Posted on 09/30/2007 10:12:11 AM PDT by traviskicks
Edited on 09/30/2007 4:01:53 PM PDT by Lead Moderator. [history]
Exactly!
Thomas Jefferson recommended emasculation as a punishment for homosexual behavior.
Does that sound "libertarian"?
The founding generation, and the generations before and after them, passed enumerable laws against the kind of behaviors that are promoted as "victimless" today by libertarians. Laws against sex outside of marriage. Laws against drunkenness. Sabbatarian laws. Etc.
But, whatever. There's obviously no hope of dislodging you from your notions.
They also know that all Scripture is God-breathed, God-inspired.
All beside the point, and if you're going to tag Christ with everything that is written in the Old Testament, you've got a mountain of trouble coming your way, but that's a completely different discussion. But nice try at insinuating negative connotations on my religious beliefs. Please note that I will refrain from doing likewise on yours.
And, you’re the only one who said anything about “forcing others to be righteous.” (I believe that is commonly known as a strawman argument.)
No, actually you were the one who quoted, voluminously, on the subject of righteousness as a foundation for liberty. You were using that tactic to rebut, out of context, as usual, my quotes from Jefferson, Washington, and Henry. You're the one who offered the strawman argument that they were all righteous men. I will not dispute that, but it has nothing to do with whether or not they were libertarians. You have yet to address that.
You can’t force people to be righteous.
Gee, really? So now you are completely repudiating your entire defense? Oh well, as long as you understand that fundamental point. Or do you?
However, human government IS given to mankind as a gift by our Creator to restrain unrighteousness, human nature, in this world.
Apparently you don't get it. You can't have it both ways, Skippy. Either you can or you can't force them to be righteous, which is also beside the point, by the way. The point is whether you should force them to be righteous. The Founders very clearly believed we should not. That's because they were, guess what, libertarians!
As a final aside, which I will not pursue any further, human government is not given to us by God. It is wholly a creation of man. It is of the world, and therefore, not of God. Even Paul knew that.
So, here we are again, right back at the beginning. You need to produce some evidence of your assertion that the Founders were not libertarians. You seem to be having trouble staying on topic, so I'm going to give you a hand.
I posted the definition of libertarian before. Here is one of them again:
1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
Produce evidence, preferably in the form of quotes, of the Founders repudiating liberty, especially with regard to thought or conduct.
Here is the other one:
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from necessitarian).
Produce documentation that the Founders were necessitarians.
Do not meander at length on their writings regarding whether or not liberty is founded upon righteousness. It does not go to an overall necessitarian belief system, and it doesn't not imply authoritarianism. Do not quote endless reams of Old Testament scripture. It is meaningless in this context.
Yes please create a statement topic like this that we can point out to those Cindy Sheehan wanna bees.
I was waiting for this. You're a more patient man than I am.
I have been quietly knocking the doors and minds of the Paulbats ever since his first debate when he gave the sickening pablum response that Islamofascists are the fault of OUR foreign policy. Every week, he continues to lay out the same kind of drivel, yet people that should know better applaud his rantings with moonbeams in their eyes.
The man's mind is incapable of handling the threat of Islamofascists, and unfortunately his true believers are blindly following under the banner of "constitutionality".
You keep claiming that I need to prove that the founders were not libertarians.
But, fact is, it is you who claimed they were libertarians.
So, the burden of proof is on you, not me.
Prove that they would approve in any way of legalized drugs, prostitution, open borders, abortion, homosexualism, etc., as hardcore modern “libertarians” advocate, or that they would include the right to practice such things under the rubric of “liberty.”
Fact is, the founders were republicans, not libertarians.
Sorry I'm late to the fray; time zones can be a nuisance.
I am all for enforcing our current immigration laws and protecting our border. However, this is not some magic panacea. Even if the U.S. tightened immigration enforcement, that would still not miraculously stop Muslim terrorists from entering our country.
We must engage the terrorists on a turf of our choosing, not on our own soil. If we don't do this, it doesn't matter what amazing magic tricks Ron Paul pulls out of his hat, we WILL be attacked. Paul is not the be all and end all and his foreign policy approach simply makes no sense whatsoever in today's world.
Woo-Hoo! Thank you JR!
Down here in San Diego, the anti war Paulistas were out on the street protesting the war. They did NOT go unanswered!! Some of us (including the SD Protest Warriors) were there to counter them!
Woo-Hoo! Thank you JR!
Down here in San Diego, the anti war Paulistas were out on the street protesting the war. They did NOT go unanswered!! Some of us (including the SD Protest Warriors) were there to counter them! I saw first hand what the paulistas were all about!
Deserves repeating. Absolutely.
We had a military in a day when equipment consisted of a uniform, a musket, and a cartridge box. When we didn’t maintain a navy beyond a few a commerce-raiding frigates, and when comercial ships could be converted into effective raiders.
Income tax was passed to support big-ticket items like dreadnought-class battleships. Nowdays, we have we have to support troops who wear thousands of dollars of equipment and ride in million plus dollar IFVs.
As a small(l) libertarian, I have to say I agree with you. I used to maintain the delusion that the founders were Libertarians, but anyone who studies what they actually said, wrote, and DID, will realize that they were small-government republicans, maybe you could call the small-l libertarians, but alot of them were more socially conservative than most libertarians.
Heck, I wonder what Ron thinks of the (misguided?!) wars on Islamic terrorists back in the early 1800's, carried out by Jefferson and his successors?
It's a keeper of a link.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1904472/posts?page=168#168
ooorah-
Bump as a keeper!
bookmark
< /joking sarcasm >
bump
Well said, Bob Robinson. Thank you.
Wild shrimp should be able to roam freely without fear.
This would be an excellent tagline!
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.