False idols of ideology: Vox Day eviscerates democracy and the republic

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Monday, September 2, 2002 | Vox Day

[gcruse]

Equating Kevin to Stalin and Hitler is silly, and
gives the appearance that you can't refute his posts.

Equating Curry's hubris to that of Hitler
and Stalin was the refutation to those
with the frontal lobes to grasp it.
Curry has his personal ideas of an optimum
society, just as Hitler and Stalin had theirs.
Theocracy is no more freedom than
what the Third Reich envisioned or
Stalin planned for the USSR.

[Roscoe]

What libertarians are weary of is the people who determine the optimum set of laws based on their religion and for the 'good of everyone else.'

Praise Rand, from Whom all blessings flow;
Praise Her, her truth is all we know;
Praise Her, society must go;
Praise greed because we told you so.

[JMJ333]

Equating Curry's hubris to that of Hitler and Stalin was the refutation to those with the frontal lobes to grasp it.

I see. I am not intelligent enough to grasp your meaning from those three witty lines that put Kevin in the same league with mass murderers. Whatever.

[gcruse]

 If it were possible to secure the
happiness of humanity through its
enslavement, should it be done?
 
 

[JMJ333]

Exactly where is he arguing for enslavement of the human race to mae them happy?

[gcruse]

I thought I was talking to you. Never mind.

[avenir]

In a word, Wow! Great post.

[Trickyguy]

There are no conservatives anymore, only neo-cons. And
neo-cons are leftists but too stupid and ignorant to know it.

[Roscoe]

Post #7 = A+

Post #28 = F

[tpaine]

What you (and others) sonstantly fail to see is that libertarianism is not approval of bad behavior, it is simply the secular ALLOWING of such behavior. You could live a totally spiritual life full of the light of Jesus and God, or you could live a life of total hedonism, wallowing in all carnal pleasures. Either way, the true libertarian doesn't care which you are - as long as you aren't harming anyone else.

Frankly, I don't know why authortarians such as yourself are tolerated on this website. I suppose you're left alone as either comic relief, or as some token contrarian to argue with, without which would turn this place into another "me-too" DU. Oh well.
The whole point of the article was to point out neo-authortarian republicans just don't understand libertarianism
9 - spodbox
__________________________________

Conservatives understand libertarianism better than the neo-anarchist Libertarians do.
10 - roscoe
_________________________________

But seeing you are NOT a 'conservative' roscoe, your point is not credible. You are one of the neo-authoritarian-communitarians, like curry.

BTW - Post 7 = 'F'
----- Post 9 = 'A+'

[Roscoe]

In a word, Wow! Great post.

Ditto!

[TomSmedley]

The truth is, neither I nor any other Libertarian can say precisely what is the true and proper size of government that would maximize individual freedom and liberty.

A theonomist can cite a very handy rule of thumb, based on I Samuel 8. When civil government starts demanding more from us than God does, it's too big. When taxation at all levels exceeds 10% of the citizen's income, The State casts loose restraints and becomes a rapacious, ravenous beast.

[TomSmedley]

That society in which the citizens are allowed free access to implement and change laws by participating in government is the best of all and most exalts the rationality of the Creator.

Common law presupposes neighborhood theocracy. Common law societies presuppose Christian pulpits, and a biblically literate citizenry. Given these preconditions, a randomly selected "twelve good men and true" can enforce godly standards of behavior and condign restitution. It's called the jury system. The twelve jurors, like the twelve patriarchs and the twelve apostles, are the tangible foundation of a godly social order.

[HamiltonJay]

Libertarian Party nutball defender of the day .... Libertarians cannot and will not be taken seriously anytime soon. The party is hypocritical, it is not interested in Liberty, and most of its backers don't even understand the true definition of Liberty.

[TomSmedley]

libertarianism is not approval of bad behavior, it is simply the secular ALLOWING of such behavior.

Theologically sophisticated thinkers distinguish between "crimes" and "sins." Crimes offend public order and must be suppressed by the judicious application or threat of lethal force. Sins are suppressed by other mechanisms, such as shaming, shunning, and excommunicating the flagrantly unrepentant sinner.

Crimes and sins both undermine civil order. However, only certain specified misbehavior (murder, theft, perjury, adultery, blasphemy) call for the sword, the applied power of civil government.

Prohibition demonstrates what happens when men try to be holier than Jesus, and misapply State power to suppress indulgences they disapprove of. Big mistake. Big hit to our credibility. Big waste of moral capital.

[tpaine]

"Prohibition demonstrates what happens when men try to be holier than Jesus, and misapply State power to suppress indulgences they disapprove of. Big mistake. Big hit to our credibility. Big waste of moral capital." - TS

Well said, but understated. - The politics of prohibition are much more than a big mistake, -- these communitarian, socialistic practices are tearing apart our free republic, and the very principles of our constitutuion.

[Kevin Curry]

By the way, I'll go so far as to assert that God, in addition to being a monarchist, also has strongly libertarian leanings. How else can you describe an all-powerful king who goes so far as to let his creation choose whether to obey him or not?

What utter crap.

One can freely choose whether to obey the laws of the state or nation in which he lives, too. There is a sniper out east who is willfully disobeying a whole passel of 'em.

What you can't choose is the consequences. When a libertine scofflaw is caught by the police, he has one set of consequences to contend with. When he is ultimately judged by God, he will have another set of conseqeunces to contend with. I suspect that given his druthers, he'd druther contend with the consequences imposed by the police.

The fact that God is slow to execute judgment should not be interpreted as indifference or tolerance.

[tpaine]

What utterly obvious crap you post curry.
Your comment adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. It's just more specious pap.

[Roscoe]

The fact that God is slow to execute judgment should not be interpreted as indifference or tolerance.

You just went over their heads.

[takenoprisoner]

The fact that God is slow to execute judgment should not be interpreted as indifference or tolerance.

Are you speaking for God now?