The Perversion of Libertarianism

[HisServant]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So true, but what about those who don't wish to be free? Should we abolish government (which was ordained by God to rule righteously) and let anarchy rule? Or perhaps we should allow government to continue to be run by secular humanists who want to keep things like abortion, homosexuality and pornography legal?




I think that we can establish that you are an anarchist.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anarchy?s=t

Do believe that God is one?

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So you're perfectly fine with 58 million unborn babies being murdered in the womb in a 43 year span? You're perfectly fine with young children being indoctrinated to the ways of perversion via the homosexual agenda?
You're perfectly fine with families being destroyed by pornography and recreational drug use?



If God had only ordained one institution to govern man (the Church) you'd have a point, but He didn't. Civil government has a role to legislate righteously and enforce those laws so that they will help morally confused people.

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I don't know if you worship the same God as I do, but His 2nd greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as you'd love yourself. How can you love your neighbor if you're encouraging immoral behavior through immoral laws?


While I normally don't spend too much time with the "My church is better than your church!" crowd, I'm making an exception for you.

If you believe that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, God in the flesh is an anarchist like yourself and doesn't believe in the rule of law, then make your case (show me where he went to the civil magistrates and demanded that all civil laws be renounced).

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

The thought of someone being the President of the United States who doesn't go to my church is horrifying (sarcasm). I guess you're not overly concerned with the guy who has held the Office for the past 8 years and spent 20 years before that in a "Black Liberation Theology" church?



Undone by who? Remember that you're an anarchist and can't expect righteous leaders to undo immoral legislation (and let me help you with your history: legal abortion has been around 35 years before B. Hussein Obama became President).

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Since God ordained civil government as one of three institutions for the governance of man (the family and Church being the other two), I don't understand why Christians such as yourself don't acknowledge the other institutions that God ordained.
Jesus did nothing to change the Pagan government of his time... you would have a beef with him too. As far as the 'church' governing, since no church currently operating today operates in a manner as shown in scripture, I find that an interesting statement.



Did He ever encourage homosexual 'marriage'?

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Anyway, thanks for stopping by, this thread was created for those who wish to defend the godlessness of the current Libertarian movement, not the "My church is better than your church!" crowd.



My Bible has a lot of passages and verses about the role of civil government. Anytime that you want to get together and view them give me a holler.

I am not an Antichrist at all, I believe that the Government has the responsibility of protecting its citizens from one another and our country from foreign invasion.

Our constitution also limits government, you seem to want to expand it greatly.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I am not an Antichrist at all...

I said anarchist, not antichrist.

I believe that the Government has the responsibility of protecting its citizens from one another...

That's a pretty broad statement, but let's go with that. How is the government protecting innocent children that are being indoctrinated by the homosexual agenda? How is the government protecting the rights of parents who have no say in many states that give their child who is a minor the supposed "right" to get an abortion or have genital mutilation surgery to physically become a member of the opposite sex?

Our constitution also limits government, you seem to want to expand it greatly.

You mean the constitution that was written "only for a moral and religious people"?

Why do you defend perversion and have the audacity to call yourself a follower of Christ?

 

[cellist]

As I recall we left off in another thread where you defended not only homosexuality, but a daughter having sex (as long as it was 'consensual') with her father (I warned you folks, go out buy some delousing powder immediately if you're going to follow this thread).

How about sex with animals? How do Libertarians feel about that?

Before I answer your theoretical post, let's establish how sick (perverted) the Libertarian movement is by wanting to legalize (and keep legal) things like homosexuality, incest, recreational drug use, prostitution, suicide, etc. etc. etc.

Welcome to reality cellist: Your godless doctrine destroys lives and nations and I'm not going to allow you to ignore that fact.

Another emotion appeal without argument.

 

[HisServant]

I said anarchist, not antichrist.



That's a pretty broad statement, but let's go with that. How is the government protecting innocent children that are being indoctrinated by the homosexual agenda? How is the government protecting the rights of parents who have no say in many states that give their child who is a minor the supposed "right" to get an abortion or have genital mutilation surgery to physically become a member of the opposite sex?



You mean the constitution that was written "only for a moral and religious people"?

Why do you defend perversion and have the audacity to call yourself a follower of Christ?

I follow Christ, you do not.... lets just get that perfectly straight.. You only follow Christ when it suits your political agenda.

Its the parents job to raise up their children to understand when the educational system is teaching them BS or indoctrinating them. Who cares about the homosexual agenda... ones sexual preference is and always be a choice that one then acts on. As a parent, you have a duty to educate them about that choice.

Children under the age of consent should have the absolute last say as to whether their children have an abortion or decide to mutilate themselves, once they reach 18, they should be free to do what they want and if they decide to, you can consider yourself a failure as a parent.

