Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Is Libertarianism Wrong?
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/libertarian.html ^

Posted on 02/01/2002 10:21:47 AM PST by Exnihilo

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-445 last
To: A.J.Armitage
"Cite the specific text in the Constitution itself preventing Congress from legislating in the general welfare when it comes to alcohol, ect. If there are no such explicit exceptions, then it really is an either-or..."

Why are you tossing softball questions at me? The obvious answer is:

Amendment XXI
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws theroeof, is hereby prohibited.

401 posted on 02/02/2002 6:20:58 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"The general welfare, left without qualification, encompasses the entire legitimate sphere of government; so unless you can show from the text where certain subject areas are exempted (and I'm not holding my breath) your view, by logical necessity, gives every government power to the federal government, and the fact that such powers do not, in fact, belong to the federal government merely proves you wrong."

No kidding.

Where have you seen the courts ever limit government power?

If government is so limited, why are you complaining? Your own whines and cries against an overbearing government show that your logic about government power being completely restrained is demonstrably false.

Yes, there are a few limits on federal government power. Alcohol, gambling, slavery, and secession come to mind, but there just aren't that many limits.

The whole concept that our Constitution "limits" government is a bunch of hype from clueless Libertarians. Look around you. We've had soldiers' pension plans for almost 2 centuries. We've had a federal Bank since Thomas Jefferson. We've had Social Security since the 1930's, for crying out loud.

You Libertarians run around screaming that these programs aren't Constitutional as if no adult had ever reviewed them in court over the last 200 years, and that just isn't a rational position to hold.

You claim that government is limited, so you show me where. Show me where lawful courts have ruled against government programs. Show me where any respected authority has ever, in the history of our nation, passed down judgements that are in line with your radical claims.

Frankly, I don't see it. Lincoln got the draft and the income tax through because of the general welfare clause. FDR got the New Deal, Social Security, the Works Progress Authority, and the confiscation of gold through because of it. Thomas Jefferson got the first federal bank through because of it.

But oh no. A.J.Armitage says that the general welfare clause conveys no power, has no meaning on its own, and can simply be disregarded.

Well, forgive me if I don't buy that line of nonsense. Show me where government has been restrained by our courts. show me where the general welfare clause has been ruled to have had no value.

You can't do it. You can't do it because you are wrong, and not only are you wrong, but Libertarianism is wrong.

And not only is Libertarianism wrong, but Libertarianism is guilty of try to perpetuate a FRAUD in that its adherents falsely claim that the general welfare clause has no meaning.

And if you disagree, then SHOW ME where the courts have EVER backed your radical, disproven views.

You can't do it, and that's a challenge to you.

402 posted on 02/02/2002 6:35:09 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die
Yes. Libtertarians are much like the Marxist totalitarians in that they delegate the descision of what is and is not force, and what is and is not libertarian to a small elite class, namely themselves.

This is so much bunk!

What Libertarian insurrection were
you witness to that wanted to over-
throw the government and rule by
a handful of elite Libertarians?

IN FACT we are the exact opposite.
No initiation of force, remember!

We will do nothing unless we can
convince you of the rightness of
our argument!  You have nothing
to fear so why do you lie?
 

403 posted on 02/02/2002 8:24:20 PM PST by higgmeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 379 | View Replies]

To: Southack
And not only is Libertarianism wrong, but Libertarianism is guilty of try to perpetuate a FRAUD in that its adherents
falsely claim that the general welfare clause has no meaning.
 

I'll call you and raise you.

Any use you appear to feel is justified by
your view of the general welfare clause
would only cause or already has caused
grave harm to the general welfare.

The actual reason that it has no meaning
is you believe that you can better society
by taking from some to help others.  You
claim to be against socialism but you want
The U. S. Constitution to allow some form
of misguided social endeavor.  Anyone but
a fool should be able to see that.  Your
claim is socialist.

You make me so sad that we have come
to this point.  Libertarians are the only
true patriots left in our republic, yet we
get vile slander and abuse from those
that give lip service to the same cause.
 

