Absolutely no meaning (at least to libertarians). According to Libertarians you can just disregard the phrase "general welfare" as if it were never written into the Constitution.
Posted on 02/01/2002 10:21:47 AM PST by Exnihilo
How dare one rise above the herd?
Neither do any of our founding documents. I don't think you can find a single reference to Christ in any of them.
Sounds like libertarianism isn't any worse than what we've already got, then.
Of course, Christ never intended that His name be invoked in the process of establishing earthly kingdoms. Libertarian philosophy is a political philosophy dealing with the use of force, not a religious philosophy. However, there is nothing in libertarian philosophy, as I see it, that poses any kind of a necessary conflict with Christian doctrines and principles, and libertarian philosophy would seem to fall right in line with the Golden Rule (which Christ referred to as "the law and the prophets" in Matthew 7:12).
The term fanatic can apply in many ways; I'm not sure if that applys to me so much as the term "passionate". If I had my way, everyone would be follower of Christ, and try to follow the "Big 10" as well as they could. But, I cannot bring that about except for talking, persuading, and sharing. I WOULD NEVER for one minute FORCE some one to make a statement of faith, and as far as the 10 commandments go, heck, most of 'em are written into the judicial codes anyway.
I can go with you to your point - and state my belief that the worst thing to happen to Christianity was the melding of the Church into a decaying State. We do a LOT better when we have "just" G-d in our corner :-)
Nope. Not abhorrence. I'd love to see great numbers, but it isn't as important for me to be part of the winning side as it is for me to try to remain consistent with prinicples.
And there you have it. This is a recipe for a civilised - and civil - society. Civilised human beings rely upon education, moral suasion and above all, leading by example to make their points.
Watching Alan Keyes deal with that harridan witch Gloria Alred last night on the subject of forced government indoctriniation of homosexual 'tolerance' in California public schools was quite interesting. Keyes pointed out that, regardless of what had happened in the past, the issue of 'tolerance' was a matter that belonged in the realm of conscience and free will. He pointed out that enforcement of this sort of indoctrination required the tacit and implicit destruction of the very principles upon which the country was founded, and that it made mock of the Bill of Rights andh the Constitution. He also pointed out that if homosexuality was forbidden by another's religious beliefs, then wasn't cuompulsory indoctrination in the desirability and normalcy of he homosexual lifestyle a form of religious intolerance also?
Allred's response was to dodge the question and respond with the "every student has the right to learn in a 'safe' environment" mantra. She was clearly angry at Keyes' clear and logical presentation, and could offer nothing to refute it. Allred's the type who prefers to do by legal manipulation what she clearly could not do by any other means save that ofa gun. She was utterly untroubled by the fact that getting her way would have meant the further division of our society into yet another 'protected class'. She could have cared less about the destruction of hte foundation of our liberty, because that is precisely what she - and her Gramscian/Marcusian ilk - desires.
IOW, she, and those like her, is the reason for for RKBA.
The high school group I teach at my church did their instructor proud by reasoning through (w/o too much prodding) to the conclusion that if everyone "did what Jesus did", no government would be needed; we would all live in a way that would not harm any one else. (Sigh) That was a wonderful night...
It struck me one day not too long ago that the very first principle taught in the Bible, once the Earth is established and man and woman is introduced into the garden is the principle of freedom. Without freedom, the atonement is of no value. How we live our lives is how we answer the question that God asks each of us: what do you want? Every hour of every day, we demonstrate exactly what it is that we want. Whatever it is, we'll be sure to get it.
Absolutely no meaning (at least to libertarians). According to Libertarians you can just disregard the phrase "general welfare" as if it were never written into the Constitution.
That is news to me. Would you care to substantiate that statement?
I hope they won't outlaw home schooling until my kids are grown up. One of the few weak spots I have left--don't mess with my right to teach my kids a moral system that I have spent a lifetime weighing and applying. I at least should get a few years to make my impact on them before they find out about the ways of the world and turn into fully free moral actors themselves.
Please see the on-going debate on the George Bush Big Government Adventure thread. There's no need to repeat this argument on multiple threads.
Until then, why don't you post what power you think that promoting the "general welfare" gives to the federal government, if any (which would prove my point in and of itself)...
I believe it is a valid argument. What does Treanor believe to be right? Not Democracy either. I found this on his sight too:
Democracy does not deserve the semi-sacred status accorded to it. Democratically elected politicians such as Jörg Haider, Silvio Berlusconi, Umberto Bossi and Gianfranco Fini remind Europe of democracy's defects: an anti-racist dictatorship is preferable to a racist democracy. Democracy is not a perfect system of government, and the global expansion of democracy is mainly a result of victory in war, not moral superiority. At the end of the Second World War, the democratic system did have immense political credit. By now, it looks more like a simple ideology of conquest, inseparable from military force. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the American reaction, illustrate this crusading aspect of democracy. Certainly Americans today are more likely to associate 'democracy' with military force, rather than electoral process. Democracy fights to exist, to defend its existence, and to spread itself. The criticism here is in 5 sections...
go to his site and read on. And then, perhaps you should figure a way now to refute what he says about democracy as well rather than waste time for Libertarians. My advise is: always check your sources for credibility before using them to bash someone whose philosophy you happen to disagree with.
Then why did you bring it up on this thread? You could have provided a link instead of making me search for the thread...
But it is easier to make assertions and send others on a chase or the proof than to directly substantiate your assertinos, isn't it?
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.