 

[cellist]

The problem is aCultureWarrior, is that you think in making these various sexual sins illegal they are going to result in people actually changing their behavior and lifestyles. The minuscule amount of difference they would make, if any, isn't worth the precedent set for the state to take away self ownership. The precedent for me is more dangerous than the sexual sins you are obsessed with - and boy, are you obsessed!

 

[HisServant]

The problem is aCultureWarrior, is that you think in making these various sexual sins illegal they are going to result in people actually changing their behavior and lifestyles. The minuscule amount of difference they would make, if any, isn't worth the precedent set for the state to take away self ownership. The precedent for me is more dangerous than the sexual sins you are obsessed with - and boy, are you obsessed!

usually, people this obsessed end up caught doing them... I am worried about him.

 

[TomO]

The problem is aCultureWarrior, is that you think in making these various sexual sins illegal they are going to result in people actually changing their behavior and lifestyles. The minuscule amount of difference they would make, if any, isn't worth the precedent set for the state to take away self ownership. The precedent for me is more dangerous than the sexual sins you are obsessed with - and boy, are you obsessed!

Oh, he's got bigger problems than that. lain:

 

[cellist]

usually, people this obsessed end up caught doing them... I am worried about him.

Oh, he's got bigger problems than that. lain:

I hope not! But I have never been involved in a discussion or debate on this topic that focused so much on sexual behavior! It's kind of weird.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

The problem is aCultureWarrior, is that you think in making these various sexual sins illegal they are going to result in people actually changing their behavior and lifestyles. The minuscule amount of difference they would make, if any, isn't worth the precedent set for the state to take away self ownership. The precedent for me is more dangerous than the sexual sins you are obsessed with - and boy, are you obsessed!

Let's say that one of those homosexuals that you're so fond about decides to rape a little boy (which is quite common in LGBT movement). If they're put away someplace where they can't have access to children, wouldn't that make a huge difference (as opposed to a miniscule one) as to their behavior and lifestyle?

Now this is the part of the show where you say things like "But children can't give consent to be sodomized" and I reply "You're borrowing off of Judeo-Christian doctrine, because the Greeks and other pagan-run nations never relied on "consent".

Oh and by the way cellist: When can we talk about the Libertarian stance on bestiality?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

...I have never been involved in a discussion or debate on this topic that focused so much on sexual behavior reality! It's kind of weird.

Fixed that for ya.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I hope not! But I have never been involved in a discussion or debate on this topic that focused so much on sexual behavior! It's kind of weird.

Well the guy does have a four year ongoing thread about homosexuality...

 

[Newman]

"The Perversion of Libertarianism" - aCultureWarrior, formerly ASeattleConservative

"Libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism." - Ronald Reagan, conservative hero

Therefore, aCultureWarrior is a pervert, quod erat demonstrandum.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

"The Perversion of Libertarianism" - aCultureWarrior, formerly ASeattleConservative

"Libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism." - Ronald Reagan, conservative hero

Therefore, aCultureWarrior is a pervert, quod erat demonstrandum.

Welcome to a thread that tells the truth about your cult Newman. I see that you're not attempting to defend the indefensible: godless Libertarianism.

Regarding Ronald Reagan: I'm not popular in many conservative circles because I tell the truth about what Reagan did as Governor of California (promoted abortion, homosexuality, no-fault divorce). In fact I did a segment in Art Brain's favorite thread (Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized Part 1) entitled:

Ronald Reagan: Puppet of the Perverts.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Welcome to a thread that tells the truth about your cult Newman. I see that you're not attempting to defend the indefensible: godless Libertarianism.

Regarding Ronald Reagan: I'm not popular in many conservative circles because I tell the truth about what Reagan did as Governor of California (promoted abortion, homosexuality, no-fault divorce). In fact I did a segment in Art Brain's favorite thread (Why Homosexuality MUST Be Recriminalized Part 1) entitled:

Ronald Reagan: Puppet of the Perverts.

There's only one person who would regard that thread as a favourite, its demented author...

 

[aCultureWarrior]

There's only one person who would regard that thread as a favourite, its demented author...

What are you doing in this thread Art? You don't identify yourself as a Libertarian do you? (a stalker yes, a Libertarian no). Anyway, for those that do and yet still consider themselves 'Christian', let me ask them this question:

Why did God set the standard for human sexuality so early on in The Bible? (Genesis 2:24)

Tis a simple question, and I promise not to ask what the Libertarian position on bestiality is to the person that answers it.

 

[Newman]

The Christian libertarian's position is a simple one: sinfulness (God's expectations for men) =/= illegality (what men enforce on other men). If the two were the same, then everybody would/should be jailed, fined, or executed, for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Moreover, no one is qualified to be the judge, jailer, or executioner in such a world. To claim otherwise is to violate the 1st and 2nd commandment, which means you are now subject to the same punishment you wish to mete out to other sinners.

aCultureWarrior seems to operate under the impression that if an individual would like A to be legal, then they must be a proponent of A. There is no logic to this. aCultureWarrior certainly dislikes some things but would not argue for making them illegal. In fact, violently enforcing your own preferences is sinful (show me where Jesus advocated "hold swords at people's throats until they act like we want them to"), yet this what everybody does when they make the government do the violence for them.

It is the same fallacy that many others make, when saying that if a libertarian doesn't want the government to do something, they must hate that thing. Education, healthcare, welfare, etc. come to mind as common examples of this. Obviously libertarians are in favor of education, healthcare, voluntary charity, roads, a clean environment, mail delivery, technology, trade, and even culture, art, marriage, worship, general trust in each other, kindness, and generosity. Christian libertarians will also be in favor of a Godly society, marriage within the bounds of Scripture, sobriety, modesty, humility, and self-control. Libertarians just do not want any of these managed or enforced by a violent, bureaucratic organization.

The role of government for any libertarian is to prevent and deal with violence, not instigate it. Violence is the initiation of force against someone else's person or property. People can and should form organizations/firms/institutions that both discourage and removes such threats. Whether you call such entities "governments", "insurance companies", "private police", or whatever depends on the libertarian you are talking to.

You may be surprised to hear that some Christian libertarians may be proponents of rules or laws against so-called "homosexual marriage", pornography, alcohol and other substances, and all sorts of things statists like aCultureWarrior want to be illegal. These positions can be consistent with libertarianism under one very simple condition: everyone subject to the rule agrees to be subject to the rule and the consequences for breaking the rule. We subject ourselves voluntarily to various rules all the time, like when we visit private businesses, or other people's homes. HOAs are another good example. In these cases, nobody is initiating violence to enforce some rule, but instead is making good on some voluntary contract.

Along these lines, I imagine aCultureWarrior is in total agreement, albeit unsuspectingly. For aCW only seems to care about US law and government, and not international law. Why should aCW stop at making marijuana illegal in the US? If it's sinful here, then it's sinful everywhere, yet we never see aCW argue for some global government that enforces Godly living on everybody. The reason is clear: aCW has no more authority to dictate aCW's preferences on your average Ethiopian as aCW does on aCW's own neighbor. As such, any delegation of such incorrectly assumed authority is null and void, UNLESS aCW and the Ethiopian or aCW and the neighbor come into some voluntary agreement to act in a certain way, or else certain consequences are in order.

This is all any libertarian wants: voluntary interaction between men, not violence. Libertarians simply apply this very agreeable dictum one step further than most others. The government does not get a pass on initiating violence. Beyond this, people can join and form whatever sort of society they prefer. Christian libertarians would choose one marked by the characteristics listed above, except of course to preach the Gospel to the lost in the areas whose people have not chosen such a society.

Edit -- Prediction: aCW will not respond to the substance of any of this. Instead, aCW will pick up on some of these words and twist it into some sort of insult. aCW will also accuse me of being gay, or a stoner, or both. aCW will only tangentially refer to what I've said, and not actually counter any point I've made. This is the only thing aCW can do, because aCW is totally incapable of reading, thinking, and responding. aCW is only capable of visceral reactions, in my experience.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Boy Newman, that was quite a post. Instead of spending a lot a bit of time responding to the entire post, how about I pick out one point at a time? Let's start with the most important part, the role of civil government.

The role of government for any libertarian is to prevent and deal with violence, not instigate it. Violence is the initiation of force against someone else's person or property. People can and should form organizations/firms/institutions that both discourage and removes such threats. Whether you call such entities "governments", "insurance companies", "private police", or whatever depends on the libertarian you are talking to.

Where did this basis ( "The role of government for any libertarian is to prevent and deal with violence, not instigate it.") come from? It most certainly didn't come from the Bible, as nowhere will you see that government was ordained by God solely do deal with violence.

Romans 13:4 For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

As you can see, civil government is given the authority to, as you say, "instigate violence" (use the force of the sword, i.e. arrest the perpetrator of a criminal act and have them go through the criminal justice system) towards the wrongdoer.

1 Peter 2:13-14 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.

"...punishment of evildoers and praise of those who do right". Not complicated.

Exodus 18:21 "Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens.

"Men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain..."; again, no mention of the role of government being solely to "prevent and deal with violence".

Titus 3:1 Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed.

"To be ready for every good deed".

Address the above and then after we're finished discussing that we'll move onto the next point that you made.

 

[Newman]

Boy Newman, that was quite a post. Instead of spending a lot a bit of time responding to the entire post, how about I pick out one point at a time? Let's start with the most important part, the role of civil government.

