Posted on 06/18/2002 9:48:13 PM PDT by old-ager
A well armed minority is a real bitch for the democratic process when it goes awry. It has the option of fighting in the courts and if the courts won't side with the constitution the minority has the option of using deadly force to protect its rights. Screw democracy. It's candy-coated fascism when it is not strictly limited in scope. The democratic process in a free republic with a limited government is for choosing administrators who will keep the infrastructure working. It is not for choosing people to remake society in their image. That is where we libertarians disagree with conservatives and the left. We believe that social evolution should be driven totally be society itself and not by the state.
Gov't is inherently authoritarian, the opposite of God.
The only God that isn't authoritarian is the God of Deism. Every other view of God is of a God that says if you don't do things His way you go to Hell. Hell is basically a cosmic concentration camp.
On the other hand, many of the people least anxious to implement a libertarian governent (Judeo-Christian cultural conservatives) are most likely and able to make one succeed. They are not anxious to see a libertarian government implemented because they realize popular culture has become so debased and disdainful of morality and self-discipline that this nation would almost immediately descend into anarchy and chaos that the Constitution could neither ameliorate nor prevent.
Wrong! We would already have chaos, disorder and disarray if things are as bad as you say that they are. No government in this country has the military power to hold off such a thing. The private firearm ownership rate in this country is too high for that (thank God!)
Before you social conservatives start bashing pop culture, define it. It isn't all encompasing. Is it just teeny boppers like britney, shakira and N'Sync or does it include every artist whose CDs are at your local record store? What about the movies. Does it include Anime? How about other types of import films that have a following in the US? The entire comic book industry or just Marvel, DC and Image? Be specific. It helps you make your case.
How are social conservatives the ones most likely to make our system work? Social conservatism inevitably leads to a nanny state. You people are what you claim to oppose. The left isn't social conservatism's opposite, it is its siamese twin.
As a practical matter, libertarianism is the least likely form of government to be implemented anyway The strong tendency is toward nanny government socialism. Therefore, any part of the libertarian agenda (e.g., legalization of drugs etc) that can be implemented will almost certainly be implemented according to a socialist model--not a libertarian model
And it was social conservatives like Nixon and McCarthy that destroyed the credability of anti-communists with the public.
Are these beliefs really at odds with libertarian philosophy?
No. National defence is one of the primary reasons for government, and while most libertarians support free migration, it makes absolutely no since in the current state of affairs.
I don't know of any libertarians who think that paying immigrants welfare benefits is a good idea. This simply encourages people to come to the country and live on the dole. Not good for them or us.
There is also a problem with our overly PC culture which encourages immigrants to rebel against the mainstream culture, and see themselves as victims rather than assimilate into the local economy and culture.
Until these problems change for the better, open borders are out of the question.
"Bad men cannot make good citizens. It is when a people forget God that tyrants forge their chains. A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles." -Patrick Henry
Agreed, although I know few Authoritatians and can't speak for them.
Old Whigs feel that man is a creature beloved by his Creator, capable of both good and bad and possesing free will and the corresponding responsibilities. For each freedom, there is corresponding duty. Good men, possibly corruptible or capable of wrong actions, must be hemmed in by Order to enjoy true liberty. That Order is of the soul, of the society, of the community and political as well.
Arbitrary Power and its abuses are what our forefathers despised above all else...they even revolted against its use in the most "free" and democratic institution of its day: Parliment.
Libertarians agree somewhat, and see Order as arising later, subsiquent to Virtue being found in liberty.
Rationalism and political constructs created whole-hog are alone what seperates us.
Stay well.
LOL...ok, but I was talking practically. When was the last time you saw God do a no knock raid, and drag sinners off to Hell? You pay after you die. Until then you have a choice.
Yet, when the government, under the fallacious pretense of trying to prevent people from making stupid decisions, "exalts and rewards" them for doing so, it is usurping the role of God and negating the role of nature (human and otherwise) in God's plan (in my opinion, of course).
This statement hinges on blasphemy. And He's no Republican, Democrat, Green, or any other party label, either.
"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries....
"The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
-- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, U.S. Consul) Graphic Rule
Relax, I didn't mean God was a dues paying member. I only meant that He allows people choice in how they live their lives. They can accept Him into their lives and live their lives as virtuously as they know how, or they can reject Him and live a life of moral vacancy.
God allows freedom of choice, and requires personal responsibility for ones actions. Do you agree?
My objection here is that the LORD can not be reduced to a manmade political philosophy. He's not [L]libertarian. He's God.
I disagree. As long as the church doesn't hold the reins of gov't power I believe Christianity is very compatable with limited Gov't. The founders and authors of the constitution were virtually all Christians.
Islam seems to be incompatable with limited Gov't because it seems to be as much a political idealogy as a religion. It is certainly not a limited type of Gov't either. Indeed it appears to be at least as oppressive and authoritative as communism, or fascism.
It was not my intention to do that. If you misunderstood, I apologize.
What goes unspoken in these sorts of 'God gave us free will and therefore we must allow people to do evil' argument is that apparently only criminals and perverts are allowed their free will. Normal people have no free will to discourage evil. Conservative voters are not free to vote for conservative politicians. Politicians are not free to pass conservative laws. Policemen are not free to enforce the laws. District Attorneys are not free to remand into custody for trial. Judges are not free to preside over cases. Juries are not free to judge innocence or guilt. And jailers are not free to incarcerate and punish. Liberals are always favoring the rights of criminals and perverts over the rights of normal people.
Why not? Whats stopping you?
Its pretty clear that you feel yourself uniquely qualified to tell everyone else how to live their lives. Fine, you want to control others lives, don't be surprised if others demand the same privilege to control your life.
Want to keep your guns?...too bad, government has been given the power to make these decisions, you must conform.
Want to send your children to the school of your choice?...sorry, they must go where the government decides.
Want to attend the church of your choice?....nope you must attend only Government approved churches.
If you give the government control of how you live your life, you can expect that eventually they will get around to regulating every aspect of it. That which is not prohibited will be compulsory.
If this is the type of life you would wish for your children and grand children then keep voting for government control. Its your right, just as its my right to vote against it.
Exactly.
What he's saying is that libertarians frequently do not take adequately into account man's badness. Giving people certain freedoms, which responsible and good people could handle, (and which libertarians want), does not always work. Why? Because in some instances there are enough irresponsible and bad people who will take advantage of those freedoms and do bad things, and the harm caused will significantly outweigh the benefit of the freedom in the first place. For instance, some people in Michigan wanted a nude beach in a secluded area along a river in that state. They promised to be responsible, and not to offend those who wouldn't condone such behavior. The state gave them the OK to go ahead and have the nude beach. Within a couple of months, nude people were pushing into the non-nude beach areas (where families go), they started having sex in the nude beach parking lot (clearly visible from the highway), they starting having sex and especially homosexual sex in the public areas of the beach. Those who favored the family beach (about 95% of the local population) were forced to give up and abandon the beach. Law enforcement tried to do something about the situation, but didn't have enough manpower to constantly patrol the beach, to monitor all the abuses, and to make all the necessary arrests. - If you give all teenagers the right to invite their friends over when the parents are away, a large percentage of them will abuse that privilege, having alcohol and drug parties, and trashing the house. It would be senseless to have a libertarian law that said all teenagers should have that right. The sad fact is that many adults act like teenagers (or worse), and cause us to require certain laws which restrain all our freedoms, so that the irresponsibles out there don't get out of control. In that sense, pure libertarianism is a non-common sense approach to things.
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.