Clark Kent
New member
Westtexas - I'm tired of political correctness, too. I prefer political success.
Libertarian or Constitutionalist?
- Thread starter Jack 99
- Start date
Sedward- I do not believe that your comparison between dugs and the 2nd Amendment is an accurate parallel. Firearms do not cause people to go out and commit crimes, drugs do. Using drugs in the manner they are intended, using firearms in the manner intended protects families.
As for the Constituionalists stance regarding Christianity, its about time someone didnt abandon the Lord in return for more political favor.
As for the Constituionalists stance regarding Christianity, its about time someone didnt abandon the Lord in return for more political favor.
Christopher II
New member
Nope. (l)ibertarian here.
I disagree with the Constitution party on just about everything that distinguishes them from the Libertarians. Abortion, drugs, immigration policy, etc.
I also find the Constitution Party's religious platform disturbing, to say the least.
But, all that aside, I like the Constitutionalists a LOT better than any of the mainstream parties.
Later,
Chris
------------------
"TV what do I see, tell me who to believe, what's the use of autonomy when a button does it all??" - Incubus, Idiot Box
I disagree with the Constitution party on just about everything that distinguishes them from the Libertarians. Abortion, drugs, immigration policy, etc.
I also find the Constitution Party's religious platform disturbing, to say the least.
But, all that aside, I like the Constitutionalists a LOT better than any of the mainstream parties.
Later,
Chris
------------------
"TV what do I see, tell me who to believe, what's the use of autonomy when a button does it all??" - Incubus, Idiot Box
glock glockler
New member
Drugs cause people to commit crimes? I know pleanty of drug users that when stoned, spend their time watching cartoons, laughing at stupid things, and then eating alot of junk food. What drugs are intended to do is get people high, kinda like people are when they're drunk, and God knows that no one has ever committed a crime while drunk. If someone gets high in the privacy of their home and hurts no one in the process, what do you care?
And firearms are not intended to protect families, they are intended to shoot a projectile. The function a firearms serves is dependent upon the will of it user. A gun in the hands of a drug dealer is not a good thing, as his intentions are evil. It would be interesting how drug dealers would be out of buisness if drugs were legal, which would cut down on violent crime maybe just a little.
The ultimate issue is whether or not you empower a goverment to tell you what you are allowed to consume. I dont think so. I also dont like how the govt. has trampled on the rights of citizens in order to combat the violence that has been a direct result of its illegality, including firearms rights. A little history bit here, the first gun control measures in this country were passed with a means of combating the wave of violence that occured with fully automatic weapons (Tommy Guns, ect) DURING PROHIBITION. The govt creates the problem of violence, for which they are more than willing to provide the "solution" as increased control over the lives and freedoms of the citizens. Make no mistake about it, the biggest winners of the drug war are the politicians, and we are the losers.
And firearms are not intended to protect families, they are intended to shoot a projectile. The function a firearms serves is dependent upon the will of it user. A gun in the hands of a drug dealer is not a good thing, as his intentions are evil. It would be interesting how drug dealers would be out of buisness if drugs were legal, which would cut down on violent crime maybe just a little.
The ultimate issue is whether or not you empower a goverment to tell you what you are allowed to consume. I dont think so. I also dont like how the govt. has trampled on the rights of citizens in order to combat the violence that has been a direct result of its illegality, including firearms rights. A little history bit here, the first gun control measures in this country were passed with a means of combating the wave of violence that occured with fully automatic weapons (Tommy Guns, ect) DURING PROHIBITION. The govt creates the problem of violence, for which they are more than willing to provide the "solution" as increased control over the lives and freedoms of the citizens. Make no mistake about it, the biggest winners of the drug war are the politicians, and we are the losers.
David Scott
New member
Count me soundly in the Libertarian camp, because they seem to me the only significant party to base their entire platform on a consistent set of core principles. Every other party seems to want one rule for themselves (and their campaign contributors) and another rule for everyone else. The LP is at least consistent in its standard that the government ought not to interfere in a citizen's life without a damned good reason.
As for the drug thing, it should be treated as a medical problem. Education and treatment would do far more than the phony "war on drugs" that has supported the military-industrial complex ever since the war business slacked off. Did we learn nothing from Prohibition?
BTW, I don't see how a party can call itself "Constitutionalist" and then adopt a resolution in favor of just one of the many religions people follow. The Constitution contains explicit terms forbidding a national religion.
As for the drug thing, it should be treated as a medical problem. Education and treatment would do far more than the phony "war on drugs" that has supported the military-industrial complex ever since the war business slacked off. Did we learn nothing from Prohibition?
BTW, I don't see how a party can call itself "Constitutionalist" and then adopt a resolution in favor of just one of the many religions people follow. The Constitution contains explicit terms forbidding a national religion.
Striker3 --
Drugs (and I include alchohol in that category) don't *make* people do anything. At best they strip away inhibitions and alter perception of reality, but any actions an individual takes as a result are still *their own*.
It was their choice to alter their perception of reality and reduce their inhibitions... hence their responsibility. Drugs are just a tool to accomplish the alteration and reduction, not the cause... the cause is the individual's decision to consume the drug.
If it is your assertion that the end-result of the consumption of drugs is always "something bad," because "drugs make you do bad things," then responsibility rests with the individual that consumed the drugs... not the drugs themselves... because once consumed the outcome was inevitable.
[ Correlary: If the end-result of conception is a human being, and sex leads to conception, then the decision isn't whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, but whether or not to have sex in the first place -- and, that decision being made by the *responsible* parties, where the responsibility lies is quite obvious... eh? ]
Same thing with firearms: "Guns don't kill people... people kill people."
A firearm, used responsibly, can be a good thing; used irresponsibly, it can be a bad thing.
Corvettes don't drive 110mph by themselves.
Guns don't fire themselves.
Drugs don't cause crime and violence.
People do.
Drugs (and I include alchohol in that category) don't *make* people do anything. At best they strip away inhibitions and alter perception of reality, but any actions an individual takes as a result are still *their own*.
It was their choice to alter their perception of reality and reduce their inhibitions... hence their responsibility. Drugs are just a tool to accomplish the alteration and reduction, not the cause... the cause is the individual's decision to consume the drug.
If it is your assertion that the end-result of the consumption of drugs is always "something bad," because "drugs make you do bad things," then responsibility rests with the individual that consumed the drugs... not the drugs themselves... because once consumed the outcome was inevitable.
[ Correlary: If the end-result of conception is a human being, and sex leads to conception, then the decision isn't whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, but whether or not to have sex in the first place -- and, that decision being made by the *responsible* parties, where the responsibility lies is quite obvious... eh? ]
Same thing with firearms: "Guns don't kill people... people kill people."
A firearm, used responsibly, can be a good thing; used irresponsibly, it can be a bad thing.
Corvettes don't drive 110mph by themselves.
Guns don't fire themselves.
Drugs don't cause crime and violence.
People do.
David Scott
New member
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sedwards:
[ Correlary: If the end-result of conception is a human being, and sex leads to conception, then the decision isn't whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, but whether or not to have sex in the first place -- and, that decision being made by the *responsible* parties, where the responsibility lies is quite obvious... eh? ]
[/quote]
Corollary to the Corollary (which may give some a coronary):
If the Catholic Church says birth control is a sin because it thwarts God's plan to perpetuate humanity, then isn't abstinence also a sin? Shouldn't Catholics have sex every day, maybe even every hour, so they don't thwart a chance to create a human life?
In case you're wondering, I was raised Catholic.
[ Correlary: If the end-result of conception is a human being, and sex leads to conception, then the decision isn't whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, but whether or not to have sex in the first place -- and, that decision being made by the *responsible* parties, where the responsibility lies is quite obvious... eh? ]
[/quote]
Corollary to the Corollary (which may give some a coronary):
If the Catholic Church says birth control is a sin because it thwarts God's plan to perpetuate humanity, then isn't abstinence also a sin? Shouldn't Catholics have sex every day, maybe even every hour, so they don't thwart a chance to create a human life?
In case you're wondering, I was raised Catholic.
Are we talking about the "Constitution Party" or the "Constitutionalist Party".
The latter I may be able to deal with...the former is another story.
- gabe
[This message has been edited by GRD (edited July 22, 2000).]
The latter I may be able to deal with...the former is another story.
- gabe
[This message has been edited by GRD (edited July 22, 2000).]
As a Randian anarcho-capitalist (yeah, yeah, thats one of the multiple branches of Libertarianism, there are as many as there are libertarians), I'll say this: Libertarians ultimately believe that all rights are Property Rights, and that your most important Property is YOUR OWN LIFE. Anything you do to or for yourself is nobodys business UNTIL it adversly affects someone else. Then you have a responsibility to completely make it right. Some of us also think that the United States was great until Geo. Washington betrayed the revolution and sent the first gov-sanctioned jack-booted thugs to stop the tax revolt in the Whisky Rebellion, (first use of thugs to uphold tax law, just like at Ruby Ridge and Waco, Remember those were just failure to pay $200 Tax Stamp cases.)
------------------
Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club
68-70
------------------
Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club
68-70
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>If the Catholic Church says birth control is a sin because it thwarts God's plan to perpetuate humanity, then isn't abstinence also a sin? Shouldn't Catholics have sex every day, maybe even every hour, so they don't thwart a chance to create a human life?[/quote]
Well, that's one of the wonderfull things about being Catholic... we're all sinners.
Backup answer: "Oh well... It's a mystery."
More to the topic at hand:
There is a difference between my own sense of morality, propriety, and correctness and that which I feel appropriate to codify in law. Hence I may find something morally reprehensible but, at the same time (and in violation of my faith), support a law that guarantees someone else's right to do such a thing.
(Now entering dangerous territory... donning asbestos underwear)
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's... but render unto God that which is God's."
And IMO: "Let Caesar enforce Caesar's law... and let God enforce God's law."
