Elusive Libertarians: Do “libertarian leanings” constitute a significant political movement?

A number of commentators have recently taken up the notion that libertarianism has become a significant force in contemporary American politics. This conviction is partly based on the assumption that, by being different from both liberals and conservatives, libertarians can enter coalitions with both, thus boosting their political power beyond their numbers. For example, David Kirby and David Boaz of the Cato Institute recently argued that, although unaware of the appropriate label for their beliefs, a significant number of Americans have “libertarian leanings” and that they are not only swing but bellwether voters; their support for Republicans, for example, ominously dropped 13 points during George W. Bush’s years in the White House

. Several libertarians have argued that progressivism is, at the very least, as much a natural ally of libertarianism as is conservatism, and have advocated a fusion between the two, dubbed liberaltarianism.

On the face of it, this is not an unreasonable argument. However, our polling data at Zogby International indicate that libertarianism does not play as significant a role as the media hype would suggest. Very few people claim adherence to libertarian philosophy. Among those who do, a majority identifies with the political Right because of the large role economic freedom plays in libertarian ideology. For the most part, libertarians are a fraction within the conservative coalition — not a stand-alone movement.

Here are some of our data that show this. As a rule, we at Zogby ask two questions about ideology: a qualitative one, where people can choose a political label — progressive, liberal, moderate, conservative, very conservative, or libertarian — and a quantitative one, in which we ask them to position themselves on a 1–9 ideological scale, where 1 is extremely liberal and 9 is extremely conservative.

In all our surveys, almost all our respondents answer both questions. Our December 2009 survey results are typical. First, we found 2 percent of likely voters describing their ideology as “libertarian.” Second, over 90 percent of these self-described libertarians were willing to position themselves on a continuum between Left and Right — although they were free to say they were “something else” or “not sure.” Of those who answered the question, 89 percent chose 5 or higher, with most choosing 6, 7, or 8. Here are the average scores for various ideological groups on our 1–9 scale in our December survey:

To be sure, libertarians and conservatives have quite different views on a number of issues. For example, when we ask questions about foreign policy, we find that voters who describe themselves as libertarians often hold views that are a combination of those held by progressive and very conservative voters. Here is just one example:

However, different as conservative and libertarian positions can be on some issues, this appears not to matter very much. The reason is that economic issues are central to the libertarian worldview, and on these issues, libertarians have far more in common with the Right than with the Left. According to our July 2009 survey, 69 percent of conservative and 68 percent of very conservative adults share the view of 64 percent of libertarians that “Economic freedom is the foundation for all other freedoms.” In that survey, we asked: Which of the following issue categories is most important to your current ideology: social/cultural issues (abortion, gay rights, gun control); economic issues (free markets, free trade, union rights); foreign-policy issues (intervention in other countries, national defense); or environmental/energy issues (government subsidies, global warming

In the past, we at Zogby were often pestered by libertarians. “We are unfairly forced in your surveys,” they complained, “to choose between two crude views neither of which captures our philosophy.” It was in reaction to their insistence that they are fundamentally different from both liberals and conservatives that we added the “libertarian” category on our ideology question.

In this, we were not alone. Theories have been developed to accommodate ideological patterns that do not fit the somewhat limited Left–Right continuum. For example, The Political Compass has attempted to map attitudes toward economic and social freedom more accurately by creating four possible ideological types (authoritarian Left, authoritarian Right, libertarian Left, and libertarian Right). More elaborately, Brian Mitchell’s Eight Ways to Run the Country uses attitudes toward hierarchy and use of force to establish eight political types, two of which serve merely to disentangle the Hayek from the von Mises variety of libertarianism.

Let us for a moment follow these writers’ assumption that a person’s ideology is solely determined by his policy views. And let us also assume that social and economic liberties can largely be disentangled and that libertarians are as close to liberals on social issues as they are to conservatives on economic ones — a view implicit in the argument for liberaltarianism. Still, our data show that different aspects of ideology are not equally important for a person’s ideological identity, and, somewhat ironically, that this is especially true of libertarians. For all their insistence that liberty has multiple facets, libertarians appear to cherish one of them much more than others. This means that liberaltarians should not hold their breath waiting for self-described libertarians to join them.

Of course, as Kirby and Boaz point out, few people use the libertarian label to describe themselves. Part of the elusive promise of libertarianism as a political force is the assumption that there are plenty of unconscious libertarians, who have a broad, vague preference for both economic and social liberties. However, one has to wonder how much these people care about either of them. If they have not bothered to learn the name of their presumed philosophy, the chances that they are applying it with vigor and consistency to multiple domains must be rather slim. Libertarians proper might indeed derive their issue positions from general principles. But a vast majority of voters do not. Realistically speaking, libertarian philosophy is too abstract for a significant number of voters to have bothered to study it, let alone embrace it.

Political philosophy is cognitively complex and, in principle, allows for endless distinctions to be drawn and combinations of beliefs and convictions to be made. Yet when we look at people — as opposed to ideas — we see that a vast majority of voters have no problem with a binary choice. The Political Compass’s ratings of American politicians typically leave two and sometimes three of their four quadrants empty. Mitchell admitted that, of his eight ideological types, only three play a significant role in American politics.

