- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Things Libertarians need to realize...
Posted on 2/13/14 at 10:29 am to Libertariantiger
Posted on 2/13/14 at 10:29 am to Libertariantiger
quote:
That is why they throw the temper tantrums and tell me I throw my vote away, I help the other side which is worse, I don't understand politics, yada yada yada.
I solved that problem a long time ago. The Presidential election is electoral college by state. I live in La. I check the polling data and if La. is a toss up, I vote GOP. If La. is a lock, I vote Libertarian. And guess what? La. has NEVER been a toss up in the last 30 years. So, I've voted Libertarian every time.
1
Posted on 2/13/14 at 10:30 am to bamafan1001
quote:
I dont like a lot of the republican candidates that run but I cant vote for a liberty minded candidate that isnt on the ballot.
I think the primary point of contention in this thread is you're blaming libertarians for the lack of liberty minded candidates on ballots. As long as the right contains a fairly large group of voters who still apply social/religious litmus tests, you won't have that candidate.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 10:31 am to RCDfan1950
quote:
establish IN THEIR COMMUNITIES the Civic Laws that promote THEIR Religious cultural worldview. That IS FREEDOM.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:05 am to ForeLSU
Example, F.:
The folk in Tangipahoa Parish move into a small and peaceful community...with a small school where their common Religious principles are promoted as opposed to being 'neutral'. Their community prospers, and it's safe to walk the streets and trust their neighbors.
The State/Parish/Fed see this, and desires to spread the misery of other 'neutral' community schools around...so they (a Judge) orders the children of that community to be bused into the urban pits.
Question to you...is that wrong? If you spent your money to buy a home in a community that reflected/promoter your CHOSEN beliefs/Principles, and the State Authority
decided that YOUR child should be raised in the 'real' world...you'd be good with that? That is you idea of 'freedom'?
Leave the folk alone to experience the CONSEQUENCES of their chosen values/beliefs. Period. The cream will rise to the top. The whey...the bottom.
The folk in Tangipahoa Parish move into a small and peaceful community...with a small school where their common Religious principles are promoted as opposed to being 'neutral'. Their community prospers, and it's safe to walk the streets and trust their neighbors.
The State/Parish/Fed see this, and desires to spread the misery of other 'neutral' community schools around...so they (a Judge) orders the children of that community to be bused into the urban pits.
Question to you...is that wrong? If you spent your money to buy a home in a community that reflected/promoter your CHOSEN beliefs/Principles, and the State Authority
decided that YOUR child should be raised in the 'real' world...you'd be good with that? That is you idea of 'freedom'? Leave the folk alone to experience the CONSEQUENCES of their chosen values/beliefs. Period. The cream will rise to the top. The whey...the bottom.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:25 am to RCDfan1950
quote:
Question to you...is that wrong? If you spent your money to buy a home in a community that reflected/promoter your CHOSEN beliefs/Principles, and the State Authority decided that YOUR child should be raised in the 'real' world...you'd be good with that? That is you idea of 'freedom'?
no, freedom to me is freedom, period. It doesn't matter if the oppressor is the fed, state, county or city government. The area I live in recently decided that restaurants couldn't serve any alcoholic beverages on Sunday. The state senator said "he felt like he owed it to the preachers who had asked him to help them keep the day holy". In the process my freedom to enjoy a beer during an NFL game, along with the proprietor's freedom to sell a product that his patrons would like to buy were taken away.
You want "freedom" from interference by outsiders to regulate the behavior of others on a local basis...that ain't freedom.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:37 am to Libertariantiger
quote:
That is why they throw the temper tantrums and tell me I throw my vote away, I help the other side which is worse, I don't understand politics, yada yada yada. I'll vote for your guy when he doesn't want to just control my freedoms in a different manner than a democrat does.
In your opinion, what is the biggest way that conservatives attempt to control your freedoms. When I say conservative, I mean a true fiscal conservative.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:41 am to ForeLSU
quote:
to sell a product that his patrons would like to buy were taken away.
There it is. If enough of that restaurant's business goes away...they go away. And the Preachers won't be far behind them.
Re this: You want "freedom" from interference by OUTSIDERS to regulate the behavior of others on a local basis...that ain't freedom.
We agree. The local folk should decide; not the "outsiders". Especially in school districts where the education/indoctrination of your children is a critical issue. In your bar scenario...they locals will. You can get the hell out of there if the cost/benefit of living there don't measure up.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:41 am to Zach
quote:
And guess what? La. has NEVER been a toss up in the last 30 years.
Clinton v. Bush I?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:55 am to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Clinton v. Bush I?
Nope. Clinton was the heavy favorite in La. Had a double digit lead in the polls. Bush lied about 'read my lips..no new taxes.'
Posted on 2/13/14 at 11:57 am to RCDfan1950
quote:
In your bar scenario...they locals will.
but they didn't, a couple of preachers and a politician did.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:11 pm to ForeLSU
I always argue the philosophical perspective, F, as opposed to the personal. BTW, I do understand the innate dislike of sanctimonious and high-minded preachers/pragmatic politicos who like to wield their power for power's sake. Power does corrupt. Of course, like any Authoritarian...they'll say/believe it's for the 'common good'.