404 posted on 02/02/2002 9:13:39 PM PST by higgmeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"Cite the specific text in the Constitution itself preventing Congress from legislating in the general welfare when it comes to alcohol, ect. If there are no such explicit exceptions, then it really is an either-or..."

Why are you tossing softball questions at me? The obvious answer is:

Amendment XXI
Section 2. The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws theroeof, is hereby prohibited.

LOL

That doesn't say Congress can't prohibit alcohol, dimwit. And it's also not part of the original Constitution. No wonder you can't get anything right.

Since I've been beating the stuffing out of your absurd claim that Congress has a "general welfare power"... except when it doesn't (making sense isn't your strength, apparently), you decided, in your next post, to get aggressive. Am I supposed to be intimidated or something?

Where have you seen the courts ever limit government power?

Try the link in #400.

The whole concept that our Constitution "limits" government is a bunch of hype from clueless Libertarians.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Strike one!

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Strike two!

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Strike three! The hack is out!

And there's plenty more where that came from.

The lesson: an aggressive tone will never make up for not knowing what you're talking about.

Show me where lawful courts have ruled against government programs.

#400.

Show me where any respected authority has ever, in the history of our nation, passed down judgements that are in line with your radical claims.

Respected authority?! I gave you the Federalist Papers! I have more, of course.

The Annotated Constitution:

The grant of power to ''provide . . . for the general welfare'' raises a two-fold question: How may Congress provide for ''the general welfare'' and what is ''the general welfare'' that it is authorized to promote? The first half of this question was answered by Thomas Jefferson in his opinion on the Bank as follows: ''[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.'' The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power. Although a broader view has been occasionally asserted, Congress has not acted upon it and the Court has had no occasion to adjudicate the point.

The Annotated Constitution, by the way, is a official US government publication. Are you ready to surrender yet?

And remember, there's more where that came from. Face it: you're dying on the wrong hill.

Lincoln got the draft and the income tax through because of the general welfare clause.

You don't know history very well, do you?

But oh no. A.J.Armitage says that the general welfare clause conveys no power, has no meaning on its own, and can simply be disregarded.

You're misrepresenting my position, probably intentionally (in other words, you're a liar). I never said it can be disregarded. Your absurd misrepresentation of my position seems to come from an obviously wrong presupposition, that any clause not granting power is meaningless. No wonder you don't think the Constitution limits government power; you've got your own filter, shifting out everything you don't like.

Show me where government has been restrained by our courts. show me where the general welfare clause has been ruled to have had no value.

Since you seem to think having value means giving power to the federal government, your second "challenge" is absurd.

Your first, on the other hand, is simplicity itself.

United States vs. Lopez

New York vs. United States

Would it be too much to ask you to admit you were wrong? Almost certainly. Either way, let me point out who the true extremist is here. You've angrily denied there are Constitutional limits on federal authority, and called the idea that there are limits "radical and disproven". The disproven proves, yet again, that you don't know what you're talking about, and the radical proves how disconnected you are from American history and the views of the Founders. Of course the federal government is limited by the Constitution. Only a wild-eyed fanatic (who doesn't know what he's talking about) would say otherwise.

You can't do it, and that's a challenge to you.

I just did it.

Now here's a challenge to you. Tell me why I should pay more attention to some guy on the internet (leaving aside your own demostration that you don't know jack) than to the Federalist Papers.

405 posted on 02/02/2002 9:44:41 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 401 | View Replies]

Comment #406 Removed by Moderator

Comment #407 Removed by Moderator

To: higgmeister
"Any use you appear to feel is justified by your view of the general welfare clause would only cause or already has caused grave harm to the general welfare. The actual reason that it has no meaning is you believe that you can better society by taking from some to help others. You claim to be against socialism but you want The U. S. Constitution to allow some form of misguided social endeavor."

You are incorrect. I don't want government to have broad power. All that I'm doing is pointing out that government does have broad power, legally.

If you will look at the history of our nation, we've had a FOUNDING FATHER create the first federal bank two centuries ago, legally. We've had gold confiscated and outlawed up until the mid 1970's. Government programs have grown every year for decades, and the very whining and crying of libertarians illustrates that government is NOT denied of broad power.