I appreciate your engagement.

Where did this basis ( "The role of government for any libertarian is to prevent and deal with violence, not instigate it.") come from? It most certainly didn't come from the Bible, as nowhere will you see that government was ordained by God solely do deal with violence.

It's a proposition, just like any other. Some propose an active government tasked with eliminating all risk in life, others propose a government that prohibits some things and not others, still more propose a government that redistributes wealth, and so on. There are many proposals for the "best kind of government" in terms of its size, scope, and responsibilities. All of them just boil down to preferences. I prefer one kind of government, somebody else prefers another. The reasons people prefer some things to others are too numerous to count.

My preference for a government is what it is because of my view of what violence is, what the Bible says, what is logical, etc. These all mutually lend themselves to a political ideology, but without any internal inconsistencies (what is non-violent is Christian, what is logical is non-violent, what is Christian is logical, etc.--there aren't any "conundrums" here, in my view).

Romans 13:4 For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

As you can see, civil government is given the authority to, as you say, "instigate violence" (use the force of the sword, i.e. arrest the perpetrator of a criminal act and have them go through the criminal justice system) towards the wrongdoer.

I fully affirm this passage and the others. Christians should submit themselves to each other and authority figures (most of the time -- we can always come up with exceptions, like Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego rightly disobeying Nebuchadnezzar's order to worship the golden statue, or would you say they should have submitted to Neb?).

I don't think it is eisegetical to interpret "God's servant for your good" as a legitimate authority figure, i.e., one that has legitimate authority, meaning all the authority that has been delegated to him came from the people that originally have that authority. Nor is it any stretch to interpret "wrong" or "wrongdoer" as a crime and the criminal--which may be defined by whatever political unit. Notice Paul is very vague when he says we should obey the law for our own good.

I would posit that just because some organization calls themselves a legitimate government does not make them one. By that I mean, wearing a badge or sitting in a certain office in DC does not make you the Godly civil government Paul outlines here and elsewhere. This shouldn't be controversial--would you say that everyone who calls themselves "married" is actually in a God-ordained marriage? Man is very good at corrupting God's institutions. To suppose that somehow we have maintained Godly governance throughout the ages seems overly optimistic, even naive.

Of course, as Christians we are charged to go one step further always (Luke 6:27-36). We are to love our friends and our enemies. We should submit to authorities we deem legitimate and illegitimate, as long as our submission does not cause us to worship a golden statue, so to speak.

I'm not suggesting armed resistance (of course rare exceptions can be made). I'm suggesting a different way to do government, and while it's radically different than the current set up, it's not against Biblical teaching.

1 Peter 2:13-14 Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.

"...punishment of evildoers and praise of those who do right". Not complicated.

Exodus 18:21 "Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens.

"Men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain..."; again, no mention of the role of government being solely to "prevent and deal with violence".

Titus 3:1 Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed.

"To be ready for every good deed".

Address the above and then after we're finished discussing that we'll move onto the next point that you made.

I think what I've said already covers everything here. I'm not advocating disobedience (except rare cases).

For example: in my ideal society, marijuana would be treated similar to alcohol (maybe even to a lesser degree--I think alcohol may be more dangerous). If somebody wants to set up shop in my town, they would have to sign a contract saying they will not sell either substance to children. If somebody chooses to drive on the roads in my town, they have to sign a contract that includes prohibitions on driving under the influence of mind-altering substances, etc. If somebody doesn't like these rules, they can go to a different neighborhood to set up shop, or they can drive around this neighborhood. One major condition for the rule is that everybody in this town/neighborhood/area agrees to the rule.

HOWEVER, given these preferences I have, I would not advocate disobedience of current laws. See the difference? I can tolerate something that is currently illegal, but not advocate for others to disobey the law. There is nothing wrong with this. The inverse is equally acceptable. I can dislike something that is currently legal, but still advocate for others to abstain from the action, even though it is legal.

 

[The Horn]

I agree with libertarianism on some things but not on others . I believe people should be free to do whatever they choose as long as they do not harm or kill others or create a public nuisance (not the same thing as abortion which is a woman's choice ) .
I believe the government MUST stay out of people's bedrooms and women's reproductive organs .
But I vehemently disagree with libertarianism about allowing total laissez-faire economic policies and privatization of everything , eliminating government programs to help those in need and
getting rid of all or most government regulations on business and environmental protection .
All this lack of regulation and elimination of taxes etc sounds great in theory but is catastrophic in practice for public health and safety .

 

[ok doser]

I agree with libertarianism on some things but not on others . I believe people should be free to do whatever they choose as long as they do not harm or kill others...

except for these guys, right?

View attachment 23625

if it's helpless little babies you don't give a crap