One reason for this is that ideology is not only a theoretical but also a social category, and someone’s ideological identification depends not only on what he believes about policy but also on what sort of person he wants to be seen as being. Among libertarians, some see themselves as liberal intellectuals made better by their knowledge of economics and hence eager tutors to the partly benighted liberal elite. Others resent liberal intellectuals and feel a psychological kinship with modest men relying on common sense.

As a result, political coalitions depend not merely on compatibility of ideas among various factions but also on psychological affinities that particular people have for one another. Ed Kilgore points to secularism as a possible bridge between libertarians and liberal intellectuals. But he also points out the unacceptable eagerness — from the liberal point of view — with which libertarians have embraced the tea partiers. Our own data suggest that most libertarians find the company of conservatives to be more congenial than that of liberals. As Kirby and Boaz point out, libertarians sometimes part company with Republicans. Yet it is less clear how often, psychologically speaking, they part company with conservatives.

Politics is a social endeavor where practice trumps theory and results trump reasons and justifications. A robust political force should not need so much theoretical refinement and so much data collection for its power to be recognized. The libertarian movement is decades old, has its own party and tens of thousands of pages written on its behalf, and still struggles to be recognized and appreciated. Yet the political significance of the tea-party movement was recognized within months of its coming into existence, without anyone having predicted its arrival and with many still struggling to understand what the tea-partiers stand for. In the end, we find it unlikely that a significant group of voters committed to their philosophy — whatever that philosophy might be — would fail, decade after decade, to put into high office anyone seriously supportive of it.

— John Zogby is president and CEO of Zogby International, a global polling and market-research company. He is the author of The Way We’ll Be: The Zogby Report on the Transformation of the American Dream (Random House, 2008). Zeljka Buturovic is a research associate at Zogby International and co-author of the forthcoming book Tržišno Rešenje (Market Solution).

Would you not agree that in the minds and through the actions of the majority of libertarians, that Christ and His Father’s laws play a very insignificant role (if any)?

You're talking as if all libertarians practice a form of groupthink. Libertarians believe in the sovereignty of the individual. The individual is left to determine faith's role in his own life, or whether he will have faith at all, and what in.

If man needs a savior, as the article you quoted touts, libertarians believe he must be left to find that savior on his own. It is not the role of government to lead him to it, or even nudge him in a direction. If the individual is truly sovereign, then he must be left to find the path by his own doing. It is not a choice between Christ or the state. That is a very narrow view to say the least. There are many paths that can be chosen, and not all will lead to salvation for sure. But man must be left to his own device to choose his path.

This is antithical to what theocrats believe. Look at Islam. In an Islamic state, you are coereced by the state into finding what the state deems as appropriate salvation. The penalty for refusing to take the path that the state has chosen for you is usually severe.

Your statement that Liberty did not exist prior to the 'claim of the state to be man's savior was denied'. That's not entirely accurate, but some of the cornerstones of the foundation of the philosophy of liberty itself were indeed laid by Christians. But the point that you didn't make, is that some the earliest ideals of libety came from individuals who wished to break with the traditions and mandates of the church itself. In later years, many of the ideas of liberty as it relates to intellectual freedom began to conflict directly with the church - such as during the Renaissance (the church would very frequently put to death anyone who proposed an idea that did not confirm to it's dogma). Even in early Colonial America, the philosophy of 'self-ownership' took root. See the following example regarding Sir Henry Vane (an early Massachusetts governor):

http://www.acton.org/publications/randl/rl_liberal_en_80.php
Born into the English landed gentry, Sir Henry Vane early rejected the advantages of his class, becoming a Protestant Dissenter. This set him against the government of Charles I and Archbishop Laud and their desire for an absolutist state coupled with a government-sanctioned church based on the European model.

At age twenty two, Henry went out to live with his co-religionists in the newly-established American colonies. The Bostonians soon recognized his merits and elected him governor. But once again Vane saw himself at odds with the mainstream dissenters, who often saw freedom as no more than the right to belong to an approved dissenting church, and a free government as one that put down blasphemy and sin. Vane, however, believed in freedom in its liberal sense, as the right to use oneself as one pleased. Government's function was to protect this right, and if it went beyond this, the people might properly change it. He wrote, “All just executive power [arises] from the free will and gift of the people, [who might] either keep the power in themselves or give up their subjection into the hands and will of another, if they judge that thereby they shall better answer the end of government, to wit, the welfare and safety of the whole.”

If you want to get into a more extreme example, read up on John Locke. Jefferson (a devout deist) publicly scoffed at the dogma prescribed by some religions, but he also recognized the moral role that law had to play.

There is some great information at the Acton institute on how religion and the philosophy of liberty have intertwined over the years. http://www.acton.org/about/a_history_of_liberty.php

My ultimate point is: real libertarians do not put stake in issues. Real libertarians are propoents of the philosophy of individual soveriegnty and self-ownership. A politcal party focuses on issues. Not all libertarians march in lockstep with a party.

I would further add that my libertarianism comes in large part from my Christianity. For example, I believe it is a sin to rob or steal because God says so (I Cor. 6:10, Rom. 13:9, etc.).