Yet you libertarians will consistently claim that the general welfare clause gives no power to the federal government. You will consistently claim that government power is more limited than both reality and court decisions would indicate to any rational person.

Look around you. Is government power constrained in America or are you complaining that it is too powerful?

Why has government power been so broad over the last 200 years of court decisions?

You see, reality contradicts the libertarian worldview.

One of the things that is wrong with libertarians is that they consistently misinterpret the Constitution, specifically the general welfare clause.

Many of the posts above this one being prime examples of that fact.

408 posted on 02/03/2002 9:25:52 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: All

Please refer to Post #11 in its entirity, whenever possible, rather than pinging me as your first impulse for a reply on this thread.

Post #11 pretty well sums up my views on this subject.

409 posted on 02/03/2002 9:34:12 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
They are for open borders and legalizing drugs.
410 posted on 02/03/2002 9:37:53 AM PST by doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Central Scrutiniser
Given the twitchy fingers at Admin, I give this thread about 30 more minutes...ah, freedom...

9 posted on 2/1/02 11:30 AM Pacific by Central Scrutiniser

Right again, Miss Cleo.

411 posted on 02/03/2002 9:41:14 AM PST by Tall_Texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_
...Ross Perot...and Ralp Nader...both had a better showing than the LP, right out of the box.

Both had more money too. Ross Perot spent $20 million of his own money. Ralph Nader took federal matching funds to finance his runs. Interestingly enough, although Pat Buchanan took $12.6 million in federal matching funds he received only 100K more votes than Harry Browne who declined the $750,000 which he qualified for. It takes money to get the message out. Many people still do not know what Libertarians are or that the party even exists.

412 posted on 02/03/2002 10:23:23 AM PST by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Southack
You are incorrect. I don't want government to have broad power. All that I'm doing is pointing out that government does have broad power, legally.

You're so full of it.

Your sorry excuse for an interpretation has been thoroughly thrashed. That's because it was wrong to begin with.

If you will look at the history of our nation, we've had a FOUNDING FATHER create the first federal bank two centuries ago, legally.

Nothing to do with the so called "general welfare clause".

We've had gold confiscated and outlawed up until the mid 1970's. Government programs have grown every year for decades, and the very whining and crying of libertarians illustrates that government is NOT denied of broad power.

First, that has as little to do with the "general welfare clause" as the national bank. Like I said before, amateur big government hacks use the "general welfare clause". The pros use the commerce clause.

You know, the SC once ruled that a man growing crops on his own land for the consumption of his own livestock was interstate commerce. I know, it's an incredibly stupid ruling, but the Court actually made it. More telling for this discussion is that they didn't just say "general welfare" and let it pass. In other words, your position is even more stupid than the one the Court used as justification. You are, in short, full of it. You know nothing.

And second, that stuff is indeed unConstitutional. You types always get back to the position that "it exists, therefore it's Constitutional" even though nobody knew it until the 1930s. This is so stupid I won't bother refuting it. Seriously, anything Congress does is Constitutional because Congress does it? Please. I suppose you think the Alien and Sedition Acts were also Constitutional.

One of the things that is wrong with libertarians is that they consistently misinterpret the Constitution, specifically the general welfare clause. Many of the posts above this one being prime examples of that fact.

You've been PROVEN WRONG ON ALL COUNTS. Every contention you've made on behalf of your idiotic claim has been incorrect, has had no relation to the topic, or has been nothing but sophistry. Sure, we consistently disagree with you, but, as this thread demostrates, that means we consistently GET IT RIGHT.

413 posted on 02/03/2002 11:17:42 AM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
It takes money to get the message out.

It would appear that both the market and the voters have spoken. 0.4%

414 posted on 02/03/2002 11:21:18 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
As with religions, in politics, there is no right or wrong.
415 posted on 02/03/2002 11:21:43 AM PST by stuartcr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"Now here's a challenge to you. Tell me why I should pay more attention to some guy on the internet (leaving aside your own demostration that you don't know jack) than to the Federalist Papers.
405 posted on 2/2/02 10:44 PM Pacific by A.J.Armitage"

If I'm so unimportant, inconsequential, and wrong, then why do you keep pinging me? You issue a challenge as to why you should pay attention to me, and then you keep paying attention to me.

