Conservatives Against Liberty

[aCultureWarrior]

“Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers! Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather [let yourselves] be cheated?”

Next.....

(Did drbrumley say that civil leaders should be saints? That's quite a stretch from the orange haired rainbow flag waving degenerate that we currently call President, but some saintly public officials is a great idea to help get us out of this mess Libertarians have gotten us into).

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Our government forbids the establishment of religion.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the moral foundation criminal laws are based upon.

In most cases. From time to time, lawmakers try to slip in their religious agendas, and the courts have to invalidate those.

Spoken like a Libertarian.

Well, thank you. I'm not a complete libertarian, but I find myself leaning that way when things get difficult.

I'd say that unless harm is done to someone or something (the moral fiber of a nation)

As the founders argued, the moral fiber of the nation is properly the concern of the family and of religion, things the State should not be involved in, other than to assure the freedom of the individual.

Yes, rebellion against righteous laws and a civil government that uses God's Word when it comes to legislating those laws is definitely a rebellion against God.

If you believe that, you're going to be continuously angry in America. Our stated principles are against that sort of encroachment on liberty.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the moral foundation criminal laws are based upon.

In most cases. From time to time, lawmakers try to slip in their religious agendas, and the courts have to invalidate those.

So true! Amongst other things, "the courts" have invalidated State laws dealing with abortion and homosexuality and hence rulings such as Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges are "the law of the land" ( i.e. dead unborn babies in the 10's of millions; HIV/AIDS running rampant, institutions destroyed, and let's not forget "Drag Queen Story Hour" where convicted pedophiles get to indoctrinate children to the ways of sexual perversion: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/s...eader-exposed-as-convicted-child-sex-offender ).

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Spoken like a Libertarian.

Well, thank you. I'm not a complete libertarian, but I find myself leaning that way when things get difficult.

If you say things like "It's MY body and I can do with it as I please!" and support things like homosexuality and recreational drug use, you can call yourself a Libertarian. Some say that you need to be a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party, but if you can't come up with the 25 cent membership fee, I'm sure they'll overlook that.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
I'd say that unless harm is done to someone or something (the moral fiber of a nation)...

As the founders argued, the moral fiber of the nation is properly the concern of the family and of religion, things the State should not be involved in, other than to assure the freedom of the individual.

If you're talking about Libertarian "founders" like Murray Rothbard who justified in his writings parents starving their handicapped baby to death, then no, those founders weren't concerned with government being involved in the moral fiber of this nation.
If you're talking about the nation's Founding Fathers and their stance on things like urinating in public, defecating in public, nudity in public, drunkenness in public, things where there are no identifiable "victims" per se, they didn't look at those behaviors as "liberty", but being enslaved to sin.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Yes, rebellion against righteous laws and a civil government that uses God's Word when it comes to legislating those laws is definitely a rebellion against God.

If you believe that, you're going to be continuously angry in America. Our stated principles are against that sort of encroachment on liberty.

I'm not sure if I'm more angry or disappointed that perverts are in control of this nation, I'll have to get back to you on that one. God's wrath on a nation and the people of that nation who abandon His Word is what I'm talking about.
Romans 1: 18

 

[The Barbarian]

If had to pick the government that would be least likely to descend into corruption and evil, there's no question that I would pick brumley's ideal state over yours.

His has been tried rarely, if ever, but unlike yours, it has no history of corruption, brutality, slavery, and unGodliness.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

If had to pick the government that would be least likely to descend into corruption and evil, there's no question that I would pick brumley's ideal state over yours.

Allow me to correct your typographical error:

...there's no question that I would pick brumley's ideal state over yours God's.

All credit goes to God for creating the institution of civil government.

His has been tried rarely, if ever, but unlike yours, it has no history of corruption, brutality, slavery, and unGodliness.

It's currently being "tried". Abortion, homosexuality, drug abuse, alcoholism, pornography, etc. etc. etc....disease, misery and death. Sounds pretty corrupt and brutal to me. But then Libertarians are enslaved to sin and want to enslave others as well because of their "unGodliness".

 

[The Barbarian]

And here's the problem, clearly demonstrated for us:

Allow me to correct your typographical error:

...there's no question that I would pick brumley's ideal state over yours God's.

He can't tell the difference between what he wants and what God wants. Which is exactly why we don't want people like him making the rules.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

He can't tell the difference between what he wants and what God wants. Which is exactly why we don't want people like him making the rules.

I thought it was pretty clear on what God wants from civil government from the numerous times I posted Romans 13:4:

"...agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

Granted, what you Libertarians believe is wrong and what God's Word says is wrong are entirely different.

