All of you who said there was no difference b/w D &R...
- Thread starter 416Rigby
- Start date
The populace ain't libertarian...
You are correct, but you may not realize how many people are out there who are libertarian but don't realize it. I was raised in a Christian/Republican houshold by very libertarian parents. I still scoffed at libertarians at the courthouse thinking wrongly that they were kooks. Later, I learned the wisdom of their arguements. I count myself proudly among their numbers now. I do occasionally vote Republican, but only for those Republicans who can clearly state how they are going to make my son a little more free than my parents were.
The Judeo/Christian ethic that this country was founded on was the same that God follows himself if you happen to read the bible: FREE WILL. God gives us the free-will to choose good over evil, heterosexuality over homosexuality, prostitution or abstinence etc... The government should follow the same great example our lord and savior followed by allowing people free-will. Freedom isn't cheap, and you might sell your kids into slavery, but please don't sell my liberties so cheaply in the name of a history that doesn't exist, and in the name of God, when even God set a far different example than the one our government now operates on. Thank-you.
You are correct, but you may not realize how many people are out there who are libertarian but don't realize it. I was raised in a Christian/Republican houshold by very libertarian parents. I still scoffed at libertarians at the courthouse thinking wrongly that they were kooks. Later, I learned the wisdom of their arguements. I count myself proudly among their numbers now. I do occasionally vote Republican, but only for those Republicans who can clearly state how they are going to make my son a little more free than my parents were.
The Judeo/Christian ethic that this country was founded on was the same that God follows himself if you happen to read the bible: FREE WILL. God gives us the free-will to choose good over evil, heterosexuality over homosexuality, prostitution or abstinence etc... The government should follow the same great example our lord and savior followed by allowing people free-will. Freedom isn't cheap, and you might sell your kids into slavery, but please don't sell my liberties so cheaply in the name of a history that doesn't exist, and in the name of God, when even God set a far different example than the one our government now operates on. Thank-you.
JerryM-
"I suspect we disagree on this as we would on such moral issues as homosexuality. "
As a devout Cathoilc, I probably agree with you on all these issues. Where we disagree is - I believe I should change people's hearts through my loving example, not their outward behavior at the point of a gun.
"We are the nation we are because we were founded on Biblical morality."
I suspect that even though we are Christian brothers, you are not Catholic and so we would disagree on much of the interpretation of the Bible. That is why I don't want our laws based on it. We probably dont even agree on what makes up the Bible, but this isnt the proper forum for that discussion.
KJM - Very well said.
[Edited by ChrisR246 on 02-09-2001 at 07:56 PM]
"I suspect we disagree on this as we would on such moral issues as homosexuality. "
As a devout Cathoilc, I probably agree with you on all these issues. Where we disagree is - I believe I should change people's hearts through my loving example, not their outward behavior at the point of a gun.
"We are the nation we are because we were founded on Biblical morality."
I suspect that even though we are Christian brothers, you are not Catholic and so we would disagree on much of the interpretation of the Bible. That is why I don't want our laws based on it. We probably dont even agree on what makes up the Bible, but this isnt the proper forum for that discussion.
KJM - Very well said.
[Edited by ChrisR246 on 02-09-2001 at 07:56 PM]
justice4all
New member
Jerry, you write, "I recognize that a law against prostitution won't stop it." That's sort of my point. Passing laws that will not solve the perceived problem they are intended to address, i.e. gun laws, drug laws, laws against certain sexual practices, laws against certain images or words, are a dangerous waste of tax payer dollars. You apparently don't have a problem with the government taking your hard earned money to attempt to spend enough of it to do what thinking people recognize as impossible. I do have a problem with this sort of waste. If you want to send a message that the things you think are wrong are wrong, than why don't you do it with your own money, and not advocate that the government do it with mine. BTW, prostitution is one concept, and premarital sex is another. Neither, however, should be illegal.
"History has shown that when "every man does that which is right in his own eyes" there is chaos." I don't know about that. You probably believe that the story of Sodom and Gamorrah (sp) is history, not parable, in which case you could possibly support your contention. I do know that when every man is forced to do what they do not believe in that chaos can ensue, or tyrrany, or genocide.
"In a society someone's views are made the law and imposed upon that society." What you call society, I call despotism, or dictatorship.
"We are the nation we are because we were founded on Biblical morality." Biblical morality preaches self-sacrifice and obedience. We are the richest most powerful nation this planet has ever known, not because of sacrifice and subservience, but because of freedom to be greedy and to pursue our own vision of the good life. In other words, I think that we are the nation we are to the degree that "every man is allowed to do what is right in his own eyes."
"History has shown that when "every man does that which is right in his own eyes" there is chaos." I don't know about that. You probably believe that the story of Sodom and Gamorrah (sp) is history, not parable, in which case you could possibly support your contention. I do know that when every man is forced to do what they do not believe in that chaos can ensue, or tyrrany, or genocide.
"In a society someone's views are made the law and imposed upon that society." What you call society, I call despotism, or dictatorship.
"We are the nation we are because we were founded on Biblical morality." Biblical morality preaches self-sacrifice and obedience. We are the richest most powerful nation this planet has ever known, not because of sacrifice and subservience, but because of freedom to be greedy and to pursue our own vision of the good life. In other words, I think that we are the nation we are to the degree that "every man is allowed to do what is right in his own eyes."
justice4all,
"Biblical morality preaches self-sacrifice and obedience." That is correct. The obedience is the obedience to God. I would submit that you don't really believe what you say about one person imposing his views upon the society as a whole. Here is the test. Do you write your congressman about your views and request his vote on a certain subject? You are attempting to impose your views on that subject on the rest of society. Is that dictatorship? Yes, I do believe the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is factual. In addition in the book of Judges it says "Judges 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." The consequence of that was that there was chaos and unrighteousness to the extent that God permitted Israel's enemies to prevail until Israel repented. Man in his depraved state cannot determine what is right or wrong outside of the standards set by the Bible.
With liberty comes responsibility. Without responsibility liberty will collapse. Libertarians do not believe this. You want an example? Abortion. We have much less liberty now than when we believed in Biblical morality and our laws reflected those values. We have deteroriated as a nation because we have departed from the concept of liberty with responsibility and Biblical morality. Fifty years ago a kid of 10 could buy a gun without permission of the government and go hunting alone. Can you buy a gun from a business without permission of the government? As a pre-teen kid I wasn't afraid to walk down a dark street (unless I thought the Wolf Man might be out after a movie.) How about today? These things and many others have come about because of the lack of correct moral standards in our society, and the lack of responsibility. Every man is doing what is right in his own eyes and that is the problem. Jerry
"Biblical morality preaches self-sacrifice and obedience." That is correct. The obedience is the obedience to God. I would submit that you don't really believe what you say about one person imposing his views upon the society as a whole. Here is the test. Do you write your congressman about your views and request his vote on a certain subject? You are attempting to impose your views on that subject on the rest of society. Is that dictatorship? Yes, I do believe the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is factual. In addition in the book of Judges it says "Judges 17:6 In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." The consequence of that was that there was chaos and unrighteousness to the extent that God permitted Israel's enemies to prevail until Israel repented. Man in his depraved state cannot determine what is right or wrong outside of the standards set by the Bible.
With liberty comes responsibility. Without responsibility liberty will collapse. Libertarians do not believe this. You want an example? Abortion. We have much less liberty now than when we believed in Biblical morality and our laws reflected those values. We have deteroriated as a nation because we have departed from the concept of liberty with responsibility and Biblical morality. Fifty years ago a kid of 10 could buy a gun without permission of the government and go hunting alone. Can you buy a gun from a business without permission of the government? As a pre-teen kid I wasn't afraid to walk down a dark street (unless I thought the Wolf Man might be out after a movie.) How about today? These things and many others have come about because of the lack of correct moral standards in our society, and the lack of responsibility. Every man is doing what is right in his own eyes and that is the problem. Jerry
"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force. Like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master."-- G. Washington
I believe that we have forgot the words of this great man. I also believe that a government that would shoot, gas, and burn men women and children (BTW, what crimes were the children guilty of?) for the sake of their religion, needs to be carefully examined. The laws that brought about this terrible act need to be examined. Those laws were promulgated by a government that isn't by my definition "Godly" or "moral."
When I think of the Branch Davidians, I don't ponder the adults. They were there by choice, and they had gas masks. Of course, those who ordered the 2 hours of teargas assault knew that it could be fatal to those not wearing a mask, and they knew that there are no gas masks made for children. In essence, regardless of guilt or innocence of the children, whomever ordered that gassing was ordering the execution of those kids. Is this "Godly" government?
I am still seething hot over this gross injustice. I am still wondering where the trials were against the monsters who pulled this off.
I will work for a country that cherishes liberty for the rest of my life. A country that would allow the above to happen is NOT a country that cherishes liberty, and so in a way, you are right. We are not a Libertarian country. We stopped caring about liberty and freedom during the early part of the 20th century as was painfully evident in the last decade of the twentieth century.
I believe that we have forgot the words of this great man. I also believe that a government that would shoot, gas, and burn men women and children (BTW, what crimes were the children guilty of?) for the sake of their religion, needs to be carefully examined. The laws that brought about this terrible act need to be examined. Those laws were promulgated by a government that isn't by my definition "Godly" or "moral."
When I think of the Branch Davidians, I don't ponder the adults. They were there by choice, and they had gas masks. Of course, those who ordered the 2 hours of teargas assault knew that it could be fatal to those not wearing a mask, and they knew that there are no gas masks made for children. In essence, regardless of guilt or innocence of the children, whomever ordered that gassing was ordering the execution of those kids. Is this "Godly" government?
I am still seething hot over this gross injustice. I am still wondering where the trials were against the monsters who pulled this off.
I will work for a country that cherishes liberty for the rest of my life. A country that would allow the above to happen is NOT a country that cherishes liberty, and so in a way, you are right. We are not a Libertarian country. We stopped caring about liberty and freedom during the early part of the 20th century as was painfully evident in the last decade of the twentieth century.
justice4all
New member
Jerry, you believe that the world is a realm inhabited and ruled by spirits and deities. I think that it is not. I think that it is controlled by natural laws, like gravity, etc. Neither of us will ever convince the other otherwise. I will never try to prevent you from following the teachings of your sacred book. Please do not try to impose those rules on the rest of us.
To impose means to force or dictate. It does not mean to suggest. When I write letters or speak for or against certain governmental actions, I am never calling for the initiation of the use of force. I am arguing for the sovereignty of the individual, that he can be free from imposition. A dictatorship of freedom, if you will.
Libertarians understand that with freedom comes responsibility. At least I do, and so do the other Libertarians who post here. We believe that our lives should be ours to suceed with or to fail with.
Then you lose me. You argue that today things are worse than they used to be. You are probably right. But this illustrates the original point of this thread, to point out that Dems and Reps are essentially the same. No matter who is in charge, things continue to deteriorate. You certainly cannot blame this on the adoption of a libertarian form of government. In fact, in the good old days, America was much more libertarian than it is now, so maybe we could return to the ideal culture of your youth if we only vote out the bums, and vote in the party of principle.
To impose means to force or dictate. It does not mean to suggest. When I write letters or speak for or against certain governmental actions, I am never calling for the initiation of the use of force. I am arguing for the sovereignty of the individual, that he can be free from imposition. A dictatorship of freedom, if you will.
Libertarians understand that with freedom comes responsibility. At least I do, and so do the other Libertarians who post here. We believe that our lives should be ours to suceed with or to fail with.
Then you lose me. You argue that today things are worse than they used to be. You are probably right. But this illustrates the original point of this thread, to point out that Dems and Reps are essentially the same. No matter who is in charge, things continue to deteriorate. You certainly cannot blame this on the adoption of a libertarian form of government. In fact, in the good old days, America was much more libertarian than it is now, so maybe we could return to the ideal culture of your youth if we only vote out the bums, and vote in the party of principle.
A Libertarian in Congress
We have at least one Libertarian in the Congress. Rep. Ron Paul ran and won out of necessity as a Republican, but if you check out his views, he's definitely a liber.
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/
We have at least one Libertarian in the Congress. Rep. Ron Paul ran and won out of necessity as a Republican, but if you check out his views, he's definitely a liber.
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org/
The post by Ought Six speaks volumes.
"Rep Ron Paul ran and won out of necessity as a Republican,but if you check out his views,he's definitely a liber."
I would not have wasted my Bush vote in the last election for a Libertarian candidate with no chance of winning. The option of letting Gore win by NOT voting for Bush was too loathsome.
I wish I could vote a third party candidate into office.Our political system could use a little shaking up. The truth is, until I can see that voting for a Libertarian candidate will NOT be a vote for the Democrats, I'll keep voting Republican.
I agree with those that say the county level is the place to start.Unfortunately, even at the county level,I usually have the option of picking a pachyderm,a donkey,an independent(thats the guy who ran as a pachyderm or a donkey in the primary and got whooped),and some guys who have absolutely no chance of winning.Why should I vote for Mr. Not Going To Win and let some Democrat win by three votes and have the Des Moines Red Star (thats the biggest newspaper in the state) trumpet another victory for the "will of the people"??
[Edited by AR-10 on 02-10-2001 at 12:04 AM]
"Rep Ron Paul ran and won out of necessity as a Republican,but if you check out his views,he's definitely a liber."
I would not have wasted my Bush vote in the last election for a Libertarian candidate with no chance of winning. The option of letting Gore win by NOT voting for Bush was too loathsome.
I wish I could vote a third party candidate into office.Our political system could use a little shaking up. The truth is, until I can see that voting for a Libertarian candidate will NOT be a vote for the Democrats, I'll keep voting Republican.
I agree with those that say the county level is the place to start.Unfortunately, even at the county level,I usually have the option of picking a pachyderm,a donkey,an independent(thats the guy who ran as a pachyderm or a donkey in the primary and got whooped),and some guys who have absolutely no chance of winning.Why should I vote for Mr. Not Going To Win and let some Democrat win by three votes and have the Des Moines Red Star (thats the biggest newspaper in the state) trumpet another victory for the "will of the people"??
[Edited by AR-10 on 02-10-2001 at 12:04 AM]
The D's and R's don't really disagree on many things. They have various levels of commitment (taxes, gun control, welfare, and a whole host of other issues), but RARELY do they disagree.
The one point on which there is general disagreement is abortion. I will spot the GOP that one, without hesitation. Beyond that, I would love to debate the "disagreement" on taxes and spending, UN involvement, how the military ought to be used, federal involvement in education, gun control, or any other topic and of the GOP apologists would care to name.
And I am not speaking as a political neophyte. I used to live in Portsmouth, VA, (a city of about 100,000) and was the chairman of the local GOP city committee there. Because of the GOP's almost across-the-board unwillingness to actually abide by the Constitution, I resigned. The elected Republicans, almost to a person, have as little respect for that document as the Democrats. To argue otherwise is to ignore the obvious.
The one point on which there is general disagreement is abortion. I will spot the GOP that one, without hesitation. Beyond that, I would love to debate the "disagreement" on taxes and spending, UN involvement, how the military ought to be used, federal involvement in education, gun control, or any other topic and of the GOP apologists would care to name.
And I am not speaking as a political neophyte. I used to live in Portsmouth, VA, (a city of about 100,000) and was the chairman of the local GOP city committee there. Because of the GOP's almost across-the-board unwillingness to actually abide by the Constitution, I resigned. The elected Republicans, almost to a person, have as little respect for that document as the Democrats. To argue otherwise is to ignore the obvious.
justice4all,
The world is under the providence of one God. He set up the natural laws by which the universe operates in the normal course of events. However, He is still in control.
Isn't it true that when you attempt to influence your congressman you are wanting your views to prevail? If you want every man to do what is right in his own eyes, that is a view with which I don't agree. If you prevail, then you are imposing your views on me. If you are for freedom of choice and you prevail you are imposing your values on those of us who don't agree with you. Someone's views will be imposed upon the nation as a whole no matter which way you see it. Consider Free Speech. I don't agree that individuals have the right/freedom to use obscene language whenever and wherever they desire. The language you hear and the logos on shirts show that many don't have respect for anyone. I, therefore, believe that there must be restriction of free speech in an absolute sense. Our forefathers evidently believed so also since such language and logos were not legal in public until recently. I believe I should have the freedom from such speech. Without responsibility liberty breaks down.
I agree that the nation has gotten worse under the governments of both Dem and Rep. I wish there were a party of principle, which could be elected. However, I believe the Libertarian party is not that party. I am persuaded that there will never be a viable third party which could field a presidential candidate who could come close to being elected. I'm afraid we are stuck with the Dems and the Reps. I know many here will disagree, but if we are a nation 100 years from now there will still have only the same two major parties.
Things continue to deteriorate because we as a nation have lost our moral compass. I am not confident that we can recover it. Except when God has intervened there have not been instances of nations becoming more moral as far as I can determine. We may slow the process and even temporarily reverse it, but the trend will continue downward. When a nation elects, re-elects, and even approves a man like Bill Clinton, that nation has reached a level of moral decay from which it will not recover. Jerry
The world is under the providence of one God. He set up the natural laws by which the universe operates in the normal course of events. However, He is still in control.
Isn't it true that when you attempt to influence your congressman you are wanting your views to prevail? If you want every man to do what is right in his own eyes, that is a view with which I don't agree. If you prevail, then you are imposing your views on me. If you are for freedom of choice and you prevail you are imposing your values on those of us who don't agree with you. Someone's views will be imposed upon the nation as a whole no matter which way you see it. Consider Free Speech. I don't agree that individuals have the right/freedom to use obscene language whenever and wherever they desire. The language you hear and the logos on shirts show that many don't have respect for anyone. I, therefore, believe that there must be restriction of free speech in an absolute sense. Our forefathers evidently believed so also since such language and logos were not legal in public until recently. I believe I should have the freedom from such speech. Without responsibility liberty breaks down.
I agree that the nation has gotten worse under the governments of both Dem and Rep. I wish there were a party of principle, which could be elected. However, I believe the Libertarian party is not that party. I am persuaded that there will never be a viable third party which could field a presidential candidate who could come close to being elected. I'm afraid we are stuck with the Dems and the Reps. I know many here will disagree, but if we are a nation 100 years from now there will still have only the same two major parties.
Things continue to deteriorate because we as a nation have lost our moral compass. I am not confident that we can recover it. Except when God has intervened there have not been instances of nations becoming more moral as far as I can determine. We may slow the process and even temporarily reverse it, but the trend will continue downward. When a nation elects, re-elects, and even approves a man like Bill Clinton, that nation has reached a level of moral decay from which it will not recover. Jerry
Having a 3rd party president is YEARS off. I am a Liberterian myself, after seeing how both of our major parties are nothing better than dictators.
Getting the electoral votes will be the biggest problem since the electors are owned by the Demos and Repubs.
The best motion now is to get Liberterian Senators, Represenatives and local leaders so that the tide shifts away from the 2 larger parties. Imagine if a few states had Liberterian Governors and/or Liberterian State Assemblys? At that point, that would be such a strong victory that the tide would turn.
We need a change in this party system VERY soon. If we don't have a shift in the 60 years, there will be a civil war.
The two parties are leading us that way...we need to get moving!
Getting the electoral votes will be the biggest problem since the electors are owned by the Demos and Repubs.
The best motion now is to get Liberterian Senators, Represenatives and local leaders so that the tide shifts away from the 2 larger parties. Imagine if a few states had Liberterian Governors and/or Liberterian State Assemblys? At that point, that would be such a strong victory that the tide would turn.
We need a change in this party system VERY soon. If we don't have a shift in the 60 years, there will be a civil war.
The two parties are leading us that way...we need to get moving!
justice4all
New member
Jerry, there is much about which we disagree, but at least we both believe in the RKBA.
The only thing that Libertarians want to "impose" on anyone is the right to exist free from imposition. We want to outlaw the initiation of the use of force. You think that people should be convicted--and possibly denied the right to ever own firearms again--if they dare to wear shirts emblazened with certain images or words that you find offensive. We do not. True freedom allows for lots of behavior that others might find offensive. No one wants to stop you from being morally outraged. We just don't think your outrage is enough by itself to make others outlaws.
You seem to have given up on the possibility that this country will ever again remember its roots, and so you vote for Republicans, because you believe they will lead to the destruction of our country and culture at a slower pace. I get the impression from your posts that you are somewhat older than I am, so maybe you won't live to see the day when another party can challenge for control of government in America. I'm still relatively young and optimistic that change is a real possibility.
I don't expect any divine intervention any time soon, so I do what I can, and vote for the party that actually advocates smaller government and more personal freedom and responsibility.
As I've posted previously, the GOP has the House, Senate, Presidency, and a majority in the Supreme Court. Now is the time for them to put up or shut up. All of you who expect the GOP to be the saving grace of the RKBA, beware. If they don't do it now, they never will.
The only thing that Libertarians want to "impose" on anyone is the right to exist free from imposition. We want to outlaw the initiation of the use of force. You think that people should be convicted--and possibly denied the right to ever own firearms again--if they dare to wear shirts emblazened with certain images or words that you find offensive. We do not. True freedom allows for lots of behavior that others might find offensive. No one wants to stop you from being morally outraged. We just don't think your outrage is enough by itself to make others outlaws.
You seem to have given up on the possibility that this country will ever again remember its roots, and so you vote for Republicans, because you believe they will lead to the destruction of our country and culture at a slower pace. I get the impression from your posts that you are somewhat older than I am, so maybe you won't live to see the day when another party can challenge for control of government in America. I'm still relatively young and optimistic that change is a real possibility.
I don't expect any divine intervention any time soon, so I do what I can, and vote for the party that actually advocates smaller government and more personal freedom and responsibility.
As I've posted previously, the GOP has the House, Senate, Presidency, and a majority in the Supreme Court. Now is the time for them to put up or shut up. All of you who expect the GOP to be the saving grace of the RKBA, beware. If they don't do it now, they never will.
justice4all,
Your statement; "You think that people should be convicted--and possibly denied the right to ever
own firearms again--if they dare to wear shirts emblazened with certain images or words that you find offensive." is a great extrapolation. I do think such things should be outlawed, but the statement "and possibly denied the right to ever own firearms again" does not reflect my desires, beliefs, or my statement. We outlawed such things for approximately 200 years. Are we a better or a freer nation now than when such language was outlawed? Has our liberty increased or decreased since the 60s and the moral decay of our society? Are we, and especially women, safer now, or are we less free because of the lawlessness about us? This lawlessness is a part of the attitude that is self centered and believes that "No one has a right to tell me what to do." Do you find such things acceptable? If you had children, and on their way to school there was a large sign showing people performing sexual acts would you still say that you didn't have the right to dictate to the person who put it up that it was obscene and make it illegal if you could? As a result of our lack of Biblical morality we have much less freedom today than a generation ago. We have AIDS, abortion, acceptance of homosexuality, children born outside of wedlock, sexual immorality to include couples living together outside marriage, high violent crime rates, single parent families, and a government which becomes more dictatorial and socialistic as time goes by. Only the last is an area where the Libertarian philosophy would be an improvement. The liberal thinking is a godless philosophy, which on one hand preaches freedom and on the other hand severely limits the freedom of religious expression and actions.
I never thought I would convince the Libertarians, but I believe that their philosophy is one of freedom without responsibility in spite of rhetoric to the contrary. Again I use abortion as one example of that. It is impossible to live free from government interference. That would be anarchy. The challenge is to have an orderly and moral society with the minimum interference from government.
I fear that as to political parties we are stuck with the two major parties and they have so much power/money that they can't be dislodged. Even Ross P. with his money and influence couldn't do it. I hope I am wrong about that, but we'll see.
Regards, Jerry
Your statement; "You think that people should be convicted--and possibly denied the right to ever
own firearms again--if they dare to wear shirts emblazened with certain images or words that you find offensive." is a great extrapolation. I do think such things should be outlawed, but the statement "and possibly denied the right to ever own firearms again" does not reflect my desires, beliefs, or my statement. We outlawed such things for approximately 200 years. Are we a better or a freer nation now than when such language was outlawed? Has our liberty increased or decreased since the 60s and the moral decay of our society? Are we, and especially women, safer now, or are we less free because of the lawlessness about us? This lawlessness is a part of the attitude that is self centered and believes that "No one has a right to tell me what to do." Do you find such things acceptable? If you had children, and on their way to school there was a large sign showing people performing sexual acts would you still say that you didn't have the right to dictate to the person who put it up that it was obscene and make it illegal if you could? As a result of our lack of Biblical morality we have much less freedom today than a generation ago. We have AIDS, abortion, acceptance of homosexuality, children born outside of wedlock, sexual immorality to include couples living together outside marriage, high violent crime rates, single parent families, and a government which becomes more dictatorial and socialistic as time goes by. Only the last is an area where the Libertarian philosophy would be an improvement. The liberal thinking is a godless philosophy, which on one hand preaches freedom and on the other hand severely limits the freedom of religious expression and actions.
I never thought I would convince the Libertarians, but I believe that their philosophy is one of freedom without responsibility in spite of rhetoric to the contrary. Again I use abortion as one example of that. It is impossible to live free from government interference. That would be anarchy. The challenge is to have an orderly and moral society with the minimum interference from government.
I fear that as to political parties we are stuck with the two major parties and they have so much power/money that they can't be dislodged. Even Ross P. with his money and influence couldn't do it. I hope I am wrong about that, but we'll see.
Regards, Jerry
cuerno de chivo
Moderator
holly rollers 
:barf:
One dictator for another.
I have seen the enemy and some of them definitely are us.
:barf:
One dictator for another.
I have seen the enemy and some of them definitely are us.
JerryM, our resident hardcore theocrat, writes:
Which is the one thing he has said that I must, regrettably and somewhat conditionally, agree with. I have spent a quarter century supporting the Libertarian Party, and those days are over. Our winner-take-all electoral system dooms any third party to spoiler status at best, except in rare cases when a major party collapses almost completely, as the Whigs did in the 1850s.
The strongest evidence for this is that Libertarians can do quite well in _non-partisan_ races, and the LP has scores of elected office holders at that level, but when these same candidates try to run as Libertarians in a partisan race they get creamed.
As far as differences between the parties goes, there are in fact some significant differences between the Repubs and Dems, on certain issues, although if one looks at the elected office holders the differences are far from polarized. There are pro-gun Democrats and anti-gun Republicans, and pro-choice Republicans as well as anti-abortion Democrats. But by comparison, the differences between Repubs and Demos on the one hand and libertarians on the other is much greater.
Both Rs and Ds believe that government should tax some portion of our earnings. Libertarians believe taxation is extortion, or slavery, and is therefore immoral. Both Rs and Ds believe our right to keep and bear arms should be restricted to some degree (such as the ban on imported "assult guns"). Libertarians believe the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and therefore our right to keep and bear arms is inalienable. Rs and Ds believe our freedom of speech should be restricted in certain areas for some general public good. Libertarians believe any prior restraints on speech are a violation of basic rights -- the most hard core of us even oppose libel and slander laws.