You keep spouting off your long-since disproven claims of the general welfare clause having no value, too.

Me thinks thou dost protest too much.

Read my post #11. That's what I think is wrong with Libertarians, per the subject of this thread.

Then stop pinging me, talking about me, or protesting so much. I've stated my views, supported my position (especially that you Libertarians are completely proven wrong by the historical scope of government size and power around you in your backward claims that the "general welfare" clause conveys no power), and yet you keep yapping after me like a scolded puppy.

As I said in post #11, I don't want to debate Libertarians. All of you argue too much, listen too unobjectively, and care too much about getting in the last word to ever have a reasonable debate.

416 posted on 02/03/2002 11:27:51 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: Southack
If I'm so unimportant, inconsequential, and wrong, then why do you keep pinging me? You issue a challenge as to why you should pay attention to me, and then you keep paying attention to me.

Nice try. You haven't answered the substance of what I said. Why should some random idiot on the internet be given more trust in matters of Constitutional interpretation than the Federalist Papers?

And for the record, I want to make sure no one falls for your crap.

You keep spouting off your long-since disproven claims of the general welfare clause having no value, too.

That's rich. I've left your pathetic, worthless swill in the tatters is always truly was.

Nevertheless, as your return in an earlier post the your phrase fixation demonstrates, you have a very short memory, in addition to a brain that has difficulty using logic, so we'll review.

The Federalist Papers call your position absurd. Game over, I win. And that's a perfectly serious statement: any legitimate contention is over as soon as someone quotes Federalist #41. The issue has been settled for over 200 years. You, and a few other ignoramuses, are standing alone on this with nothing of any value to suport your loony assertions.

The clear meaning of the text (the entire sentence) is that the general welfare is the purpose of the power to tax. Not "without value", as your idiotic mantra asserts, but certainly not a grant of all power in Heaven and Earth, which is what your position implies, although, undercutting yourself, you're saying it's an unlimited grant of power except when it isn't. Your position can't but be wrong; you're contradicting yourself.

The context of the rest of the Constitution clearly shows that I'm right. The rest of Article I, Section 8 would be unnecessary if you were right. But you're not right and it is necessary, so it's there. In particular, there's a grant of the power you say was granted over the whole country, but it's not over the whole country, it's over an area of ten square miles or less. And, of course, there's the Tenth Amendment.

Each of the three above paragraphs is enough, on its own, to utterly demolish nonsense about a "general welfare power". The fact is, I have crushed you totally. You have nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, to stand on. It's far to late to bow out gracefully. You've been humiliated. You can't stand that, can you?

I've stated my views, supported my position (especially that you Libertarians are completely proven wrong by the historical scope of government size and power around you in your backward claims that the "general welfare" clause conveys no power), and yet you keep yapping after me like a scolded puppy.

The scolded puppy is you. You've been shown for what you are, and you hate it. By this point, you can't just admit you were wrong; it would be to have your nose rubbed in it all over again.

Oh, and on to the "serious" "content" of your comment quoted above. That the government does something in no way proves that it has Constitutional authorization to do it. And the post New Deal government powers aren't based on the "general welfare clause", they're based on a twisting of the commerce clause. In other words, your claim is twice wrong. Smacked down again! This has to be painful for you.

Then stop pinging me, talking about me, or protesting so much.

...

As I said in post #11, I don't want to debate Libertarians. All of you argue too much, listen too unobjectively, and care too much about getting in the last word to ever have a reasonable debate.

"Please, stop thrashing me! My ego cannot stand the humiliation! Please let me attack others, but I am far to fragile to take it myself! My arguments are weak, but please pretend your irrefutable arguments are the weak ones. After all, the title of thread say "Why Is Libertarianism Wrong?" Pretend I beat you. Please?"

417 posted on 02/03/2002 12:45:23 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]

Comment #418 Removed by Moderator

To: palo verde;Aquinasfan
AqFa> The central problem with libertarianism is that God doesn't give anyone the "right" to do anything intrinsically evil.

