Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mark Bahner, sonofliberty2, scholastic, DoughtyOne
Two wrongs, never, never, NEVER make a right! You just got done saying that the federal government should not legislate on crimes not in the Constitution, and then--in the very next sentence! :-(-- you want them to legislate on a crime not in the Constitution! I have a better suggestion...why not simply follow the @#$% law?!

Your problem is that you attempt to put the law before God which is a great sin whether you realize it or not. Man was not made for the law, but the law for the man. The purpose of good laws are to effect good things. Because we live in a republic and not in a mobocracy as you would have us do, the rights and lives of the minorities are protected in law against the tyranical excesses of the majority who might otherwise vote to deprive them of their lives and liberty. Perhaps the most important purposes of the law is to protect the lives of all men including unborn babies from the likes of people like you that have no qualms in quenching them out. I have tried to be pleasant with you until now going as far as I could to compromise with your badly misprioritized ideological beliefs. However, your allegence to bad laws over good ones is most infuriating and typifyies why I have decried Libertarianism as a disgraced religion. I would not vote Libertarian even if the only alternatives were far-left liberals. Thank you for illustrating my point better than I ever could why Libertarianism and extreme social liberalism is so disgraceful and repulsive.
55 posted on 04/29/2002 2:34:00 PM PDT by rightwing2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]


To: rightwing2
Your problem is that you attempt to put the law before God...

No, YOUR problem is that you want the federal government to break the law, in the name of God. In other words, you want government tyranny, in the name of God. (Can you say, "Taliban"?)

The purpose of good laws are to effect good things.

I can think of NO U.S. law that violates the Constitution (which is THE law) that is a "good" law. Government tyranny--the government assuming illegitimate powers, in violation of Constitution--is NEVER "good." You may view the end results, and say to yourself that "the ends justify the means"...well, that's what makes you a conservative, and me a libertarian.

Because we live in a republic and not in a mobocracy as you would have us do,...

No. You have that EXACTLY turned around! It is YOU who are advocating tyranny of the "majority!" YOU are the one advocating, if a majority of elected members of Congress like what YOU like, that they violate The Law (the Constitution). (Once again, the federal government legislating on any form of abortion is unconstitutional, because the Constitution does NOT protect the unborn, in any way. The unborn are NOT "persons" as defined in the Constitution!) *I* am the one advocating that the federal government follow The Law. YOU are the one advocating federal government tyranny (or "mobacracy" as you call it). (Of course, you--hypocritically--detest tyranny when it goes "against" you...as in Roe vs. Wade. You only favor tyranny when the tyrants are doing what YOU like!)

Perhaps the most important purposes of the law is to protect the lives of all men...

All "men," yes. All "persons" in fact. That's what the Constitution says.

...including unborn babies...

NO! Absolutely not! The Constitution provides absolutely NO protection for the unborn, because they are NOT "persons," according to the Constitution. (The Constitution requires a deciannual Census to enumerate all "persons" in the United States. The unborn have NEVER been part of any Census. So they are most definitely NOT "persons." They never have been, and they NEVER WILL BE...EXCEPT by changing The Law...by changing the Constitution!)

(Note: Of course, the Constitution DOES allow the states to craft laws to "protect" the unborn...that is, to craft laws to punish those who are involved in abortions. But the Constitution does not REQUIRE states to craft ANY laws punishing ANY form of abortion. Because the unborn are NOT "persons" in the eyes of the Constitution.)

...babies from the likes of people like you that have no qualms in quenching them out.

Any "qualms" I have about abortion are more than compensated for by my "qualms" about the federal government stepping in where it has NO legitimate authority.

However, your allegence to bad laws over good ones is most infuriating...

It can be no more infuriating to you than YOU infuriate me, by publicly applauding federal government tyranny. You determine "bad laws" and "good laws" by whether they appeal to YOU. *I* determine ALL laws that violate THE Law--the Constitution--to be "bad laws." It's infuriating to me, the way conservatives selectively applaud tyranny (conservatives love tyranny...but only when they do it)!

...why I have decried Libertarianism as a disgraced religion.

Once again, your analysis is the exact opposite of the way things truly are. The libertarian principle of non-agression is completely amoral (not immoral, amoral). It is YOU that wants to insert your religious beliefs into the situation. YOU want to ignore The Law, due to your religious beliefs.

And, in fact, this isn't a matter for "Libertarianism." This is a matter of whether or not one thinks the federal government should follow The Law (the Constitution). I think the federal government should follow The Law (the Constitution). You do not. Just like most conservatives.

Thank you for illustrating my point better than I ever could why Libertarianism and extreme social liberalism is so disgraceful and repulsive.

Yes, I understand that The Law (the Constitution) is repulsive to you, and that you think the federal government should only follow the Constitution when YOU approve. Just like (modern U.S.) liberals!

I find that endlessly ironic, and a source of (somewhat bitter) amusement...you conservatives and your (modern U.S.) liberal brothers/enemies BOTH want the federal government to violate The Law (the Constitution)...but only when you each personally approve! Y'all pretend to be different from each other, but you're actually peas in a pod. Often you disagree on exactly WHERE the federal government should violate the Constitution...but BOTH conservatives and liberals agree that the Constitution SHOULD be violated!

You conservatives, and your liberal brothers/enemies, are why these United States are no longer governed by the Rule of Law.

56 posted on 05/01/2002 2:18:54 PM PDT by Mark Bahner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson