[jonrick46]

I did a little beating of the Libertarian bushes and guess who pops out? Murray Rothbard. In the early 80s he was associated with the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus which was later renamed the Rothbard Caucus. Why is he important? Because he is left the Radical Caucus and aligned himself with Ron Paul and the “rightwing populist” wing of the Libertarian Party.

I was stunned to read a little critique of Rothbard’s ideas here:

http://www.spunk.org/texts/otherpol/critique/sp001283.txt

It told me that Libertarians have a unique idea of Natural Law. According to Rothbard, the Libertarian idea of Natural Law is the only legitimate one. All other thinking about it is fiction. Libertarian “Natural Laws” are more akin to moral or legal laws. And when they make such a claim, they enter the realm of a cult. In doing so they replace God’s Law, which is the basis of our Bill of Rights and the basis of Liberty, with Natural Law. They are a Natural Law cult pure and simple which works in the realm of sociobiology that bases its reality on a theoretical conclusion of man’s human nature. It is a Trojan Horse which is at its core a denial of human freedom.

[r9etb]

In doing so they replace God’s Law, which is the basis of our Bill of Rights and the basis of Liberty

Well, yes ... belief in God certainly does conflict with libertarian notions of "self-ownership."

[Dead Corpse]

In doing so they replace God’s Law, which is the basis of our Bill of Rights

Actually, there is no conflict between Natural Law and the Bill or Rights. A Right to self defense against predators? A Right to keep anything you make from your own labor? A Right to say and believe as you want?

If anything, God's laws are in conflict with the Bill of Rights. How can you have a "freedom of religion" if your Judeo-Christian God has stipulated that "thou shalt have no other Gods before me".

You are trying to claim a dichotomy where none exists.