PaVe> Hi Aquinas I was just thinking God gave us free will and probably man-made law which reflects it is the most sensible one.

Everyone has free will, not just criminals and perverts, and it is ludicrous to allege that laws which discourage evil somehow thwart free will. Apparently the jack-booted thugs of the L.P. would discourage the free will of conservatives to decide what kind of a society they are to live in.

419 posted on 02/03/2002 4:34:24 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
Right again, Miss Cleo.

LOL!


"I say this thread was pulled two days ago, baby,
and bad mojo from Scorpio's bong is making you all hallucinate.
You give me your credit card number and I'll tell you how to get straight."



420 posted on 02/03/2002 4:44:53 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 411 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
lol
I don't understand arguing 'bout these things
we live in a democracy
people vote in who they want
my personal hunch is that the tide of liberalism is over -- history has moved on
and the new craving is for liberty
how this new craving will be expressed in the body politic, I don't know
but one way or nother, it's bound to be
Love, Palo
421 posted on 02/03/2002 5:05:40 PM PST by palo verde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: malador
hi malador
I find your posts sensible
(my prayers are in for your dad too)
Love, Palo
422 posted on 02/03/2002 5:08:40 PM PST by palo verde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 406 | View Replies]

To: Jhoffa_;Exnihilo
Ex> Most libertarians support competitive interaction in a Darwinist form - Darwinist in the sense that some entities may disappear, in the process of competition.
Jh>Well, with respect to their showing in the polls.. I guess Darwin won.

"There the people go. I am their leader. I must hasten after them!"

423 posted on 02/03/2002 5:33:24 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Kind of shoots that theory full of holes, doesn't it?

:)

424 posted on 02/03/2002 5:37:37 PM PST by Jhoffa_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: palo verde
and the new craving is for liberty

Such as the liberty of people to again decide what kind of a society they are to live in?
Such as liberty of children to their own innocence?

425 posted on 02/03/2002 6:10:15 PM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: higgmeister
**Libertarians are the only true patriots left in our republic, yet we get vile slander and abuse from those that give lip service to the same cause.**

WAAAAAAAH! We're the only TRUE Americans and nobody likes us!! WAAAAAH!!

Your comment is an insult to every man and woman that is actually putting their lives on the line in defense of this country, home and abroad, while YOU sit on your whiny ass and complain that you're a victim. PUH-LEASE!!

It is for such comments that you libertarians and your elitist, arrogant "we're the only true patriots" "we're the only consistent philosophy" bull&$%# are attacked.

Face it, you're a 1% party and, if you weren't advocating drugs for everyone, you wouldn't be 1/3rd of that.

426 posted on 02/03/2002 9:13:22 PM PST by Tall_Texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

Comment #427 Removed by Moderator

Comment #428 Removed by Moderator

To: Tall_Texan
Well for being only 1% the 'tarians sure have done a good job riling up folks like you. And you have it wrong, If the libertarians were not consistent in their respect for the constitution when it concerns the bogus "drug threat" (you've been attacked by plants before HAVEN'T YOU) they would probably have 10%, maybe more, at least enough to be included in the "debates". Sleep tight "big guy"
429 posted on 02/03/2002 11:14:51 PM PST by £inuxgruven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

Comment #430 Removed by Moderator

To: L,TOWM
I think you'll find that the Church never became a place. We Orthodox build very grand edificies in which to hold our Liturgies, but the hut which St. Herman of Alaska made into a temple by blessing it, setting up a few Holy Icons, and laying a cloth blessed by his bishop on a rude wooden table (or for that matter the intermittently existing temple which the Mission I serve sets up and takes down in rented space for each Liturgy) are quite suitable, and when the faithful gather are the Church in that place.
431 posted on 02/04/2002 7:17:32 AM PST by The_Reader_David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: malador
hi malador
thanks for bein' a friend when I was badgered on that political thread a few weeks back
you took some of the heat off me, by having it fall on you lol
you helped me
I went to the Native American store here in Tucson and bought myself a badger fetish a few days later
(I figure I earned it)
it's a Zuni carving in black stone with turquoise eyes
sittin' on my desk now
he is quite handsome
my prayers are in for your dad
and my intuition says he'll be fine
so keep your hopes up
Love, Palo
432 posted on 02/04/2002 8:15:31 AM PST by palo verde
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 428 | View Replies]

To: malador
Then why don't you take up arms to overthrow the government instead of whining like a little baby that you're the "only true patriots"? I'd respect far more someone willing to die for a cause than someone who simply stamps their feet and pretends to be "more patriotic than thou".

You simply prove my previous point. Elitist and arrogant.

433 posted on 02/04/2002 8:47:24 AM PST by Tall_Texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 430 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
As with religions, in politics, there is no right or wrong.

You actually believe this crap???? Wow.
434 posted on 02/04/2002 8:52:11 AM PST by Exnihilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Using Southack's argument, the sight of Bill Clinton in a blue three-piece suit (instead of an orange jumpsuit) proves that there are no laws against perjury.
435 posted on 02/04/2002 11:04:56 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 413 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
Good one.
436 posted on 02/04/2002 12:23:59 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 435 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
OK, I will try this ONE MORE TIME. I will stick to small words so that my thoughts may not cause your head to hurt. When the church went from an out of the mainstream (oooops two syllables, bear with me) MOVEMENT AND LIFESTYLE, something that people of faith did, despite being being turned into lion chow for it, into what HAD to be done for wealth, status, power, and privledge, it polluted the spiritual with the worldly.

Not a hard point to grasp is it?
Church = People of faith, on edge of society = What Jesus Did.
Church = All kinds of people, even those putting on a show for status = What Jesus Preached AGAINST.

Sorry if I seem rude, but after two posts I expect people on this forum to grasp fairly simple concepts. Of course, in any age, a remnant exists. If you are ever in LA, look me up. I'll take you to some wonderful worship and first class preacing in a building which began as a BOWLING ALLEY.

437 posted on 02/04/2002 3:24:35 PM PST by L,TOWM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 431 | View Replies]

To: Smile-n-Win
It's not really about Libertarians; it's about us Conservatives.

Bingo!

438 posted on 02/04/2002 4:23:32 PM PST by decimon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 212 | View Replies]

To: L,TOWM
If you think the Church should still be on the edge, try the Church: we Orthodox (who confess our communion to be indeed the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by Christ in the Gift of the Holy Spirit to His Holy Apostles on the day of Pentecost) are quite out of the mainstream--we fast, confess our sins, use a different calendar than the rest of the world, use bows and gestures to try to get even our bodies to participate in the worship of God. We still have the mechanism Christians developped for staying on the edge when the Church ceased to be persecuted: monasticism. Indeed most of our spiritual tradition, even for ordinary laymen, is shaped by monasticism. One Sunday during Great Lent is devoted to St. John Climacus, whose notable contribution to the faith is a book "The Ladder of Divine Ascent" whose whole purpose is to instruct the reader in the kind of living in the world while not being of the world you seem to yearn for. Another Sunday of Great Lent holds up as an example of repentence St. Mary of Egypt, who abandoned the world in penance for her former life as a nymphomanical prostitute, and lived as a hermit in the desert. We have a whole class of saints venerated as "Fools-for-Christ" whom society at large saw as going over the edge, but whom the Church sees as exemplars of the Life in Christ.

I think you really need to go back to see what the Church actually looked like after the Peace of Constantine, rather than relying on protestant critiques of Rome's later abuses which accept the false papal claim to have been the head of the Church and use it to read the later abuses back to the time when the persecutions ceased.

439 posted on 02/06/2002 8:39:05 AM PST by The_Reader_David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 437 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
I'll pass. I prefer to be with Mike Comfort and Greg Koukl on the Santa Monica Boardwalk on Friday nights, evangelizing, offering "apologea" for the hope that we have, with gentleness and respect.

holds up as an example of repentence St. Mary of Egypt, who abandoned the world in penance, ... and lived as a hermit in the desert.Two observations. One, did she believe that Christ's atonement and her rebirth into a new woman that would "go and sin no more", were not sufficient? Two, how did that satisfy the Great Commission? Maybe its just me, but were I in a position to offer a suggestion, perhaps a greater service to the Lord would have been preaching the Gospel to her fellow "Ladies of the evening" and her "Johns". But, that's just me.

he mechanism Christians developped for staying on the edge when the Church ceased to be persecuted: monasticism

Must be tough to win souls when you are avoiding them. There are two signs on the way into my converted Bowling Alley churh building: "Give 'em Heaven" and "Win, Equip, Send". I'm not too sure if Win, Equip, Hide was what we were supposed to do.