 

[The Barbarian]

Granted, what you statists believe is wrong and what God's Word says is wrong are entirely different.

What I don't understand is, if the society envisioned by the founders of America is so repulsive to you, why stay here?

 

[Gary K]

OK, fine... I disagree with most of those libertarians. But my point still stands that the basis of liberty stands.


I don't condone sin in any way. But I do advocate liberty and free exchange of goods and services without coercion or force.

Then we hold pretty much the same position. But those libertarian positions are why I do not associate myself with libertarianism for libertarianism supports things the Bible condemns and I will not identify myself with any political party that endorses them. I see doing that as giving tacit consent to those issues.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by Right Divider
OK, fine... I disagree with most of those libertarians. But my point still stands that the basis of liberty stands.


I don't condone sin in any way. But I do advocate liberty and free exchange of goods and services without coercion or force.

Then we hold pretty much the same position. But those libertarian positions are why I do not associate myself with libertarianism for libertarianism supports things the Bible condemns and I will not identify myself with any political party that endorses them. I see doing that as giving tacit consent to those issues.

You identify with the false definition of liberty (i.e. the supposed freedom to do with one's body or property as he or she pleases) but don't want to identify with a political movement that attempts to legislate that false ideology?

True freedom comes through Jesus Christ, and He created civil government as one of three institutions to govern mankind so mankind wouldn't become enslaved to sin. The threat of "force" is what government was designed by God to do.

 

[Right Divider]

Then we hold pretty much the same position. But those libertarian positions are why I do not associate myself with libertarianism for libertarianism supports things the Bible condemns and I will not identify myself with any political party that endorses them. I see doing that as giving tacit consent to those issues.

I don't support any political party. They are ALL horrible.

It's too bad that people cannot understand that the libertarian ideal is based on liberty and not the political party that uses the name.

 

[Gary K]

I don't support any political party. They are ALL horrible.

It's too bad that people cannot understand that the libertarian ideal is based on liberty and not the political party that uses the name.

The problem for me is that libertarians hold positions that are both for and against liberty. Any time support is given to a position that is immoral it undermines liberty for morality is a must for liberty to prosper. The quote found in my signature says it well: “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.” That is not a popular concept among libertarians. It's true that Hayek supported that, but a lot of libertarians do not.

 

[Gary K]

Originally Posted by Right Divider
OK, fine... I disagree with most of those libertarians. But my point still stands that the basis of liberty stands.


I don't condone sin in any way. But I do advocate liberty and free exchange of goods and services without coercion or force.



You identify with the false definition of liberty (i.e. the supposed freedom to do with one's body or property as he or she pleases) but don't want to identify with a political movement that attempts to legislate that false ideology?

True freedom comes through Jesus Christ, and He created civil government as one of three institutions to govern mankind so mankind wouldn't become enslaved to sin. The threat of "force" is what government was designed by God to do.

Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
You identify with the false definition of liberty (i.e. the supposed freedom to do with one's body or property as he or she pleases) but don't want to identify with a political movement that attempts to legislate that false ideology?

Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about.

The word "liberty" is misused by Libertarians. I'd ask you to define the word in Libertarian words, but my requests seem to go unanswered.

The latter part of my earlier post states that the Libertarian Party stands for the ideals of Libertarians by legislating those ideals, so it's not understood why someone who identifies themselves as a libertarian would want to distance themselves from the Libertarian Party.

 

[Gary K]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
You identify with the false definition of liberty (i.e. the supposed freedom to do with one's body or property as he or she pleases) but don't want to identify with a political movement that attempts to legislate that false ideology?



The word "liberty" is misused by Libertarians. I'd ask you to define the word in Libertarian words, but my requests seem to go unanswered.

The latter part of my earlier post states that the Libertarian Party stands for the ideals of Libertarians by legislating those ideals, so it's not understood why someone who identifies themselves as a libertarian would want to distance themselves from the Libertarian Party.

Where do you get the idea that I identify myself as a libertarian? I've never said that. I said I agree with their fiscal ideas as taught by Hayek and von Mises, but that I take exception to their social agenda. I've said at least a couple of times on this thread that I could never be a libertarian but you, for whatever obscure reasoning you have, read "never be a libertarian" as I am a libertarian. I guess you have some type of reading comprehension problem.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
The word "liberty" is misused by Libertarians. I'd ask you to define the word in Libertarian words, but my requests seem to go unanswered.

The latter part of my earlier post states that the Libertarian Party stands for the ideals of Libertarians by legislating those ideals, so it's not understood why someone who identifies themselves as a libertarian would want to distance themselves from the Libertarian Party.

