Posted on 03/17/2013 11:13:56 AM PDT by Rufus2007
I didn’t say that you are a communist, you just think like one, with fantasies and unworkable, goofy theories, ignoring the reality of what you should know, and should have been seeing in the last 50 years of libertarianism.
The libertarian agenda is liberalism, they are famous for it, it is why they war against the conservatives and the pro-life movement, and for the homosexual agenda and the drug and porn culture, and want to allow all that being promoted and advertised.
You are like a communist, you want to live in and talk from your fantasy world of illusions, fantasies, and unrealistic theory, an ivory tower with no reality in it.
More libertarian/liberalism and societal decay creates more clamor for big government and welfare, not less.
The last 50 years of your agenda is destroying us, and erasing Christianity from America.
And you are "like" an idiot - who makes confident assertions about people they know nothing whatsoever about.
I think that marriage is a construct of God and that it came before government. In the end government is not necessary to marriage so why give government power over it. I simply see more danger than benefit in government (especially federal) involvement in marriage.
With regards to slavery, I do not know a better way than using the force of government to punish those who steal, kidnap, and kill, especially in large scale (the essentials of slavery). In my mind the very essence of limited government is keep it small but recognize there are some things that cannot be done better privately.
Abortion I believe is something that I think will ultimately have to be under government control. The only way a person can justify abortion (or at least abortion where the pregnancy poses no danger to the mother) is to act as though a baby in the womb is not a person. While I am not prepared to call for federal legislation (states handle murder laws) I think that at some point it becomes like theft, murder, etc where the government actually is best equiped to control it.
In the end I guess my process boils down to: does something require the government and if it does, what is the lowest level of government that we can possibly grant power to. I don't claim to have all the answers but I simply don't trust power to government even if it is in pursuit of an agenda I agree with.
Do you see the flaw there?
When you support the left for their “live and let live” agenda of all the things that destroy people, cultures, families, and communities, and nations, you are doing something immediate and effective, it works and is working, and has been working for 50 years.
The second part, the little lecture that he is responsible for the consequences, is nonsense, a weird fantasy, his vote counts just as much as yours, and he will vote for more social programs to support his shallow, broken life, he and every person that grows weaker, and is absorbed by our ever more open society rejecting social conservatism, will also vote with him.
You are breeding big government voters with the efficiency of a farm operation, and fighting the very things and the culture that creates conservative voters.
“”I didn’t say that you are a communist, you just think like one, with fantasies and unworkable, goofy theories, ignoring the reality of what you should know, and should have been seeing in the last 50 years of libertarianism.””
“”You are like a communist, you want to live in and talk from your fantasy world of illusions, fantasies, and unrealistic theory, an ivory tower with no reality in it.””
I can read your ivory tower fantasy thinking on this thread, have you argued with Communists who do the same thing? They keep wanting to concentrate on fantasy and unworkable, goofy theories which do not connect with human reality.
Read post 165.
The reason I am a conservative, and not a libertarian, is that I do believe the government has some responsibility to try and restore the American people to become once more a “moral and religious people”, because after all, the constitution will “serve no other”.
The Founders were dead on for their time period, but there is no way they could have anticipated the effect that mass media would have on this country. The person before who mentioned what the Founders would have done with gay marriage proponents and abortionists is correct. Why is there no mention of morality in the constitution? Simple. It wasn’t an issue. Nobody would have dreamed about killing their baby, or marrying someone of the same gender. It was just unthinkable.
I value the constitution as the greatest political document in history, but I also recognize the place of “One Nation Under God” and “In God We Trust”. The Founders never intended a society detached from its heritage and roots. If a country abandons its culture and tradition, it is ripe for overthrow by a foreign culture, as we see in Europe.
I don’t believe the Founders would have objected to erecting Christmas Trees in public squares, having a painting of Jesus Christ in a school, having prayer in school, or teaching children that they are accountable to forces beyond this life. I believe in an objective right and wrong, which we have learned from our human experience and the commandments given by God. We are given more freedom than people in every other country by our constitution, but with freedom comes responsibility, and we should all know the difference between right and wrong in this society. Right and wrong are not simply alternative lifestyle choices. They are definitive things.
I think you are right with the Tenth Amendmt...thank you, Founders....
Again, even with the 10th, you can’t ignore the national psyche that needs addressing...
Good discussion all the way around but Walking Dead is on soon so......
Thanks for your considered, cogent, well-thought response to my post. I’m honored my post garnered your excellent response.
I just want to emphasize that when we say the law has to intercede with societal issues, we need to ask on which code are these laws based? We who are happy to designate the obvious origins of the laws we follow state we come from a Judeo-Christian belief from which our English legal system derives. So, in other words, dead European white guys are responsible for the rules we follow.
So, moral code is what makes up our laws...no morality means screwy laws that accomplish squat...which we see today.
I enjoyed this exchange and think those of us who disagree should still acknowledge the validity of the opposite argument, if not the veracity.
Insults are not helpful....
You argue for more coercive federal state powers and call me a commie.
My fantasy thinking is that low information voters (history, constitution, politics, logic, strategy) such as yourself would reconsider their dogmatic suicidal pact with Republicans who say tasty things but deliver ever greater degradation of liberty (including religious) and prosperity for this and future generations. That's my ivory tower fantasy.
Government is the use of force to influence behavior. I don’t want the social conservatives using force to restrict my behaviors in any way beyond that of preventing substantial injury to the general health, safety, peace and security of my community. Nor do I want the leftists to use force to coerce behaviors they find “appropriate” and “sustainable.”
The 10th Amendment implies that the individual retained certain rights from government. If that is libertarian and not conservative, so be it.
“I think that marriage is a construct of God and that it came before government. In the end government is not necessary to marriage so why give government power over it.”
Marriage is a good idea to test one’s libertarianism on:
Axiom: A society of strong marriages needs less government than a society of weak marriages.
(Besides the huge rise of the welfare and Nanny state seen in the US in the last fifty years as marriage was dramatically weakened, this axiom is supported by the extreme example of tribalistic societies.)
So would a libertarian want the government to take a little power to support and enforce strong marriages-or a lot of power to support a society of weak marriages?
“Weak” marriage was a frequent hypothesis in the sci-fi I loved in my youth- such as Heinlein’s.
Your fantasy is believing that the destruction of Christian America will lead to the resulting lefties that are created by the moral vacuum, for some reason suddenly start voting like Evangelicals, when what we see is the opposite.
Your determined support for homosexualizing the military and supporting homosexual marriage in the military and in society, abortion and open borders and the rest of the left’s agenda that you so passionately fight for, is still inadequate and unconvincing to a conservative.
But it is effective in general, you guys have had huge victories in the last 50 years.
Most impressive reply.
“there is no way they could have anticipated the effect that mass media would have on this country”
This especially hit me. Much of our dysfunction today is caused by the nationalization of media (information) overriding the federalist separations put in place by our Founders.
Tenth amendment?
What do you think the libertarian position is on abortion, homosexual marriage, open homosexuality in the military?
How about with all the other federal personnel, and what do you think their open borders agenda is about?
"Festering an infected wound -- it's awful. I guarantee you, if there were a liberal conclave comparable to this, and there were vigorous debates going on there, The New York Times headline would be 'Healthy diversity flourishes at the liberal conclave.'"George actually gets a little wood (so to speak) on the ball (so to speak). Partisan Media Shills ping.
We need to get rid of every person in DC who talks about controlling behaviors, not protecting liberty. How did society get along before the age of the nanny state? We all know the answer - less government, greater liberty with accountability.
Less "help" from the wet nurse = more risk, greater downside to aberrant behavior, but greater upside in rewards. The pilgrims figured this out and made major ideology/policy changes just before they all starved to death. It is immoral to keep this “government is the answer” moving toward the inevitable total collapse.
We don’t need more “leadership” from government. We need less government. Government is an organism that only grows and metastasizes. It is never benevolent, never selfless, never for liberty and freedom – all it knows is growing in power and scope. If people would try to traverse the bureaucratic hierarchy of just the executive branch – they would suffer brain-freezing information overload, followed by a stroke, heart attack, then suicidal depression if Obamacare didn't kill them. It’s worse than that bad.
I will never again vote for anyone who seeks to control, apart from narrowly construed enumerated constitutional powers, the behaviors of citizens through the coercive power of state. There are WAY, WAY, WAY better ways to affect positive societal change then giving more illegal powers to the federal beast.
You’re very gracious, since my ‘test question’ points out the shared views of libertarians and conservatives instead of their differences- as you requested.
Conservatives and liberals fight for the votes of libertarians but the liberals win it most often- with the backing of federal power and money,,,
Ah, but irony is my friend.
My comment on the Founders’ view was just in relation to my ‘test’.
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.