Being Catholic, I belive that Man is a being endowed with free choice (you may or may not agree, but that is my belief). I live by the laws of God, as I understand them (that you may or may not agree with) because I choose to live by them. I enforce those laws upon myself, and upon my family, regardless of whether the US Constition, the Congress, the state of MD, or anyone else chooses to enforce them upon me.
But that is the choice that I make, for myself, and for my family.
I also choose not to enforce my beliefs, and my understanding of the Laws of God, or even my understanding or belief in "God," for that matter, upon my fellow Man.
Why? Because I also believe that Man is fallible. Hence, I could be wrong. Totally. And who am I (a fallible being) to say that my belief is right for you, or anyone else? Much less being right in the first place?
I believe that I will be judged by God according to how I obeyed His laws... but I will also be judged by Man according to how I obey Man's laws.
I believe that one does not excuse the other, but I also believe that one is more important than the other. And, when Man's law conflicts with God's law, I will choose to obey God's law, and pay the consequences under Man's law. And that's my choice.
You may choose differently... but that is your choice. It is also your responsibility. And you will suffer the consequences, one way or the other.
I can't make the choice for you, and I can't suffer the consequences for you. And I can't tell you what the consequences will be. I could tell you what I *believe* the consequences will be, and you may disagree, and we both may be wrong.
Who knows?
(Well, *He* knows, but now we're in a circular argument )
When I read our Constitution and various other documents and letters written by our Founding Fathers I have a sense that they wrestled with this same concept. IMO what they gave us is the finest example of Man's Law that the world has known... and the more we try to "improve" it, the more we screw it up.
Certainly, our Constitution was written from a Christian perspective (because the men that wrote it were, by and large, Christians), and the language they used was very Christian (they said "God" eh?) but I don't think there's anything in there that would preclude a non-Christian from having equal protection under the law (Man's law, that is). On the contrary, our Founding Fathers took great pains to make sure that people who believed differently than they did would have equal freedom.
And, even if something in the Constitution did preclude someone from exercising their beliefs here, they are still free to practice them... someplace else.
In other words, if you don't like the decidely Christian slant of our Constitution, if it's really that offensive you, or if it makes it impossible for you to practice your religion here... then you're free to get the hell out.
And I'll help you pack.
Well, that's one of the wonderfull things about being Catholic... we're all sinners.
Backup answer: "Oh well... It's a mystery."
More to the topic at hand:
There is a difference between my own sense of morality, propriety, and correctness and that which I feel appropriate to codify in law. Hence I may find something morally reprehensible but, at the same time (and in violation of my faith), support a law that guarantees someone else's right to do such a thing.
(Now entering dangerous territory... donning asbestos underwear)
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's... but render unto God that which is God's."
And IMO: "Let Caesar enforce Caesar's law... and let God enforce God's law."
Being Catholic, I belive that Man is a being endowed with free choice (you may or may not agree, but that is my belief). I live by the laws of God, as I understand them (that you may or may not agree with) because I choose to live by them. I enforce those laws upon myself, and upon my family, regardless of whether the US Constition, the Congress, the state of MD, or anyone else chooses to enforce them upon me.
But that is the choice that I make, for myself, and for my family.
I also choose not to enforce my beliefs, and my understanding of the Laws of God, or even my understanding or belief in "God," for that matter, upon my fellow Man.
Why? Because I also believe that Man is fallible. Hence, I could be wrong. Totally. And who am I (a fallible being) to say that my belief is right for you, or anyone else? Much less being right in the first place?
I believe that I will be judged by God according to how I obeyed His laws... but I will also be judged by Man according to how I obey Man's laws.
I believe that one does not excuse the other, but I also believe that one is more important than the other. And, when Man's law conflicts with God's law, I will choose to obey God's law, and pay the consequences under Man's law. And that's my choice.
You may choose differently... but that is your choice. It is also your responsibility. And you will suffer the consequences, one way or the other.
I can't make the choice for you, and I can't suffer the consequences for you. And I can't tell you what the consequences will be. I could tell you what I *believe* the consequences will be, and you may disagree, and we both may be wrong.
Who knows?
(Well, *He* knows, but now we're in a circular argument
)When I read our Constitution and various other documents and letters written by our Founding Fathers I have a sense that they wrestled with this same concept. IMO what they gave us is the finest example of Man's Law that the world has known... and the more we try to "improve" it, the more we screw it up.
Certainly, our Constitution was written from a Christian perspective (because the men that wrote it were, by and large, Christians), and the language they used was very Christian (they said "God" eh?) but I don't think there's anything in there that would preclude a non-Christian from having equal protection under the law (Man's law, that is). On the contrary, our Founding Fathers took great pains to make sure that people who believed differently than they did would have equal freedom.
And, even if something in the Constitution did preclude someone from exercising their beliefs here, they are still free to practice them... someplace else.
In other words, if you don't like the decidely Christian slant of our Constitution, if it's really that offensive you, or if it makes it impossible for you to practice your religion here... then you're free to get the hell out.
And I'll help you pack.