Posted on 08/07/2014 7:54:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
If you would claim to be purely fiscal, or assert that “social issues” should never be government’s domain, I’d ask a simple question: would you have no problem with a movement to legalize pedophilia?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“Simple-minded Libertarians don’t understand this basic truth of humanity.”
Yes, but is it any wonder that they don’t understand? That idea is an outgrowth of the notion of “Christian liberty”, the idea that we have the moral responsibility to govern ourselves, rather than being bound by the strictures of law in every act.
Notice that in 1 Corinthians, this idea of Christian liberty is tied directly to the question of sexual immorality by Paul:
“12“I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also.”
So, because we believe in our immortality, we have reason to restrain our sexual appetites more than we might our appetite for food. Yet, that is an argument that only a Christian is likely to accept.
” Debt, fiat money and activist progressive government are the causes of harmful changes to society and to how people behave. Fix those first and the social problems will fix themselves”
You can’t fix those things until you deal with the social problems.
Further, perhaps so-called "progressive" enemies of freedom understand better than those who fancy themselves as "conservatives" or "libertarians" that, in order to reverse the Founders' ideas of "People over government," and institute "government over People," they must first marginalize and destroy the ideas from which liberty is derived.
The writings of America's Founders are replete with references which rebuke would-be tyrants and cite a Higher Source for life, liberty and rights. Early histories, most of which have been removed from libraries and virtually censored from public discourse, confirm those facts, one of which is cited below and can be read online.
As so-called "progressives" have led a movement in forsaking the Founders' "reliance on Divine Providence," and belief that individuals are "endowed by their Creator," they also have forsaken the principles underlying America's Constitution and Declaration of Independence, and are systematically dismantling the greatest protections for liberty ever established for a people.
"Ideas have consequences"(Weaver).
The ideas of 1776 came out of a set of ideas consistent with liberty.
We tend to forget, or have never considered, that other world views existed then, as now.
Unless today's citizens rediscover the ideas of liberty existing in what Jefferson called "the American mind" of 1776, we risk going back to the "Old World" ideas which preceded the "Miracle of America."
There are those who call themselves "progressives," when, in fact, their ideas are regressive and enslaving, and as old as the history of civilization.
Would suggest to any who wish an authentic history of the ideas underlying American's founding a visit to this web site, at which Richard Frothingham's outstanding 1872 "History of the Rise of the Republic of the United States" can be read on line.
This 600+-page history traces the ideas which gave birth to the American founding. Throughout, Richard Frothingham, the historian, develops the idea that it is "the Christian idea of man" which allowed the philosophy underlying the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to become a reality--an idea which recognizes the individual and the Source of his/her "Creator"-endowed life, liberty and law.
Is there any wonder that the enemies of freedom, the so-called "progressives," do not promote such authentic histories of America? Their philosophy puts something called "the state," or "global interests" as being superior to individuals and requires a political elitist group to decide what role individuals are to play.
In other words, they must turn the Founders' ideas upside-down in order to achieve a common mediocrity for individuals and power for themselves.
Funny, I thought it was overly generous to libertarians.
Most libertarians I know are social conservatives - indeed most are orthodox Catholics.
Really? I am well aware that most, if not all, devout Catholics are social conservatives; but I can't see how they can be libertarian. It is IMPOSSIBLE to be a devout Catholic or a social conservative and be libertarian on issues such as abortion and homosexuality.
They understand one key point - abortion, gay marriage, drug use, are not causes, they are symptoms. Debt, fiat money and activist progressive government are the causes of harmful changes to society and to how people behave. Fix those first and the social problems will fix themselves.
Oh yes, the always popular libertarian mantra of "deal with our agenda and we won't need to worry about yours."
The REALITY is that the sexual revolution, homosexual agenda, abortion, drug abuse and other social issues started BEFORE America went off the gold standard (despite what the libertarians would have us believe, there has ALWAYS been a Federal debt). Abortion goes back to the eugenics movement that started in the late 19th century. Drug abuse has been around in one form or another for all of human history. Acceptance of sexual promiscuity and the "normalization" of homosexuality began with the Kinsey Report of 1948.
It will be soon framed as a “social” issue by libertines.
Just like drug use, sodomy, and every thing else.
Simple fact is that the law has two purposes. Promote good order (morals) and raise revenue for the State.
That is it.
*************************
Agreed. PGR88's claim otherwise is illogical.
Because libertarians focus on economics and government first - not social issues.
Can you give some examples of things that aren't "social" issues?
You are showing you don’t understand libertarianism.
One can be a libertarian and be a social conservative. For example, Ron Paul, who everyone here loves to hate, is very much anti-abortion.
But he sees it in the proper context that big, activist government has destroyed society’s role to limit abortion, which society once did many decades ago. Indeed, we are faced with a situation now where big, “progressive” government is in the business of funding and supporting abortion.
” ” Debt, fiat money and activist
progressive government are the causes
of harmful changes to society and to how
people behave. Fix those first and the
social problems will fix themselves”
You can’t fix those things until you deal
with the social problems.”
Dead correct. Drug, abortion, all of it existed long before out of control government.
Human failings don’t go away because they are ignored.
Problems in society are like problems for an individual. Problems are usually the just fruit of immoral behavior.
That isn’t a theological viewpoint. It is what I see every day in peoples lives. A woman doesn’t control her sex life, by default she ends up with children from unwise relationships. By default, the consiquences also follow the guy.
No doubt the Ayatollah's in Iran believe the same thing. I am sure Katheline Sebelius believes she is promoting a "good" by promoting abortion. Is is society's purpose to promote good morals. Society is bigger than government. It is big government, in many different ways, that is presently promoting immorality.
Really? Where are libertarians making that argument in a big way? Because the only place I ever hear of it is when anti-libertarians say that's what libertarians stand for.
Absolute nonsense, libertarianism is about NOT being a social and national defense conservative.
Most Catholics are democrat voters anyway.
Romney was weak on social issues and lost an election that should have been impossible to lose.
Because libertarians focus on economics and government first - not social issues.
_____________________________________________________
Yeppers. But because they are wrong on social issues and because they are wrong on prioritizing the more important social issues over economic and government issues; they are useless if not even a detriment to conservative concerns.
False.
For example, Ron Paul, who everyone here loves to hate, is very much anti-abortion.
No, he's personally opposed, but pro-choice by state.
But he sees it in the proper context that big, activist government has destroyed society’s role to limit abortion, which society once did many decades ago.
Abortion is MURDER, it's not society's role to end murder, it's GOVERNMENT'S.
And I don't even know where you get off using the term "limit," do you also want to "limit" rape, arson and robbery?
Indeed, we are faced with a situation now where big, “progressive” government is in the business of funding and supporting abortion.
Another thing that Paul is fine with as long as it's done at the state level.
Dead Wrong. Yes, drug use and abortion all existed since the beginning of time, as has thievery, adultery, lying and cheating. But SOCIETY stigmatized, made illegal and/or shunned people who engaged in them. Libertarians believe society MUST BE bigger than government. You are giving us the statist proposition - that government must control society.
It is progressive government (and I would say our fiat money system) that has caused 1000 insidious changes to society, such that now things like abortion and gay marriage are everywhere - even though few people ever voted to have them.
For example, Ron Paul, who everyone here loves to hate, is very much anti-abortion.
_________________________________________
A lie. Pure and simple lying. While HE may oppose abortion; he has no problems with a state government allowing abortion.
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.