Posted on 11/11/2013 10:35:15 AM PST by Kaslin
You want to know why “all the men of the town” in Sodom did what they did? When we don’t even see 5% “queers” in the general US population?
It’s probably because they expected each other to. BY LAW. They lent their “state” to it. The state takes the responsibility, the state gets the blame. Ironclad rule.
Basically you are down to the question of how to make your state pure, if the state bears the mantle of regulating marriage.
The supernatural (broadly put, church) is the only means. Statism is the worse evil because it’s easier to lobby a state than lobby a church. I can’t advise you past that. Rotsa ruck, I wish you God’s blessings but unless you can get your state to keep referring to God it won’t get blessed by God.
For those who still haven't noticed, that has been tried. Both the TEA partiers, Libertarians, and even more Conservative elements of the GOP are well acquainted with the underside of the proverbial bus if they have been around for a couple of election cycles.
When the TEA Party candidate wins the primary, the GOP pulls their punches if they give any support in the general. The GOPe will lose the seat rather than cede power to an upstart within the Party.
That's how we ended up with Heitkamp in ND, that's how Virginia got McAuliffe, and why the Senator from Nevada is still Reid.
That may seem jaded to you, but two of those races were squeakers, and half-hearted efforts and funding fell short.
Anyone who won't admit that there are elements of the GOP who are every bit as ruthless as the Dems in retaining power just hasn't been paying attention, and frankly, I am not sure the GOP can be fixed from within any more than I am sure the US Government can be.
An illustration of why libertarianism has a fatal error.
Reasonable people of most stripes share one concept: that civil society needs liberty but it must be ordered liberty. Childrearing, cohabitation, etc without any sort of order means societal chaos.
The government has an interest in assuring that children will be reared in a stable home environment. Historically this has meant married parents. Precisely to the degree that this meaning has degenerated, society has become less stable and less civil, and children are among the worst victims.
Libertarians have never come to terms with the clear unblinking reality that liberty must be ordered by an overseeing agent, i.e. representatives of the people invested with the authority necessary to fulfill that responsibility.
Maybe in the next 15 years you will have learned something, and say something different.
Not to speak of the state’s interest in the economic stability afforded by the nuclear family, to minimize the social costs of wild children.
The free lunch is the bottom line in populist politics.
It’s indeed a mess created by Leftists.
No libertarian should be advancing state sanctioned homosexuality. It’s an anathema to libertarianism to promote policies that force the citizens into supporting and servicing homosexual behavior. If the LP isn’t interested in establishing related law, than it’s simply voicing a liberal point of view which serves no direct policy purpose.
Got news for you Junior. Unless you had a gummint license, and your preacher signed it, you didn't legally marry anybody.
And in most states, if not all, if your preacher "married" you without signing a license, he broke the law.
Nice going.
Yep. Deja vu all over again, again. Same arguments, same blame game, a vote for c is a vote for a because it isn't a vote for b who really doesn't represent what you want, but is closer by a fraction than a is....etc.
Big steps, small steps, they all head toward tyranny.
Statis
|
II | I
|
liberalism ------+------- conservatism
|
III | IV
|
libertarianism
|
anarchism
Most of the critics of libertarianism here are in the first quad. Leftists are in the second. The fools belonging to the Libertarian Party are in the third. The cool, Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage, Child-Safety, Pro-Gun, Liberty-loving folks are in the 4th.
statism
|
II | I
|
liberalism ------+------- conservatism
|
III | IV
|
libertarianism
|
anarchism
They're out there, in droves.
Part of the problem with labels like "Libertarian" and "Conservative" is that they have become as meaningful as 'pizza' or 'chilli". Everyone who calls themselves by either label has a different idea of what that label means. For "Conservative" we have the range from Christie to the Bushes to the overlapping subset which includes John Stossel, and for Libertairians, the spectrum includes the "just leave me alone (to live a moral life)" crowd to the "anything goes" bunch.
So, when someone says they are "Conservative" that does not necessarily preclude their imposing, by force of law, their particular brand of Conservative on others, even to the point of complaining that your grass is too long. Hence, there are Conservative Statist Control Freaks, too (also for "our own good", just like their Liberal brethren).
What we need, fiscally, philosophically, economically (no, that isn't redundant), legally, physically, is less government.
Less in scope and power, less physical presence, less invasive, and by reducing that, we reduce the opportunities to use public money to feed corruption and theft from our pockets.
That government which governs best governs least.
Is it the 'far worse statists' who have put us in the position we are now in?
No. It is the almost conservative statists who have voted for the incremental usurpations of our Liberty who have brought us to this point.
The far worse statists would have overreached and evoked a public reaction which would have sent the pendulum hurtling in the other direction, instead the less worse statists have slowly turned up the heat under the veritable frog pot, slowly, over generations.
The lesser evil is still evil, and no matter whether the steps are great strides or small hobbles, they were all headed in the same direction.
The small steps toward tyranny are perhaps to be even more greatly feared than the great strides, because the electorate is more likely to suffer the indignities of those small increments, and then become accustomed to them before rising in protest. It is those little nibbles that reduce Liberty most efficiently.
Just the opposite, I want there to be NO LAW, save God’s law. It is NOT THE LEGITIMATE business of government, unless there is a civil contract involved. I am reasonably sure most of the Christian churches would be in agreement, excepting the “progressives,” no big surprise, so what would change?
Oh for Pete’s sake, all you had to do was listen to the positions of that Liberaltarian that ran as a Libertarian in VA to know that he was a Democrat in disguise.
The man was nothing but ringer for the Democrats and he didn’t even try to hide it.
The country would be better off if we just supplied the Libertarians with a whole lot of weed during elections and kept them away from the ballot box.
>> The man was nothing but ringer for the Democrats
And supported by.
>> but we never hear about the ‘Conservative’ Control Freak Statists.
>> They’re out there, in droves.
May I submit post #232, Quad I.
Bump!
Even Ron Paul supported the Republican candidate over the Libertarian.
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.