Where do you get the idea that I identify myself as a libertarian? I've never said that. I said I agree with their fiscal ideas as taught by Hayek and von Mises, but that I take exception to their social agenda.

Here:

The problem for me is that libertarians hold positions that are both for and against liberty...

Define the word "liberty". If it's the freedom to do with one's body as he or she pleases, then it's enslavement to sin, not "liberty".

Regarding private property rights: If the word "liberty" is the belief that a person can make use of their property anyway that they see fit, then that's not liberty either, it's using property to promote sin.

Where do you stand?

 

[Gary K]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
The word "liberty" is misused by Libertarians. I'd ask you to define the word in Libertarian words, but my requests seem to go unanswered.

The latter part of my earlier post states that the Libertarian Party stands for the ideals of Libertarians by legislating those ideals, so it's not understood why someone who identifies themselves as a libertarian would want to distance themselves from the Libertarian Party.



Here:



Define the word "liberty". If it's the freedom to do with one's body as he or she pleases, then it's enslavement to sin, not "liberty".

Regarding private property rights: If the word "liberty" is the belief that a person can make use of their property anyway that they see fit, then that's not liberty either, it's using property to promote sin.

Where do you stand?

***shakes head in disbelief***

I have stated on this thread again and again that libertarians hold positions that are defiance to God for they take social positions approving of that which God condemns. I have also stated again and again that license and liberty are two separate ideas and concepts and that to conflate them is a fatal error.

Property rights are economic rights. If I cannot choose to use my property as I please, then the government owns it in fact. He who controls something is the owner of it. If I pay for a car but someone else tells me when, where, and how I can use it, and I have little or no say when, where, and how I can use the car I paid for then it isn't "my car". You're once again off on "the government is God" theme. Ownership implies control of said property. The only places that has not been true have been under totalitarian rule where the government decides ownership of everyone's property in favor of itself. There is an aspect of morality here too. It's the aspect Jesus said hangs on all the "law and the prophets". You know, the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

God set up ancient Israel this way. He held that the individual's property rights were so sacrosanct that it was impossible for an Israelite to lose his land forever. It returned to the owner at the end of the jubilee whether that was 49 years in the future or a couple of months in the future from when an Israelite was forced to sell it to pay his bills. You're at the opposite end of the spectrum in that, as far as you're concerned, a property owner has zero rights to do what he wants with his land. In your mind the government has usurped his rights.

 

[Gary K]

Here is Ben Franklin linking freedom of speech and property rights together as the foundation of liberty.This quote is found at the beginning of the 8th letter from Silence Dogood.

Sir,
I prefer the following Abstract from the London Journal to any Thing of my own, and
therefore shall present it to your Readers this week without any further Preface.

"Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such
Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech; which is the Right of every
Man, as far as by it, he does not hurt or control the Right of another: And this is the
only Check it ought to suffer, and the only Bounds it ought to know.

"This sacred Privilege is so essential to free Governments, that the Security of
Property, and the Freedom of Speech always go together; and in those wretched
Countries where a Man cannot call his Tongue his own, he can scarce call any Thing
else his own. Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by
subduing the Freeness of Speech; a Thing terrible to Public Traitors.

"This Secret was so well known to the Court of King Charles the First, that his wicked
Ministry procured a Proclamation, to forbid the People to talk of Parliaments, which
those Traitors had laid aside. To assert the undoubted Right of the Subject, and defend
his Majesty's legal Prerogative, was called Disaffection, and punished as Sedition.
Nay, People were forbid to talk of Religion in their Families: For the Priests had
combined with the Ministers to cook up Tyranny, and suppress Truth and the Law,
while the late King James, when Duke of York, went avowedly to Mass, Men were
fined, imprisoned and undone, for saying he was a Papist: And that King Charles the
Second might live more securely a Papist, there was an Act of Parliament made,
declaring it Treason to say that he was one.

 

[Right Divider]

The problem for me is that libertarians hold positions that are both for and against liberty. Any time support is given to a position that is immoral it undermines liberty for morality is a must for liberty to prosper. The quote found in my signature says it well: “Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.” That is not a popular concept among libertarians. It's true that Hayek supported that, but a lot of libertarians do not.

Shame on anyone that supports a philosophy that supports immorality.

 

[Gary K]

Shame on anyone that supports a philosophy that supports immorality.

I agree. When we understand that liberty is dependent on both faith and morality it becomes very clear that the Democrats are purely totalitarian in philosophy because they have been attacking morality constantly for the last 5 or 6 decades. The same goes for the RINOs.