Posted on 03/22/2015 7:55:18 AM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
A friend sent me a link to a newspaper column celebrating the supposed ascendance of libertarianism among the hoi polloi.
“It is clear,” the author wrote, “that there are certain areas where an increasing portion of Americans are adapting more libertarian views and simply want the government to leave them alone and allow them to freely live their lives.”
He cited as examples same-sex marriage and drug legalization. “People have generally come to the conclusion,” he asserted, “that they don’t really care to whom one is attracted or what consenting adults do behind closed doors.” He also predicted that “the next libertarian wave to wash across the national consciousness will be drug legalization.”
Where “the prohibitionist” errs, he asserted, is in “the failure to recognize that since one owns the right to his own life, his body is as much his property, if not more so, than the clothes he wears or the change in his pocket, and he is free to utilize it as he sees fit.”
Well, I do no dispute that support has increased in recent years for both homosexual marriage and decriminalization of drug use. The polls suggests as much. But that doesn’t make it right.
For the Word of God declares: “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness.”
Indeed, there is a libertarian argument to be made for seemingly every evil under the sun.
Take pedophilia: The North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) group thinks there nothing wrong with a grown man being sexual attracted to a pre-pubescent boy.
In fact, the main goal of the pedophile rights group, which was headed for years by libertarian Joe Powers, is to “repeal age of consent laws that make it a crime for adults to have sex with minors.”
We see a similar move to “normalize” polygamy; to confer upon such multi-spouse unions the same right to marry as homosexual couples. The movement was given a huge boost last year by a federal district court judge in Utah who ruled that the state’s law banning polygamous households violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The legal challenge was brought by the polygamous “family” featured on the TLC reality show “Sister Wives.” Parents magazine, which should not be mistaken as pro-family, finds the show “very redeeming.” Perhaps the best part of the show, according to Parents, is “its subtle Libertarian message.”
Not even incest is out of bounds for libertarians. Just last year, in fact, the German Ethics Council, a government body, recommended that the country’s laws banning incest between adult brothers and sisters should be abolished.
“The fundamental right of adult siblings to sexual self-determination,” trumps “the abstract idea of protection of the family,” the council declared. That line of reasoning expressed “a libertarian ideal of sexual autonomy,” noted The Week magazine.
The same kind of unGodly reasoning informs prevailing libertarian views on such issues as abortion, euthanasia, drugs and prostitution – that our bodies are our property and we can do with them what we will.
Indeed, Murray Rothbard, who according to the Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought played a leading intellectual role in the development of modern libertarianism, said that if a mother-to-be decides she doesn’t want the human life growing in her womb, “then the fetus becomes a parasitic ‘invader’ of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain.”
Jack Kevorkian, the proponent of physician-assisted suicide who sent more than 100 souls to an early grave, never pronounced himself a “libertarian,” but he certainly was embraced by the libertarian community. That included Mary J. Ruwart, a leading candidate for the 2008 Libertarian Party presidential nomination, who actually contacted Kevorkian in 1993 to assist her sister Martie to take her life. “Martie was a person for whom Dr. Kevorkian really was the only option,” said sister Mary.
The libertarian Cato Institute is one of the foremost advocates of drug legalization, not just for marijuana, but any every and every drug.
Indeed, in 1999 testimony to Congress, Cato’s David Boaz argued that “(t)he long federal experiment in prohibition of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs has given us unprecedented crime and corruption combined with a manifest failure to stop the use of drugs or reduce their availability to crime.”
But libertarian Boaz and other drug-legalization advocates don’t get it. “Drugs like marijuana and cocaine are not dangerous because they are illegal,” as Joe Califano, the one time chairman of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, explained. “They are illegal because they are dangerous.”
That is borne out by data from the Centers for Disease Control, which indicates that deaths from drug overdoses have risen steadily over the past two decades. Among people 25 to 64 years old, drug overdoses actually cause more deaths than motor vehicle crashes.
The libertarian case for legal prostitution also is morally bankrupt. It is based on the notion that sex for money is a “victimless crime;” that a woman should be free to sell her body without government meddling.
Never mind a study from the Netherlands, where prostitution is legal, which reported that 60 percent of women in legal prostitution had been physically assaulted and 40 percent had been coerced into legal prostitution. Kill our unborn babies. Take our own lives. Enslave ourselves to drugs. Sell and buy sex. All that is okay under tenets of libertarianism.
But the Word of God says different.
“Do you not know,” the Apostle Paul wrote to the Christian faithful in Corinth, “that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?”
Indeed, we were all, everyone, bought at a price. And, therefore, we are to glorify God in body and spirit.
So, what do you have to show for your efforts in the last 40 years except the results you’re trying to blame me for and a big fat tyrannical government. Like I said, your work sort of sucks.
The Founding Fathers were clearly libertarian unless you want to tell me revolutionaries embarking on a form of government that had never before been attempted were somehow “conservatives”
Nor am I, but I can learn new things.
BRB = Be right back.
So you are making posts to tell me that you will be making a future post?
That really isn’t necessary.
Not the founding fathers were no libertarian, and they would be lynching people pushing for abortion and gay marriage and gay adoption, and porn etc.
Which reminds me that the federal government was making decisions on marriage under the Continental congress, and the congresses after that, with federal laws in 1780, 1784, 1798, and 1802, they did not include pensions for gay lovers.
Why don’t you ask me about libertarians and child porn, you aren’t curious to be educated on that, or is it that you DO NOT want to learn what you know is not going to be good news?
Let’s go !!!
The Libertarian concept is born of being liberal in the classical sense.
There is a huge difference between our culture at the turn of the 20th century and of today.
Back then and upon our founding people were considered “liberal” if they opposed the tyranny of Government.
There was a certain amount of trust placed in their fellow man’s ability to resolve conflicts through both peer pressure and the knowledge that most of their fellow citizens held a Christian foundation that was guiding them.
Clearly times have changed.
But even in these changed times do we need or should we desire a government that TELLS us what is right or wrong?
It’s a question of authority.
Sovereignty.
Go where,you pushing social liberalism as modern and necessary?
The libertarian agenda is to defeat social conservatism, a goal that you share with the rest of the left, an anti-American/anti-God war that you share with the rest of the left.
A goal which also makes any conservatism, including economic conservatism and small government, impossible.
That and Drug legalization.
Since you’ve demonstrated nothing but abysmal ignorance on the subject of libertarianism I won’t be see king instruction or counsel from you.
Here’s a news flash, people such as Bill Maher describe themselves as libertarians; it takes a consummate fool to believe that. You’ve shown no skill at identifying libertarians or libertarian principles nor the simple good grace to answer any of my questions so, other than being a target for your ineffectual attacks, I don’t see a purpose in this discussion. It is, after all, not my job to clear up the massive confusion that clearly afflicts you.
I’m not “Pushing” anything and reject any political party that try’s to tell people what to think or what they can do.
I’m a pure Constitutionalists.
Unfortunately, the constitution doesn’t specify or address the social ills that we face today.
It’s a question of trust.
I don’t want a government that tells me anything. A government that “Tells” me or anybody else what they can or cannot do.
I want a Government that stays within it’s authority that is clearly defined in our constitution.
The social issues will be left to the States and their citizens.
I trust the people over the government.
And just so you know, I am passionately against abortion, gay marriage, gays in the military, affirmative action, amnesty and virtually ALL of what our current government seems to think they should be involved in.
It’s none of their business.
LOL, read post 84, you don’t seem to know what you support, or at least you don’t want anyone else to know.
Libertarians are anti-conservative/anti-God, we cannot unite on the leftist agenda that they fight for.
Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian curtain.
Libertarian Party Platform:
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments full 9 months.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions,.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions, full marketing.
Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
So, still unable to answer my questions. Still throwing things against the wall to see what sticks, still displaying ignorance. I guess consistency is your only virtue.