I couldn't agree with you more; Christianity is about charity and limited government, not about government forceably taking from one to give to another. I rarely argue with libertarians over free market economics, as most of them are biblically based.

Furthermore, God is extremely libertarian in his approach to us. He, being omnipotent, has the power to compel whatever He wants, but instead grants us free choice and lets us live with the consequences of our actions.

Unfortunately your unvirtuous "choices"; the choices that God speaks clearly against; effects the lives of others.

"All law is based upon morality, and morality is itself based upon religion. Therefore, when the religion of a people is weakened, so also is its morality undermined. The result is a progressive collapse of law and order, and the breakdown of society. Men, though, see law as a limitation on their liberty, and Christianity is held to be the most restrictive with its emphasis upon Biblical law as the foundation for morality and liberty. Humanistic man wants total liberty, but he does not realize that total liberty leads only to total anarchy, and that leads to the death of law and liberty. Unless every man’s liberty is limited by law, no liberty is possible for any one."
R. J. Rushdoony

If I may revise the late R. J. Rushdoony's last sentence:

"Unless every man's liberty is limited by either self restraint through God's laws, or limited through coercion by man's laws, no liberty is possible for anyone."

You're talking as if all libertarians practice a form of groupthink. Libertarians believe in the sovereignty of the individual. The individual is left to determine faith's role in his own life, or whether he will have faith at all, and what in.

If you're talking about personal salvation, then I agree. But as shown in R.J. Rushdoony's quote that I provided for Sloth, immoral acts (true moral behavior is based on God's laws and only God's laws) effects the lives of others.

If man needs a savior, as the article you quoted touts, libertarians believe he must be left to find that savior on his own. It is not the role of government to lead him to it, or even nudge him in a direction

Au contraire my friend. Again, if we're talking about personal salvation, i.e. a "ticket"to the afterlife, then you are correct. However, it is the role of government to do good. Attached is an excellent link by Dr. Archie P. Jones entitled "Civil Government: The Neglected Ministry".

"The Lord established three fundamental institutions for the governance of men: family, the Church, and civil government. While these three institutions are separate spheres of authority under God, they clearly have mutually supportive, interwoven functions. The performance — or lack of performance — of each inescapably influences the functioning of the other two."
"...the magistrate, the ruler, "is the minister of God to thee for good" (vs. 4). The ruler is God's minister, His diakonos. He is a deacon, a laborer, a ministrant, an attendant to people for God. As the derivation of diakonos shows, he is one who runs errands: God's errands. In particular, he is to be a Christian teacher and pastor."
Link to Civil Government: The Neglected Ministry

This is antithical to what theocrats believe. Look at Islam. In an Islamic state, you are coereced by the state into finding what the state deems as appropriate salvation. The penalty for refusing to take the path that the state has chosen for you is usually severe.

As shown in the post to Sloth, "Christianity is held to be the most restrictive with its emphasis upon Biblical law as the foundation for morality and liberty."

I deal with comparisons of Christianity and Islam almost on a daily basis. The following link will hopefully help you understand the MAJOR differences between the two:
Link to Christianity vs Islam
If that's not convincing enough, I have a link that talks about rampant homosexuality in Afghanistan: "U.S. troops in Afghanistan are having a hard time understanding what is a strange Afghan cultural practice to them. The practice can be summed up in the ages old Afghan phrase, “women are for children, boys are for pleasure.”

Jefferson (a devout deist) publicly scoffed at the dogma prescribed by some religions, but he also recognized the moral role that law had to play

Yes, Jeffeson loathed the dogma of the Church of England, but truly did recognize God's moral laws and the role they played in the Christian nation that he help found.

My ultimate point is: real libertarians do not put stake in issues. Real libertarians are propoents of the philosophy of individual soveriegnty and self-ownership

You're confusing real liberty with what libertarians define as liberty in today's world. As shown in R. J. Rushdoony's statement in my reply to sloth: " Humanistic man wants total liberty, but he does not realize that total liberty leads only to total anarchy, and that leads to the death of law and liberty. Unless every man’s liberty is limited by law, no liberty is possible for any one."

This reminds me of one of my favorite Jefferson quotes: Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others."

I really should have posted the revised sentence of Rushdoony's statement that I added to Sloth's post to make it even clearer: "Unless every man's liberty is limited by either self restraint through God's laws, or limited through coercion by man's laws, no liberty is possible for anyone."

Speaking of Thomas Jefferson: this is also the same man that said "Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gifts of God?-that they are not to be violated except with his wrath?" (Page 167 of the 1060 page book entitled "The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States".).

While Jefferson by today's standards might be called a liberal unitarian, he by no standards was a moral relativist atheist.

Which brings me to my next point: Christians and libertarians have different defintions when it comes to the word "liberty" (i.e. "freedom"). Libertarians at worst are moral relativist atheists that believe all moral decisions should be made in their "sovereign" mind. Those decisions usually come from the mindset (as I'd mentioned before) involving direct injury to another person due to said libertarians actions.

At best, libertarians (like yourself) are "ala carte" Christians, they get to "pick and choose" which of God's laws they want to abide by. Your statement of being pro-life; followed by your stance on the legalization of drugs proves just that.

