Posted on 02/18/2010 6:06:02 PM PST by Delacon
1. It is often a cloak for leftists who want to deny party affiliation (case in point: Bill Maher)
2. the constant emphasis on legalizing drugs. Cut the Norml BS
Reagan, I believe, was speaking to the small 'l' group. Which in another time would be classified as classical liberals.
I only uttered it under my breath once (or was it a thousand times?).
My condolences on the loss of your uncle.
Sleep well; don't dream about such things as marijuana smokers being prone to testicular cancer, Link to cancer of the family jewels and be prepared for another "assault" on libertarianism later tomorrow.
Yes bamahead, if you "regularly" (not varying; constant) grill chicken or steak on an outdoor barbecue, you'd have to be wary of cancer as well. It's a good thing that you don't smoke dope on a "regular" basis (not varying; constant).
Nobody I know that’s conservative OR libertarian likes Roe v. Wade
You really should get to know the people over at the Party that shares the same "l" word with you (they capitalize theirs). From their Party Platform: "Government should be kept out of the matter of abortion.
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration."
Link to Dopertarian Party Platform
Remember that government either legislates "Thou Shalt" or "Thou Shalt Not"; there is no neutral ground.
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.
If you consider homosexual bathhouses, bars and glory hole infested public restrooms "bedrooms" then you're wrong. Laws that promoted decency kept these perverts hiding in the sewer where they belong.
Look at what has happened to our once great Christian Nation since we have basically decriminalized "bedroom behavior" amongst the sodomites:
Homosexuals have left the confines of their sodomy chambers and are openly changing (or attempting to change) valuable American institutions such as marriage, the military, the nuclear family, organized religion, and youth mentor groups such as the Boy Scouts (I bet they're just licking their lips at the thought of being a Scout Master and going on overnight campouts with 12 year old boys).
There was a term that was used by homosexuals that you don't hear much anymore: "In the closet". When a sin comes "out of the closet", no matter what the sin is, society will be negatively effected by it.
On the alcohol thing, we’ll just continue to disagree :) Prohibition and blue/dry laws do nothing to reduce consumption
I did some research on the libertarian "stink tank", The Cato Institute. I'll be darned if there is anyplace in their website that talks about God and His laws.
Link to Cato stink tank
Before I close with the brilliant words of a fellow Christian conservative regarding atheists/moral relativists/libertarians, whatever they're calling themselves this week; I'll nullify your argument that "more people use (and hence abuse) something that is unlawful."
As shown in a previous post, there are many more abortions and deaths of homosexuals (500,000+ in 10 years) since those laws (laws that God approves of) were decriminalized. If you really think that the vast majority of people DON'T abide by the law, whether they think it is just or not, do the following:
Stand near an intersection with a traffic light and watch how many people in cars run the red light. Next, watch to see how many people run the light when a police patrol car is sitting next to them. My point? The vast majority of American's that don't use and have no need for illegal narcotics respect our laws banning them. For those that don't, there is that police patrol car sitting next to them or either nearby to "encourage" them to abide by the law.
And now some brilliant words:
"It is laughable that a whole nation can conduct honest business without the principles of the Ten Commandments. Some say, “I can be honest without believing in God.” I say, if you are honest, why do you resent the restraining hand of God?"
He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God? (Micah 6:8)
Is not this the creed of healthy business practices? Is not this the simple creed for a healthy country?
Atheists are cancer. They attached themselves to every organ in the body of this nation, and business is no exception. They are undermining the capitalist system from both the left and the right, because the atheist’s mind knows no limit and no restriction.
The Libertarian Party wants to legislate immorality. This should ring the alarm. They are far from remaining “neutral” in religious matters. I know they are a lost cause since they adopted “The Fountainhead” as their “bible.”
I used to read Ayn Rand’s books rather uncritically when I was younger. She was an enemy of socialism; I liked that. I thought that the “enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Now I know she was no friend of liberty. “Liberty” cannot be practiced by children; it is the property of adults. Ayn Rand forever remained a rebellious little girl, who, by her own words, harbored a “guilty secret.” She was devoid of “moral instincts.” So were Hitler and Stalin. Ayn Rand had the mindset of a totalitarian ruler. She did not hate “slavery”; she hated dictators because she was their competitor. (Hitler hated Stalin, not because he hated socialist utopia in principle, but because he wanted to establish his own kind.)
So Rand made up her own “uncharted” country, a state of anarchists, where morality is immoral. (Her personal life was rotten; she promoted “open marriage.”) The free enterprise system was flourishing in this country before she came. She did not care to see whether the absence of “moral code” would benefit it or not. As a good utopist, she was certain that her idea “works.” (Although it was not her original idea. Nietzsche asked first: “Should moralizing not be—immoral? (Beyond Good and Evil, 228) Ayn Rand believed in the moral standard of human reason. “Whose reason? The answer is: Yours” (The Fountainhead). This might sound flattering to some, but think! 300 million moral standards? Her philosophy is just as dangerous as any other “Humanism.”
Warning: capitalists are not necessarily enemies of state control. Often, millionaires and billionaires offer their money and expertise, propping up socialist politicians. Unprincipled capitalists may be control-freaks too, and they have no scruples to make deals with the government when their interest dictates it. A historical example of this is Naftaly Frenkel, a Turkish millionaire businessman, who designed and operated the system of Gulags for Stalin. His motto was that the life of a prisoner should last for three months to be “profitable.” Evil is Evil, it may attach himself to any man’s heart.
Link to American Vision
Christianity is the answer my FRiend; dope smoking libertarianism isn't.
Those last words are like music to my ears. (at least tell me you learned something in all the writing I did).
I certainly did gain some perspective from it, and I hope it was educational for you as well.
To be honest with you bama, I’ve had this debate dozens of times with libertarians (most not as extensive as ours was though). You’re a worthy adversary; I only hope that someday we’re on the SAME side! Until we meet again my FRiend.
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.