BTW, I am sorry if I was overly rude in my prior post; that was inexcusable of me. I am sure that we will meet in New Jerusalem, since you do have a bold faith in our Redeemer. Then, we will, perhaps hear that both of us were right, just diferrently shaped stones, or that neither of us "got it". :-)

440 posted on 02/06/2002 9:01:40 AM PST by L,TOWM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 439 | View Replies]

To: Exnihilo
"Steve is the only person who's attempted to do so, and he did a good job in my opinion."
So I take it that you are ready to admit that you are wrong about Libertarians? Since Steve refuted arguments with which you said you agreed?
441 posted on 02/06/2002 9:41:26 AM PST by Scarlet Pimpernel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: L,TOWM
Actually you might read the story of the conversion of the Aleuts to Orthodox Christianity. Most of them attribute their conversion to St. Herman of Alaska, who lived as a hermit. You might also read about St. John of Kronstadt who took the Gospel to the squalid naval base town of Kronstadt which was replete with all the worst things one associates with undisciplined sailors.

There are plenty of living examples of the Holy Orthodox Church continuing in this tradition: the only orphanage in Guatemala is run by Orthodox nuns (who keep the strict Orthodox monastic rule); we are looking forward here in Kansas to a promised visit by a Fr. Daniel (whose last name is a long, to me unpronouceable Indonesian name) who is bringing the Gospel to Indonesia, and is under death sentence by for converting from Islam.

Again I invite you to look into the Church, rather than projecting Western misconceptions--your remark about monasticism shows how little you know of its Eastern version.

442 posted on 02/06/2002 12:03:57 PM PST by The_Reader_David
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 440 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David
Fair enough.
443 posted on 02/06/2002 12:18:22 PM PST by L,TOWM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: Tall_Texan
Face it, you're a 1% party and, if you weren't advocating drugs for everyone, you wouldn't be 1/3rd of that.

Just more vile slander from a Statist!

Libertarians don't advocate drugs for anyone.

We also don't advocate socialist laws that
turn individuals into criminals simply to make
them slaves of the state.  The harm of drug
use if left to police itself is self punishing.
That's the way it should be.

I don't need my income taken against my
wishes just to create an elite class of black
uniformed soldier police that break down
doors in the dark of night to carry people
away from their families.  That was the
tactics of the Nazis and Soviets.  I don't
need laws that allow a jealous or vengeful
person to bear false witness against his
neighbor and cause his property to be stolen
by zealous government thugs

As for the military service, I was a volunteer
during the Vietnam Era and I even had a
high draft number.  I didn't go to war but
I didn't and wouldn't shirk my duty either.
I held a top-secret clearance, made my rank
in minimum time and finished my enlistment
with no blemish on my record at all.

I am not sitting here crying about anything
but your ignorance.

I believe in self control and living up to my
responsibilities.  I believe that everyone
else should live up to their responsibilities
also.  We could never drink an ocean dry
but if we tried it would have unintended
consequences that few would want to
experience.   Our society today  is so filled
with unintended consequences that I left
the know nothing Republican Party and
found a Party that at least makes an attempt
to stop Socialism.

I forgot to say that I once was one of those
Republicans that kept sending Speaker Newt
Gingrich back to Washington over and over.
I wanted to believe I was doing some good
but instead I found out that the 104th Congress
did the most up to that point to take away
our American freedom.  A sane person grows
tired of lip service.

444 posted on 02/06/2002 5:41:09 PM PST by higgmeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 426 | View Replies]

To: higgmeister
I know you've seen it a hundred times but here goes another one.

Land-Mine Legislation

445 posted on 02/06/2002 6:05:59 PM PST by higgmeister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 251-300301-350351-400401-445 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson