Posted on 06/24/2013 3:49:08 PM PDT by EveningStar
Part 1 in a new series examining the common fallacies committed by both statists and theists. This video covers the fact that both atheism and libertarianism are both negative philosophies, and therefore the burden of proof is on statists and theists ...
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
“We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.”
Sounds to me that govt would get smaller. I agree that these pmts should be eliminated.
People aren’t the problem. Government supporting people is the problem.
We do need to control our borders. Two out of three is not bad.
Which do you think that we will get first, open borders, or the end to government as we know it?
More democrat voters equals more liberalism, equals larger government and more liberalism, leading to more of the left and the libertarian social agenda winning, which leads to more democrat voters and larger government.
Libertarianism is liberalism with a twist, the twist is, give us our liberal libertarian social issues today, let us break the communities and destroy lives, families and the culture and finish off Christian social conservatism, and for some reason that will make all those liberal people start voting for less social programs for themselves and less government and lower taxes, in other words conservatism
Rather than say I agree with libertarians on it, it’s fairer to say that I don’t care enough to disagree. My primary issues are the surveillance state, Second Amendment violations, and inevitable financial collapse / police state response, all of which are the greatest threats to personal liberty. I don’t think it’s a requirement that you must have a firm opinion or care about every particular issue.
Gays are on my “Don’t care” list. I could not care less what gays do (unless an squad of gays armed with pink M4s come for my guns — then I care).
We have the luxury of living in a society that can dwell on silly questions like whether two men can or should be able to get married. My concern is that every society that has become so comfortable as to obsess over frivolous things soon after collapsed under the weight of its own distractions and excesses.
I prefer to prioritize.
I guess an example could be Home Depot. HD didn’t go around saying that no health insurance anywhere should cover things that they objected to on a religious basis or that their employees couldn’t engage in those objectionable activities, only that they shouldn’t be forced by the gov’t to pay for things they object to. The flower shop being sued for discrimination didn’t say that no gay couple getting married should have flowers, only that they did not believe in gay marriage and therefore did not want to do their flower arrangements.
In both cases these businesses are making profit and paying taxes (Ceasar’s things), and the gov’t shouldn’t be able to pass laws that force law abiding productive citizens to go against their religious.
The liberals were telling everyone that conservatives didn’t want to cure disease because they objected to the use of fetal stem cell research. But the objection was gov’t funding of the research, forcing taxpayers to fund something that some object to on a religious basis. They weren’t trying to stop private research.A lot of libs were surprised when I told them this.
In my previous post I said Home Depot but it was Hobby Lobby.
yuppers, and they call that straw men. it tells us much more about the constricted world view of the presenter than it does about why one would believe in God, or a particular God.
I must be an old fart Libertarian, and here’s why:
I believe in a small government, bridled and hamstrung by The U.S. Constitution, and hold The Patriot Act, The Military Commissions Act, and the NDAA as UNConstitutional.
I believe in a completely free market, without government hindrance, and without government endowments or grants. It’s YOUR money, and it is up to YOU to sink or swim!
I believe in the Constitutional confines of national defense. I know that the mohammedan problem is one that has been brewing for a lot of years, (they tried to kill me in 1972 in Asia), so, yes, we are dealing with a ‘hydra-style’ leadership. Iraq and Afghanistan are done deals, so I won’t consider debates with those. However, since when does a President decide he is going to do anything about anywhere outside the U.S., without the approval of Congress, as the Constitution states, should be done? We live in a nuclear age, still. We should not let our guard down, in that regard.
I do not believe in isolationism, as the former Presidential candidate Dr. Paul espouses. I do not believe that previous actions of this country need to be apologized for, period.
I grew up under what some folks call ‘the red scare’, I call it the clarion call for Patriotism, and had films in classes in elementary school, of what would happen to those who resisted a Communist takeover, in all those countries that were under Soviet control. I have spent my time in the military, (as my father did), and some of that in SouthEast Asia, defending this country and stopping the expanse of Communism. I have talked with Ukrainian Soviet refugees. I have heard their stories, and their hearts. What say I now? “Better off dead than Red, partner!”
I am NOT an “atheist”. However, as an American, my expressions and statements of faith, are mine and mine alone, and you are not privy to them.
I believe in the rights, as called out in The Bill of Rights, for every American CITIZEN, without exception or exclusion, period. (We all wore diapers at one time or another, so there is no royalty, or divine right of ascension, in my eyes.)
I do not believe in huggy-poo/kissy-face with illegal invaders from anywhere on the face of this Earth, or “E.T”, either! Should the future emigrant go through the legal process of becoming an American citizen, fine and dandy! If NOT, they are foreign nationals operating on American soil, and subject to espionage proceedings, period. Their offsprings are not wards of the American government, either.
You’re clearly not evangelical in any sense. They want to share the love of God all around.
You described the conservative position, which is restrict government and don’t force the homosexual agenda on people.
The libertarian position is fine on that private sector part, but they support homosexual marriage, adoption, military service, and immigration as spouses.
Nice description of a conservative, but when do you face the challenge of the things that conservatives and libertarians are on the complete opposite sides from?
LOL, amazingly shallow and ignorant.
Well the proposition for two men to marry one another IS silly (wickedly and evilly so)
I worked with a gay guy that asked me if I thought gays should be able to marry. I told him that marriage is a religious institution and, while if gays had some sort of registration so they could have the same tax laws, etc. apply to them, that’s a gov’t issue, but the gov’t has no right to force acceptance of gay marriage on everyone because most religions do not believe in it.
He accepted that answer.
Getting jollies doesn’t mean being gay in the original sense. A lot of homos are pretty crabby and gloomy.
Looking for victimization where there is none, just like a lot of other “classes” of people.
A valid argument but one that the media never even entertained, the idea of a legal relationship with it’s own definition and name.
Now we will have to create a new word for “marriage”, when we are talking about real marriage, so that the normal people can still talk daily about weddings and marriages without having to wade through clarifications and the same questions over and over.
Thanks for letting me know how much you believe you know my positions better than I do.
I’ll make really sure to dwell on the gays from now on. 100% gay focus. Forget the economy. Forget the NSA. Forget the police state. Gotta think about the gays. They’ll have my full attention, I promise, just like they have yours.
And I’ll be sure to ask your opinion of my opinion in the future just to be sure.
Ca already had a registered domestic partner law on the books so they had equality as far as any gov’t issue in CA already, but they had to take over the word marriage.
You were very clear, I asked you your opinion on this libertarian position. **“Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.**
You posted these statements as your answer.
“”Rather than say I agree with libertarians on it, it’s fairer to say that I don’t care enough to disagree.””
“”Gays are on my “Don’t care” list. I could not care less what gays do “”
“”We have the luxury of living in a society that can dwell on silly questions like whether two men can or should be able to get married. My concern is that every society that has become so comfortable as to obsess over frivolous things soon after collapsed under the weight of its own distractions and excesses.””
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.