Now we've come to the "nitty gritty" part of the debate: I consider myself a Christian conservative. I feel "free" because I don't partake in things like pornography, prostitution or drug abuse. While all human beings constantly struggle with sinful temptations, through my "moral self restraint" I don't need laws to keep me from hurting others; hence I feel "free" in two senses of the word (free from the sinful behavior itself, and free from man's laws).

Libertarians on the other hand think that they're "free" if they have the freedom to do pretty much anything, as long as it doesn't directly hurt another person. They fail to see that they are "slaves" to those things that God see's as sinful; and they fail to see that they are indeed slaves to a government that esentially has a cop on every corner, a camera in every public area and a metal detector in every doorway; all due to their immoral behavior, which indeed DOES hurt society in general.

They get to "pick and choose" which of God's laws they want to abide by. Your statement of being pro-life; followed by your stance on the legalization of drugs proves just that.

Please enlighten me on which of God's laws calls for the prohibition of drugs by the state. I don't recall reading that anywhere. Does it explicitly state this?

A similar tact was taken by the prohibitionists, who attempted to scrub all references to alcohol from the Bible. Verses like 1 Timothy 5:23 didn't fit with their dogma (Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmities.)

They fail to see that they are "slaves" to those things that God see's as sinful; and they fail to see that they are indeed slaves to a government that esentially has a cop on every corner, a camera in every public area and a metal detector in every doorway; all due to their immoral behavior, which indeed DOES hurt society in general.

Wow...where to begin. Someone is only a slave to something insofar as much as their free will allows it to control their lives in excess. Even the verse above suggests that God did not abhor the consumption of alcohol in moderation. Alcohol is a drug. For most people, in moderation, it does absolutely no harm.

I'll ask again, where does the scripture expressly prohibit the consumption of an herb? How do you factor Genisis 1:29 into that non-existent statement of prohbition?

And do you really think that 'metal detectors' are the fruit of immoral libertarian behavior? So it's now immoral to concealed carry? I thought we were having an intelligent conversation here ;) Maybe this 'nanny-state' is a place in which you care to live. But me? No thanks.

While Jefferson by today's standards might be called a liberal unitarian, he by no standards was a moral relativist atheist.

I never said he was. Jefferson was pretty much an Anglican and also a self proclaimed 'diest'. But this again reminds me of a favorite quote of his:

I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know. -- Thomas Jefferson

He also VEHEMENTLY rejected your notion of the goal that Christianity, or that any religious law be used to produce a citizenry with such uniform behavior patterns as you describe:

Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. -- Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson did believe in moral law (see the quote on my FR page), but he absolutely did not believe in government endorsing the moral dictates of a particular religion, that is EXACLTY the opposite of what Jefferson believed.

The impious presumption of legislators and and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical;... -- Thomas Jefferson

Few listened to him, or his words were forgotten. For this is how we have arrived at the nanny-state you so eloquently described in your last paragraph.

Please enlighten me on which of God's laws calls for the prohibition of drugs by the state. I don't recall reading that anywhere. Does it explicitly state this?

Remember my earlier post my friend: "...the magistrate, the ruler, "is the minister of God to thee for good" (vs. 4). The ruler is God's minister, His diakonos. He is a deacon, a laborer, a ministrant, an attendant to people for God. As the derivation of diakonos shows, he is one who runs errands: God's errands. In particular, he is to be a Christian teacher and pastor."

Therefore it is civil government's duty to legislate according to God's laws. With that in mind, let's see what God says about intoxicants:

Corinthians 6 verses 19 - 20 Revised Standard Version:
19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own;
20 you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

I found the attached link written by two conservatives showing the threat of illegal drug legalization. The following shows bibical sources proving their point: " There are, however, much deeper roots to the conservative objection: The conservative philosophy is grounded in and guided by eternal truths; it does not separate itself from God. It moves toward God, and it understands freedom in the way God intended freedom to be exercised.
A Biblical verse that explains this is Paul's Galatians 5:13-14: "For you were called for freedom, brothers. But do not use this freedom as an opportunity for the flesh; rather, serve one another through love. For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'"
Note the caveat, the "but" that follows, "For you were called for freedom, brothers." This is not a hedonistic or uncontrolled freedom."
http://www.urbantulsa.com/gyrobase/PrintFriendly?oid=18179

A similar tact was taken by the prohibitionists...

While biblical verses are aplenty on the use/misuse of alcohol, let's talk secular for a minute.

Prohibition was overturned at a time when our country was still dominated by a Christian culture. The people had "moral restraints" and made laws for those that didn't when it came to alcohol. While some of the following laws still exist today, they've been loosened if not totally abolished in many places throughout the US.

Intoxicated in public ordinances (i.e. a night in the drunk tank).
Open container laws.
The prohibition of the sale of alcohol on Sunday.
Regulations on who and when alcoholic beverages can be sold.
In general our society has become one of much less virtue; and you want to open up the floodgates promoting drug usage to our current society knowing the devastation that alcohol use has done to our society? (Here's comes the standard libertarian speech saying "There will be victims along the way to true individual liberty".).

