucleus of our society.
Abortion: Not only responsible for the murder of 45+ million innocent unborns in the past 37 years, but has also ruined many lives (and marriages) through the guilt that both the women and men involved carry with them.
Man is sinful by nature. We all battle the desire to commit sinful acts; acts that God disapproves of.
The major difference between a Christian conservative like me, and a libertarian like you, is that I don't want to legislate sin.
Alcohol Prohibition Was a Failure:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1017&full=1
Alcohol Prohibition was a Failure?
Not for everyone:
http://www.ilovemybaby.org/images/fetal-alcohol-syndrome-disorders_50.jpg
http://worstduipictures.com/crash-photos/pics/dui_crash_wreck_pic_4.jpg
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/images/domesticviolence.jpg
http://tlcinstitute.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/adultsarguing.jpg
http://www.drivingsober.net/devistations.jpg (I spared you pictures of SOBBING mothers that have lost their child/children because of a drunk driver.
Get the picture yet?
I’ll reply to your other post tomorrow.
I do get the picture, certainly. But aren’t you being a bit naieve thinking these terrible things wouldn’t occur under prohibition anyway? Actually, the stats I gave you earlier show that they did.
We have crack babies being born every minute now, despite the fact that the federal mandatory minimums are higher for crack than cocaine, or even crystal meth. Definitely higher than for DUI and even vehicular manslaughter. It doesn’t stop any of those.
And just an FYI- I don’t advocate for the legalization of eihter of those substances. Most libertarians have commom sense limits!
Sleep well!
Call me naive bamahead, but I really do think there were LESS than 45 million abortions done in the US in any given 37 year period prior to it's legalization via Rowe v. Wade.
Call me naive bamahead, but I really think there was LESS disease and death amongst homosexual males when sodomy laws were enforced and homosexuals didn't freely frolick about in their "gay" bathhouses, bars, and glory hole infested public restrooms.
Call me naive bamahead, but I really think that LESS people drank when it wasn't as accessible as it is today; i.e. running over to your local supermarket to buy a case of beer or a bottle of the hard stuff. Something about "government coercion to do good" (the law), makes me think that.
Of course I would be naive in thinking that if we were to legalize something like pot, MORE people would use it (and hence abuse it); thus creating MORE government intervention in the lives of everyone.
The following quote is from an excellent article entitled "Legislating in a Christian Nation": "Government usually generates legislation because of an experienced violation of person or property. The pain of violation is a reflection of the violation of a higher moral law. The legislatures job is to engage in vigorous debate about the standards of proper behavior and enact law as a guide to excellent Godly personal and social behavior. It is the job of a righteous legislature to use Biblical moral standards as a guide to the creation of a secular code of conduct."
Christian Legislation
Note what it DIDN'T say: "It is the job of righteous legislature to create a secular code of conduct based on the immoral vices the violence ridden criminal element is attemting to push on the general public."
And now onto Mr. Jefferson.
I must say it is refreshing to debate a libertarian and not constantly have John Adams thrown at me as the Founding Fathers "poster boy" for libertarianism.
By reading Jefferson's writings it's obvious he didn't want another "State Religion". He and other Founders dealt with plenty of Christian congregations that wanted their "way to Heaven" to be legislated. The Founders rightly avoided this.
It's odd that Jefferson, the same person that wrote "The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels", the same person that professed that "our liberties are a gift from God", would be a proponent of Godless atheism.
Peoples Bible
The Jefferson Bible
When it comes to moral relativist atheists, this subject has been covered ratherly extensively by myself and other Christian conservatives over at AmericanVision.com.
Atheism IS a religion (my posts start on page 2).
Hey aSC. I didn’t mean for you to call yourself naieve so much! ;)
I certainly feel where you’re coming from. Nobody I know that’s conservative OR libertarian likes Roe v. Wade. I want it overturned. The majority of libertarian minded people want it overturned. Where most libertarians start to differ from conservatives is that most believe it’s a state issue. I am in the minority that disagrees. It is a life issue. But again - it’s about changing our culture to respect life. The Constitution already codifies the right to LIFE as inherent, but it’s our culture that has lost the respect for it. Government cannot restore that, but it can enforce the Constitution if those that respect it have the proper courage. The loss of that respect is just going to make the fight for the unborn more difficult.
As far as the homosexual take - truthfully I think there was just as much of the problems you described before any of those sodomy laws were nullified. The only thing those laws did was criminalize ‘bedroom’ behavior. You just didn’t hear about the health issues because, before 1970, homosexuals like most other Americans didn’t run to the government for help with all of their problems. It was the general rise of the entitlement culture that resulted in the left’s demands that the government get into the business of AIDS research. From there, the demands of the homosexual community have snowballed...just like every other ‘victimized’ entitlement seeking group have. You just have to look at how the left operates - they installed a ‘victim’ mentality in the homosexual community, just like they do any other minority group, which has brought us to the point we are now. The demands have escalated to the point where, truthfully, many of the ‘victims’ are seeking more ‘cultural vengance’ than they are tangible rights.
On the alcohol thing, we’ll just continue to disagree :) Prohibition and blue/dry laws do nothing to reduce consumption. They simply make criminals out of those who wish to consume. The same goes with the War On Drug laws. They have turned our nation into a police state.
Call me naieve, but I’m tired of reading about stories like this one - http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/4366/53/ -
Or this one - http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5450550&page=1
Or this one - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/19/AR2009061903175.html -
Or this one - http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/23/atlanta.police.sentencing/index.html ....
Or ALL of these:
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
The activity around the War on Some Drugs is about as Un-Constitutional as it gets, tears families apart, kills innocent people, and has absolutely no affect on the supply or consumption of drugs in this country.
Step back for a few minutes, read the articles above and look at the stories behind the CATO map....and then ask yourself:
Are all these transgressions of liberty really worth barely making a dent in drug use to you?
I GUARANTEE you that they wouldn’t be worth it to Mr. Jefferson, OR Mr. Adams.
Government simply cannot legislate sin out of people’s lives. It is not powerful enough. Only that Man who died on the cross is powerful enough to have the impact you’re looking for. Why even attempt to give government that power, when you of all people should know that it is impossible?
Turning to government is the last thing anyone who calls themself conservative should EVER consider, for ANYTHING!
I must admit also, it’s refreshing to debate someone as a libertarian whose every 3rd response to me is - ‘GO SMOKE SOME MORE DOPE’ :)
Sorry for the delay in my response to you. My uncle passed on Sunday and had to travel to Alabama to pay my last respects.
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.