There is no way I could sanction the rights violations favored by any "mainstream" candidate with my vote. To suggest that I vote Republican because they are somewhat better on RKBA is like suggesting I sleep with the girl who has syphillis instead of the girl who has AIDS. And since supporting LP candidates is nearly always a waste of time and money, I'm pretty much out of options, as far as electoral politics is concerned.
So I've given up looking to politicians to save me, and am supporting efforts to make the case for RKBA directly to the people -- as well as preparing for the dark days towards which both parties are leading us, albeit at different speeds.
Which is the one thing he has said that I must, regrettably and somewhat conditionally, agree with. I have spent a quarter century supporting the Libertarian Party, and those days are over. Our winner-take-all electoral system dooms any third party to spoiler status at best, except in rare cases when a major party collapses almost completely, as the Whigs did in the 1850s.
The strongest evidence for this is that Libertarians can do quite well in _non-partisan_ races, and the LP has scores of elected office holders at that level, but when these same candidates try to run as Libertarians in a partisan race they get creamed.
As far as differences between the parties goes, there are in fact some significant differences between the Repubs and Dems, on certain issues, although if one looks at the elected office holders the differences are far from polarized. There are pro-gun Democrats and anti-gun Republicans, and pro-choice Republicans as well as anti-abortion Democrats. But by comparison, the differences between Repubs and Demos on the one hand and libertarians on the other is much greater.
Both Rs and Ds believe that government should tax some portion of our earnings. Libertarians believe taxation is extortion, or slavery, and is therefore immoral. Both Rs and Ds believe our right to keep and bear arms should be restricted to some degree (such as the ban on imported "assult guns"). Libertarians believe the right to self-defense is a fundamental human right and therefore our right to keep and bear arms is inalienable. Rs and Ds believe our freedom of speech should be restricted in certain areas for some general public good. Libertarians believe any prior restraints on speech are a violation of basic rights -- the most hard core of us even oppose libel and slander laws.
There is no way I could sanction the rights violations favored by any "mainstream" candidate with my vote. To suggest that I vote Republican because they are somewhat better on RKBA is like suggesting I sleep with the girl who has syphillis instead of the girl who has AIDS. And since supporting LP candidates is nearly always a waste of time and money, I'm pretty much out of options, as far as electoral politics is concerned.
So I've given up looking to politicians to save me, and am supporting efforts to make the case for RKBA directly to the people -- as well as preparing for the dark days towards which both parties are leading us, albeit at different speeds.
AnotherPundit
New member
You're right -- under the current election system, a third party candidate will never be elected. However, we can try to push for changing the voting system -- ideally, towards an "instant runoff voting" system, as I've outlined on my site.
We can't just attack head-on; we've tried that, and it hasn't worked. Have to change the system itself, somehow.
----------
http://www.AnotherPundit.com
We can't just attack head-on; we've tried that, and it hasn't worked. Have to change the system itself, somehow.
----------
http://www.AnotherPundit.com
Shooter 2.5
New member
KJM-Today's dallas Morning News reported that for now the clinton military budget will stand UNTIL the full report is in and Bush can find out what they need. It sounds like a guy who doesn't believe in throwing money at a problem. The report is supposed to take a couple of weeks which surprised me on the short period of time. I would suggest that you give the guy at least a couple of months to straighten out 8 years of disaster before you start complaining.
justice4all
New member
Jerry,
"The challenge is to have an orderly and moral society with the minimum interference from government."
Again, we agree. We just disagree on what is moral. We won't change each others' minds.
I've said all I have to say on this. Good Day.
"The challenge is to have an orderly and moral society with the minimum interference from government."
Again, we agree. We just disagree on what is moral. We won't change each others' minds.
I've said all I have to say on this. Good Day.