And do you really think that 'metal detectors' are the fruit of immoral libertarian behavior?

Yes, metal detectors are the fruit of IMMORAL BEHAVIOR. Behavior that is based on moral relativism, not God's laws. When a woman walks into a building and starts shooting her co-workers because she didn't get tenure, biblical scripture and things like "thou shalt not murder" are the last things on her mind.

So it's now immoral to concealed carry?

The right to keep and bare arms is not only a constitutional right, but an "unalienable right" (something given to us by God that can't be taken away by man under any circumstances). Don't confuse something like a gun that is used for good, yet has been hijacked by evil as well, with drugs that are inherently used to get hiiiiiiiigh and escape reality.
http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm

I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know. -- Thomas Jefferson

While Thomas Jefferson was only one player in the Founding of our Christian nation (one of the least religious), his actions speak louder than the words you've posted:

" “Mr. Jefferson,” says Randall, “was a public professor of his belief in the Christian religion. In all his most important early state papers, such as his Summary View of the Rights of British America, his portion of the Declaration made by Congress on the causes of taking up arms, the Declaration of Independence, the draft of a Constitution for Virginia, &c., there are more or less pointed recognitions of God and Providence. In his two inaugural addresses as President of the United States, and in many of his annual messages, he makes the same recognitions, clothes them on several occasions in the most explicit language, substantially avows the God of his faith to be the God of revelation, declares his belief in the efficacy of prayer and the duty of ascriptions of praise to the Author of all mercies, and speaks of the Christian religion, as professed in his country, as a benign religion, evincing the favor of Heaven. “Had his wishes been consulted, the symbol borne on the national seal would have contained our public profession of Christianity as a nation. “He contributed freely to the erection of Christian churches, gave money to Bible societies and other religious objects, and was a liberal and regular contributor to the support of the clergy.He attended church with as much regularity as most members of the congregation, sometimes going alone on horseback when his family remained at home. He generally attended the Episcopal church, and, when he did so, always carried his prayer-book and joined in the responses and prayers of the congregation.” The establishment of the University of Virginia occupied the closing years of Jefferson’s life. His wish was to make the institution rival the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge in England, and afford opportunities for young men to become thoroughly accomplished in every branch of learning. A part of his plan was a theological seminary in connection with the university. Rev. Mr. Tucker, of Virginia, in the Presbyterian synod, met in 1859, said that “the establishment of a theological seminary near the University of Virginia was carrying out the original idea of Mr. Jefferson. He had seen in Mr. Jefferson’s own handwriting, the pains-taking style of the olden time, a sketch of his plan. The University of Virginia was the crowning glory of that great man’s life, and he felt it his duty to vindicate his memory, as he had it in his power to do, from any intention to exclude religious influences from the institution. He had invited all denominations to establish theological schools around the university, so that all might have the literary advantages of the institution, without making it subservient to one denomination.”
From "The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States: pages 168/169.

While Thomas Jefferson was only one player in the Founding of our Christian nation (one of the least religious), his actions speak louder than the words you've posted:

I don't argue that Mr. Jefferson was not a Christian at all in his actions my friend, just not in his PUBLIC words and actions. Based on his quotes, he did not support your belief that it is the duty of government to support God's law, an particluarly the moral dictates of certain sects of Christianity. That's the libertarian aruguement against the government legislation of morality, and Jefferson's actions as president are wholly supportive of this notion. A good example is his refusal to institute a national day of prayer while president:

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority.
But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the US an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from.... I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it's exercises, it's discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it. I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted.... Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the US and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents. -- Thomas Jefferson, to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808

Jefferson thought it best to legistate laws based on morality 'that binds each of us seperately'. And he asbsolutely refused to bind the government with religion in the manner that you suggest. His actions and words prove this. He believed in an absolute wall of seperation when it came to government prescribing religious ceremonies. Jefferson's 'Wall of Seperation' letter (http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html), shows he also did not believe in government endorsing the moral dictates of specific sects of Christianity, or any religion for that matter.

Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone.-- Thomas Jefferson

My arguement to you was that the prohibiton of certain substances for consumption is the fruit of specific brands of religous dogma...not God's specific, codified law in the Bible -ie: Thou shalt not kill, thou shall not committ adultery, etc. You haven't really provided any proof to the contrary on that.

Speaking of which - if it's government's job to legislate God's law...why is there no federal statute making adultrey a crime? Since this is more noticably codified in God's law than the consumption of substances...it would reason based on your logic, that there would be a federal mandate against it.

Your question:

In general our society has become one of much less virtue; and you want to open up the floodgates promoting drug usage to our current society knowing the devastation that alcohol use has done to our society?

I'd argue that the level of devestation you speak of friend was caused by alcohol at all. When compared to the alterative of prohibition, which wreaks absoute havoc. Alcohol Prohibition resulted in a 24% increase in the average crime rate in major U.S. cities. And the statistical increase was not based solely on arrests for consumption/possession, nor did it decrease the desire of the citizenry to use it:

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/00492/Crime_Rate.htm

The rate of arrests on account of drunkenness rose 41 percent, and arrests for drunken driving increased 81 percent. Thefts rose 9 percent, and assault and battery incidents rose 13 percent. Before Prohibition, there had only been 4000 federal convicts, and less than 3000 were housed in federal prisons. By 1932, the number of federal convicts had increased 561 percent and the federal prison population increased by 361 percent. Over 2/3 of all prisoners in 1930 were convicted on alcohol and drug charges.