Questions? All I am interested in is the political agenda of libertarians, and their war on Christ and America, I’m not interested in their arguments for their leftism.
Want me to educate you on what we know about libertarianism’s take on child porn so far?
That’s odd ...I am a social conservative and yet find myself in agreement with most libertarian principles. I like others here do not agree with your definition of what libertarianism is.
By the way who is this conservative party or political movement you hang your hopes on, the Republican party?
First, point out the Constitutional basis for government involvement in such matters. Surprise me and actually cite a specific article, section and clause. Do us both a favor and don’t drag out the “general welfare” clause.
Why don’t you just give your libertarian defense for child porn?
That’s wonderful, a social conservative who supports social liberalism instead of social conservatism.
You are totally credible.
Let’s see .....
abortion ... no
gay marriage...no
euthanasia & physician-assisted suicide ... no
affirmative action ... no (is that a so-con issue? kinda.)
Christian ... yes and bold about it. I won’t even support a candidate that is not solidly 100% social conservative.
So as others have said in this thread, you are one very confused fellow, at least on what libertarianism is and what social conservatism is. I haven’t seen anyone resembling a liberal in this thread or supporting the dreaded social liberalism.
It is also very apparent you don’t answer any questions put to you and it is apparent why you won’t too.
You can’t reject libertarian principles and then call me confused about them.
Are you claiming to be a libertarian?
You are talking big L Libertarian - which has about as much in common with small l libertarians as Republicans have with conservatism or constitutionalism.
There is no way they invite government into a the marriage relationship - I have heard some even ask why gays would want to.
What does marriage law ceasing or not ceasing to exist in America, or anywhere else, or TJ’s and GW’s marriage licenses have to do with libertarianism? Answer - NOTHING!
Libertarians are not religious??? You are plumb knicker-twisted! Some are, some ain’t.
That paragraph takes you out of position as any person of standing when discussing libertarianism - you plain don’t understand it. You are too busy reading platform and position statements of whacko candidates who don’t understand the philosophy any better than you do.
The libertarian position is most efficiently stated thus:
Government should ONLY be involved when necessary to protect life (that there abortion thing, whether the whackos - and you - admit it or not) and property, protect the weak and helpless from predation (child pornography, abortion) and enforce the terms of (presumably informed) consensual agreements. No marriage license there.
There is no position on religion other than the free exercise by those who so choose.
The statement on abortion is a gross distortion of libertarian philosophy. No where else do they leave matters of human life and death “to each person for their conscientious consideration”. It is probably the most adamant point of the libertarian ideas - laws are required for the protection of human life...followed closely by protection of property.
The problem is, similar to what happened to liberalism and the commies, the whackos, the Eric Cartman libertarians, have gotten ahold of the name, and are veering the idea FAR off course.
So - please don’t argue with me by spouting platform planks and position statements from the Big Ls - they are pretty far afield from, shall I say, “classic” libertarianism.
When I talk about libertarianism, I’m talking about minimalist government and maximized personal responsibility - not the “I can do anything I want” brand.
Commies did to liberalism what anarchists are trying to do to libertarianism.
Anarchist are about child pornography, libertarians are about protecting children from predators.
Informed consent is a foundational concept of libertarian thought - with government institutions (judiciary) to enforce the terms of consent. A libertarian would want no part of a marriage license, but agree that the courts should enforce a pre-nup.
Libertarians would allow prostitution, but not allow the sex-slave industry, because there is a lack of consent. The libertarian recognizes there is little possibility of true, informed consent with children (and none for the unborn).
Protection of life and property, informed consent; use those principals when you want to discuss small l libertarians. If it doesn’t fall into that framework the proponents calling themselves libertarian are either ignorant or anarchists.
Yes - I am with you.
The name is being hijacked by anarchists and the ignorant.
I might be somewhat of a libertarian/conservative hybrid. I’m not quite willing to go very far down the legalizing drugs road, because of the consent issue. It is hard to claim that an addict consents to his addiction, in my mind.
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.