And I'm not a churchgoer - too outside the box - but I believe in Christian Principles, and do think they make for a less problematic community when the cost/benefit analysis is applied. In fact, there may well be more honesty over a beer than on the front row of a church. That's the kind of thinkin that get's me in trouble, in an organized format.
Toast the Good Lord, and the Principles therein, when you raise that beer. CYA.
And I'm not a churchgoer - too outside the box - but I believe in Christian Principles, and do think they make for a less problematic community when the cost/benefit analysis is applied. In fact, there may well be more honesty over a beer than on the front row of a church. That's the kind of thinkin that get's me in trouble, in an organized format.
Toast the Good Lord, and the Principles therein, when you raise that beer. CYA.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 12:38 pm to RCDfan1950
quote:
Christians want - no, demand - the right to establish IN THEIR COMMUNITIES the Civic Laws that promote THEIR Religious cultural worldview. That IS FREEDOM. Each Community establishes principles, promotes them, reaps the societal consequences therein...and either wins or loses the Ideological 'debate'. Proof is in the pudding.
I don't understand why someone has to lose a debate. Why can't like minds associate with each other and live under rules they agree to?
A lot of the rhetoric you're using is what petty tyrants use to lord over people while making it sound equitable.
quote:
It is Statist Federalism that is putting us all at each other's throats. One size fits all. Never the intent of this Nation, though it absolutely was founded and held PRAYER SERVICES in the Halls of Congress since inception.
Local politics get's pretty ugly too.
quote:
And it's whiners who would rather bitch and gripe if they are a minority. If you don't want to hear a prayer in Jesus name or the celebration of Christmas in your CHOSEN community, school or civic organization...then go where it suits your fancy. And find out how it works out in the long run.
Is this a war on Christmas post?
Posted on 2/13/14 at 2:47 pm to Patrick O Rly
I'd prefer a "petty tyrant" over the Authoritarian Statist version, PO. Of course, a husband/father can be a tyrant.
It is my BELIEF that Judeo-Christian Principles are beneficial for Individuals and the Collective. If an individual truly believes that their beliefs and actions are monitored/judged by God, according to a Universal Law wherein the ultimate aim is an eternal existence in the presence of perfect Love, and that at the end of this life, said individual will "reap according to that which he has sewn"...then the benefits to society and the individual who polices themselves, for the cause of Love and prosperity will be far greater that an individual/collective that believes that it's one life...and done. Forever.
The latter belief is so (psychologically) problematic, as such relates to a - (most, not all) harmonic individual and society, that the effects of disbelief are apt to be calamitous.
As such, I am drawn to the old model upon which the founding of this Nation was borne. They believed that the DUTY of Government was to oversee the Religion (Principles) and see that they were not corrupted. As those who hold power, were apt to be. And that those (Religious) Principles - the First being God and individual accountability - be taught as THE most critical base of a successful society.
This is the model that I would think to be the best shot at prolonged societal prosperity. Otherwise we are herding cats with the Natural instinct to compete and get ahead...regardless of some fool's idea that serving/subsidizing the weak links in our human chain...will end up in prosperity. Which would be a LUDICROUS and suicidal assumption.
The 'Law', is not for people like you and me, PO...we take care to contemplate Reality, weight the Spirit and the World, and act accordingly. "If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the Law" (biblical). The Law is for heathen...we adopt it, and live it as to not be hypocritical and cause the masses to lose faith...and go ROGUE.
It is my BELIEF that Judeo-Christian Principles are beneficial for Individuals and the Collective. If an individual truly believes that their beliefs and actions are monitored/judged by God, according to a Universal Law wherein the ultimate aim is an eternal existence in the presence of perfect Love, and that at the end of this life, said individual will "reap according to that which he has sewn"...then the benefits to society and the individual who polices themselves, for the cause of Love and prosperity will be far greater that an individual/collective that believes that it's one life...and done. Forever.
The latter belief is so (psychologically) problematic, as such relates to a - (most, not all) harmonic individual and society, that the effects of disbelief are apt to be calamitous.
As such, I am drawn to the old model upon which the founding of this Nation was borne. They believed that the DUTY of Government was to oversee the Religion (Principles) and see that they were not corrupted. As those who hold power, were apt to be. And that those (Religious) Principles - the First being God and individual accountability - be taught as THE most critical base of a successful society.
This is the model that I would think to be the best shot at prolonged societal prosperity. Otherwise we are herding cats with the Natural instinct to compete and get ahead...regardless of some fool's idea that serving/subsidizing the weak links in our human chain...will end up in prosperity. Which would be a LUDICROUS and suicidal assumption.
The 'Law', is not for people like you and me, PO...we take care to contemplate Reality, weight the Spirit and the World, and act accordingly. "If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the Law" (biblical). The Law is for heathen...we adopt it, and live it as to not be hypocritical and cause the masses to lose faith...and go ROGUE.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 3:04 pm to RCDfan1950
This has been a pretty interesting, informative and reasonably well-debated thread. Fun to read.
I think several of you would enjoy reading the different theories of the social contract advanced by Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau; to wit, whether we are all born with certain inalienable rights/freedoms that the government is there to protect, or whether we only acquire those rights/freedoms through our participation in society which necessarily compels us to give up certain freedoms to acquire others granted by society.
I think several of you would enjoy reading the different theories of the social contract advanced by Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau; to wit, whether we are all born with certain inalienable rights/freedoms that the government is there to protect, or whether we only acquire those rights/freedoms through our participation in society which necessarily compels us to give up certain freedoms to acquire others granted by society.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 3:47 pm to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
There's a difference in choosing to live a certain way based on your own moral beliefs and religious ideals compared to forcing those beliefs onto others.
In one of your earlier post in this thread you stated that voting is a right. When Prop 8 passed by a vote of the people, then you should have supported it as law since it came from one of our "rights." What you did was support the removal of that right of the people because the vote didn't go the way you wished.
Marriage is not what this has ever been about. It's more about taking the rights of others away (like the above and suing the small businesses that won't make wedding cakes, provide services and their hotels, etc for gay weddings because they go against the owners religious beliefs. You are very silent about those suits that are trampling on the first amendment rights of others.
BTW, those who say religion should not be in politics should be appalled with the dems a lot more since they use it to promote all their welfare policies from social security to housing and food stamps.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 4:44 pm to bamafan1001
quote:
6) Many on the Christian right are more Libertarian than you probably think.
I doubt that VERY seriously.
The Christian Right is no different than the Prog Left in terms of their view of the role of government. Whereas the American Left want to ban coal, ban plastic bags, limit the size of houses people live in, prosecute people for "hate crimes", redistribute wealth, and brainwash our kids into PC fairness drones, the Christian Right would use government to force church attendance, ban alcohol, ban porn, teach kids creationism, mandate prayer times, close businesses on Sundays, and prosecute people for blasphemy.
Two sides of the same coin, really.
Posted on 2/13/14 at 4:53 pm to Cooter Davenport
quote:
the Christian Right would use government to force church attendance
Posted on 2/13/14 at 5:11 pm to Cooter Davenport
quote:
I doubt that VERY seriously. The Christian Right is no different than the Prog Left in terms of their view of the role of government. Whereas the American Left want to ban coal, ban plastic bags, limit the size of houses people live in, prosecute people for "hate crimes", redistribute wealth, and brainwash our kids into PC fairness drones, the Christian Right would use government to force church attendance, ban alcohol, ban porn, teach kids creationism, mandate prayer times, close businesses on Sundays, and prosecute people for blasphemy. Two sides of the same coin, really.
The 'Christian Right', DID control the government since it's inception, CD...and though they did toy with Prohibition, and realize the folly of it...all those other totalitarian mandates that you point to were never codified into Law by the Fed...but were never disallowed by Local government either. Per the Constitutional principle of "make NO law forbidding the practice thereof (religion)".
The Founders (their immediate forebears) had just taken an arse-kicking from British Theocrats...and would have none of an autocratic State Religion. Yet they recognized the value and necessity of Religion (religious principles), as such relates to humanity and the Judeo-Christian paradigm, and were intent on defining, perfecting and promoting good religion.
I would never ban your right to porn...but I don't think you should be able to walk in public with your big ole whanger hangin out your pants and shock my young'uns. Or make me feel inadequate.
Nor would I think any Church would force you to be there if you thought they were idiots.
And I do believe that THEISTIC EVOLUTION (the God a Prime Source theory) should be taught merely as a theory, along side the Secular (no God) Something-From-Nothing theory. Give em' both sides...and let em' chose when they grow up. That's what I got, and I threw off the simplistic version of Christianity, until I did the work to justify belief in the more complex version.
Book it. The TWO SIDES of the fight for dominance that we are now in...are far from the same. Christians will never send jack boots into your home if you don't donate to THEIR cause of charity...because charity MUST be an act of the personal will/heart. Or it is worthless, toward perfecting your spirit and advancing toward the 'kingdom that is WITHIN". But the Authoritarian Socialist damn sure will; and believe it is their moral duty to do so. And they'll whack you if you resist. Check out the last Century.
This post was edited on 2/13/14 at 5:13 pm
Posted on 2/13/14 at 8:33 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The biggest obstacles US corporations face are high taxes, onerous regulation, and asymmetric enforcement of both. Libertarians are for reduction or elimination of all of those. So whereas larger entrenched, monied companies might have a preference for BigGovernment they can lobby and control, small, medium, and upcoming businesses generally have no such compunction.
This may be true to some degree however these smaller corporations don't have nearly as deep of pockets.
In regard to the OP and Christian Libertarians. If you're talking about Tom Woods, Judge Andrew Napolitano, and Ron Paul level of Libertarians I as an atheist admire these guys and certainly wish there were more of them! I'd love to sit and have a beer with the Judge and talk poly ticks any day.
Page 9 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News