How's that for devestation? There is absolutely statistical no proof whatsoever that legislating the specific brand of morality practiced by certain sects of Christianity improves the moral fabric of society. Statistics prove quite the opposite. An overbearing, energetic government that makes criminals out of people for their exercise of free will and human nature what we libertarians refer to a 'moral tyranny', and we have plenty of statistics to back up that notion.

Based on his [Jefferson's] quotes, he did not support your belief that it is the duty of government to support God's law, an particluarly the moral dictates of certain sects of Christianity.

Back to Dr. Archie P. Jones' article entitled "Civil Government: The Neglected Ministry:

The teaching, pastoring function of the ruler or magistrate is of crucial importance. We are popularly told today that the government should not seek to enforce morality — especially (Surprise!) Christian morality — because "you can't legislate morality." Clearly, this contention is at best a half-truth, and as such is a dangerous distortion. It is a distortion which fits quite well with the Humanist canard that "you can't mix religion and politics." All law commands human action; it seeks either to restrain or to urge particular actions. It necessarily says either "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not," and it backs these commands to action or restraint with coercion, with sanctions enforced by the power of the sword. The sword and the word are united in law. And because the word commands action by men, the word of law is necessarily a morel teaching, a teaching which seeks to guide the ruled along a particular way of action, of life. This way of life which the law-word commands is what the ruler or lawgiver considers good, and for this reason it is again inevitably a moral teaching, of one sort or another. By teaching men to obey the ruler or lawgiver's commands, via the punishment of those who disobey, who break the law, and by his personal example, the magistrate can do nothing else than teach people moral principles."

I highly doubt that Mr. Jefferson would disagree with that my friend, as the constitutional republic that he help found was based on the rule of law (God's laws, not the whims of man and his laws).

If Mr. Jefferson didn't agree with this statement: "All law commands human action; it seeks either to restrain or to urge particular actions. It necessarily says either "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not," and it backs these commands to action or restraint with coercion, with sanctions enforced by the power of the sword." would that not make him an anarchist?

My arguement to you was that the prohibiton of certain substances for consumption is the fruit of specific brands of religous dogma...not God's specific, codified law in the Bible -ie: Thou shalt not kill, thou shall not committ adultery, etc. You haven't really provided any proof to the contrary on that.

Genesis 9:20-27 A ”man of distinction” and the tragic consequences of his drunkenness. Genesis 19:30-38 Drinking results in Lot’s debauchery of his own daughters. Leviticus 10:8-11 The Lord commanded Aaron and his sons not to drink either wine or strong drink while rendering service for God. Numbers 6:3 The vow of the Nazarite excluded drinking wine and strong drink. Deuteronomy 21:20 "Drinking is one of the attributes of a stubborn, rebellious, and disobedient son." Judges 13:4, 7, 14 Samson’s mother was expressly commanded by the angel of the Lord not to drink wine or strong drink. I Samuel 25: 36-38 "Nabal, an evil, drinking man was smitten by the Lord." II Samuel 11:13 "By the use of strong drink, David led Uriah into a fatal trap." (there's many many more).
Bible and Alcohol

Speaking of which - if it's government's job to legislate God's law...why is there no federal statute making adultrey a crime? Since this is more noticably codified in God's law than the consumption of substances...it would reason based on your logic, that there would be a federal mandate against it.

You know as well as I do that those laws were left up to the individual States:
Adultery - Criminal Laws, Enforcement Of Statutes, As A Defense, Divorce, Cross-references

Regarding your link showing statistics from the 1920's and Prohibition: Remember we were dealing with largely a religious people back then. This was pre 1963 when atheist Madeline Murray O'Hare had God removed from our public school system. Since then, God has been removed from many sectors of public life. It wasn't like that back then. How about we look at what alcohol has done to our society post 1920...more specifically, today:

•In the U.S. on an annual basis, more than one third of pedestrians killed by automobiles were legally drunk.
•As many as 3 million Americans over the age of 60 are alcoholics or have serious drinking problems.
•In the United States, research has demonstrated that continued alcohol abuse is one of the major risk factors for violence in intimate relationships.
•According to recent studies, it has been discovered that approximately 53% of adults in the United States have reported that one or more of their close relatives has a drinking problem.
•Studies have shown that the drinking patterns of employed women are different from those of women not employed outside the home, with less abstinence, increased consumption and greater frequency of drinking occasions observed among employed women.
•There are approximately 14 million people in the United States addicted to alcohol and millions more who display symptoms of alcohol abuse, including binge drinking.
•Low to moderate doses of alcohol can increase the incidence of a variety of aggressive acts, including domestic violence and child abuse.
•Twenty one percent of workers reported being injured or put in danger, having to re-do work or to cover for a co-worker or needing to work harder due to others' drinking. •Approximately 14 million Americans, about 7.4 percent of the adult population, meet the diagnostic criteria for alcohol abuse or alcoholism.
•Alcoholism and alcohol abuse are the third leading cause of the preventable deaths in the United States. •Nearly one-fourth of all U.S. people who are admitted to general hospitals have alcohol problems or are undiagnosed alcoholics being treated for the consequences of their drinking.
•In one U.S. study, employees who were in serious trouble with alcohol showed significant improvement in drinking behavior and job adjustment during the months immediately following an intervention to confront the alcohol abuse that was negatively affecting their work.
•American work roles with little or no supervision and those characterized by high mobility are associated with increased rates of problem drinking.
•One of every 130 licensed drivers in the United States has been arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics.
•Up to 40 percent of the U.S. industrial fatalities and 47 percent of industrial injuries can be linked to alcohol abuse and alcoholism.
•In the U.S., 25% of all emergency room admissions, 33% of all suicides, and more than 50% of all homicides and incidents of domestic violence are alcohol-related. •In the United States, the correlation between the battering of women and alcohol abuse is the highest for men who believe that male control and power over women are acceptable in various situations.
(They always neglect to state one of my favorites: those poor innocent little babies that are born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (I'll spare the pictures my friend).
Alcohol abuse statistics

An overbearing, energetic government that makes criminals out of people for their exercise of free will and human nature what we libertarians refer to a 'moral tyranny', and we have plenty of statistics to back up that notion.

As shown, by legislating something that is against God's word, you only "urge particular actions".

Look at what other unGodly legislation besides alcohol has done to our society: Pornography, hugely responsible for the breakdown of the nuclear family, an institution that is the nucleus of our society.

Abortion: Not only responsible for the murder of 45+ million innocent unborns in the past 37 years, but has also ruined many lives (and marriages) through the guilt that both the women and men involved carry with them.

Man is sinful by nature. We all battle the desire to commit sinful acts; acts that God disapproves of.

The major difference between a Christian conservative like me, and a libertarian like you, is that I don't want to legislate sin.

The major difference between a Christian conservative like me, and a libertarian like you, is that I don't want to legislate sin.

Not quite friend :) The differences between you and I as that I have awoken to the repeated failings of the attempt to legislate against human free will, nature, and behavior. And I have provided hard statistics to back up it's failure, vs. the simple pontification of clergymen who, in their individual interpretation of God's word, feel it is morally justified. Religious interpretation is best left up to the clergy, not lawmakers.

If Mr. Jefferson didn't agree with this statement: "All law commands human action; it seeks either to restrain or to urge particular actions. It necessarily says either "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not," and it backs these commands to action or restraint with coercion, with sanctions enforced by the power of the sword." would that not make him an anarchist?

Mr. Jefferson SAW THE NEED for the separation of government from the enforcement of the moral dictates of particular sects of religion. That is the point you are failing to see. I'll offer another three quotes to back this up:

Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry.-- Thomas Jefferson, Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers, 2:545

We have no right to prejudice another in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church.-- Thomas Jefferson,

The clergy ... [wishing to establish their particular form of Christianity] ... believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion. -- Thomas Jefferson, to Benjamin Rush, 1800. ME 10:173

Earlier, you suggested that I was twisting the word libertarian to suit my needs. Well, I'll counter that you are similary smudging the meaning of atheist into a word meaning 'one witout morals.', when in actuality, it means 'one without belief'. In fact, Jefferson was keen to point out that even the majority of atheists seem to be bound by a basic moral code despite the lack of faith in a particluar relgiion, despite the lack of a code of religious law to adhere to

If we did a good act merely from the love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such thing exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit: their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, generally, that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity of the priests is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than love of God. -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law,

My last Jefferson quotation, which is probably his most eloquent statement on stripping the dogma and dictates from the so called 'word' of particular sects of religion and codifying it federal law:

We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select even from the very words of Jesus, paring off the amphiboligisms into which they have been led by forgetting often or not understanding what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. -- Thomas Jefferson,

The moral tyranny that you promote has utterly failed as a political initiative. It's failed as much the same way as socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried, and has left us with the framework of a nanny state that you described very well a few posts back. The statistics I've provided wholly prove my statement and my stance. And yet, to my shock and chagrin, there is still a contigent of so called 'conservatives' that insists it will work if only 'tried a different way'. I disagree, and I've heard that before, friend.

But aren’t you being a bit naieve thinking these terrible things wouldn’t occur under prohibition anyway? Actually, the stats I gave you earlier show that they did.

Call me naive bamahead, but I really do think there were LESS than 45 million abortions done in the US in any given 37 year period prior to it's legalization via Rowe v. Wade.

Call me naive bamahead, but I really think there was LESS disease and death amongst homosexual males when sodomy laws were enforced and homosexuals didn't freely frolick about in their "gay" bathhouses, bars, and glory hole infested public restrooms.

Call me naive bamahead, but I really think that LESS people drank when it wasn't as accessible as it is today; i.e. running over to your local supermarket to buy a case of beer or a bottle of the hard stuff. Something about "government coercion to do good" (the law), makes me think that.

Of course I would be naive in thinking that if we were to legalize something like pot, MORE people would use it (and hence abuse it); thus creating MORE government intervention in the lives of everyone.

The following quote is from an excellent article entitled "Legislating in a Christian Nation": "Government usually generates legislation because of an experienced violation of person or property. The pain of violation is a reflection of the violation of a higher moral law. The legislature’s job is to engage in vigorous debate about the standards of proper behavior and enact law as a guide to excellent Godly personal and social behavior. It is the job of a righteous legislature to use Biblical moral standards as a guide to the creation of a secular code of conduct."
Christian Legislation

Note what it DIDN'T say: "It is the job of righteous legislature to create a secular code of conduct based on the immoral vices the violence ridden criminal element is attemting to push on the general public."

And now onto Mr. Jefferson.

I must say it is refreshing to debate a libertarian and not constantly have John Adams thrown at me as the Founding Fathers "poster boy" for libertarianism.

By reading Jefferson's writings it's obvious he didn't want another "State Religion". He and other Founders dealt with plenty of Christian congregations that wanted their "way to Heaven" to be legislated. The Founders rightly avoided this.

It's odd that Jefferson, the same person that wrote "The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth Extracted Textually from the Gospels", the same person that professed that "our liberties are a gift from God", would be a proponent of Godless atheism.
Peoples Bible
The Jefferson Bible

When it comes to moral relativist atheists, this subject has been covered ratherly extensively by myself and other Christian conservatives over at AmericanVision.com.
Atheism IS a religion (my posts start on page 2).

Hey aSC. I didn’t mean for you to call yourself naieve so much! ;)

I certainly feel where you’re coming from. Nobody I know that’s conservative OR libertarian likes Roe v. Wade. I want it overturned. The majority of libertarian minded people want it overturned. Where most libertarians start to differ from conservatives is that most believe it’s a state issue. I am in the minority that disagrees. It is a life issue. But again - it’s about changing our culture to respect life. The Constitution already codifies the right to LIFE as inherent, but it’s our culture that has lost the respect for it. Government cannot restore that, but it can enforce the Constitution if those that respect it have the proper courage. The loss of that respect is just going to make the fight for the unborn more difficult.

As far as the homosexual take - truthfully I think there was just as much of the problems you described before any of those sodomy laws were nullified. The only thing those laws did was criminalize ‘bedroom’ behavior. You just didn’t hear about the health issues because, before 1970, homosexuals like most other Americans didn’t run to the government for help with all of their problems. It was the general rise of the entitlement culture that resulted in the left’s demands that the government get into the business of AIDS research. From there, the demands of the homosexual community have snowballed...just like every other ‘victimized’ entitlement seeking group have. You just have to look at how the left operates - they installed a ‘victim’ mentality in the homosexual community, just like they do any other minority group, which has brought us to the point we are now. The demands have escalated to the point where, truthfully, many of the ‘victims’ are seeking more ‘cultural vengance’ than they are tangible rights.

On the alcohol thing, we’ll just continue to disagree :) Prohibition and blue/dry laws do nothing to reduce consumption. They simply make criminals out of those who wish to consume. The same goes with the War On Drug laws. They have turned our nation into a police state.

Call me naieve, but I’m tired of reading about stories like this one - http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/4366/53/ -
Or this one - http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5450550&page=1
Or this one - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/19/AR2009061903175.html -
Or this one - http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/23/atlanta.police.sentencing/index.html ....

Or ALL of these:
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/

The activity around the War on Some Drugs is about as Un-Constitutional as it gets, tears families apart, kills innocent people, and has absolutely no affect on the supply or consumption of drugs in this country.

Step back for a few minutes, read the articles above and look at the stories behind the CATO map....and then ask yourself:

Are all these transgressions of liberty really worth barely making a dent in drug use to you?

I GUARANTEE you that they wouldn’t be worth it to Mr. Jefferson, OR Mr. Adams.

Government simply cannot legislate sin out of people’s lives. It is not powerful enough. Only that Man who died on the cross is powerful enough to have the impact you’re looking for. Why even attempt to give government that power, when you of all people should know that it is impossible?

Turning to government is the last thing anyone who calls themself conservative should EVER consider, for ANYTHING!

I must admit also, it’s refreshing to debate someone as a libertarian whose every 3rd response to me is - ‘GO SMOKE SOME MORE DOPE’ :)

Sorry for the delay in my response to you. My uncle passed on Sunday and had to travel to Alabama to pay my last respects.

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.

	Average ideological score on a 1-9 scale
Progressive	1.7
Liberal	2.8
Moderate	4.8
Conservative	7.1
Very conservative	8.3
Libertarian	6.4
Total	5.2

Which of the following issue categories is most important to your current ideology:
	Social/ Cultural	Economics	Foreign Policy	Energy/ Environment	Other/ Not Sure
Progressive	35%	23%	8%	25%	10%
Liberal	34%	24%	7%	25%	11%
Moderate	19%	40%	12%	16%	12%
Conservative	24%	47%	15%	5%	9%
Very conservative	38%	37%	13%	4%	8%
Libertarian	17%	60%	8%	4%	11%
Total	25%	38%	12%	14%	11%