The Perversion of Libertarianism

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I'd covered pretty much everything in your first post on page 1 in the other thread, but will so do again one plank at a time.

As I'd shown in the Wallbuilders link, http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissue...les.asp?id=106

you Libertarians are taking John Locke's words out of context, so please don't continue to make one of our highly respected Founding Fathers part of your godless cult.

You are still evading. The point I am making isn't that John Locke is a libertarian per se, as I already mentioned.

The definition of liberty has radically changed for the worse in 200+ years. In John Locke's time liberty meant freedom from sin, you Libertarians have hijacked the word defining it as a freedom to sin.

The Founding Fathers abhorred the things that you Libertarians find acceptable (when I say acceptable, I mean giving it the status of being some kind or "right", thus allowing it to take place without threat of punishment).

The Founders on Homosexuality
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1126


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Regarding self ownership/free will: Man is given free will by God to make decisions. Since man is given free will, he "owns" the choices he makes. Nowhere in Holy Scripture does God say that man is to make bad decisions. It's been established that the righteous role of government is 'to do good as seen through the Eyes of God'. Make your case why things such as homosexuality, abortion, incest, pornography, prostitution and suicide should remain or be legal (based on the Libertarian "self ownership" principle), but make it from a secular humanist perspective, because God abhors such things as does a righteous government that rules with His morals in mind.

No and no again. Free will is not self ownership. This is not difficult aCultureWarrior. Ownership has to do with who is allowed ultimate control of a particular object or, in this case, their own person.

Ok, we'll play by your rules, as it will save time in making my case.

Just think of owning a car. You can do what you like to your own car. It isn't illegal if you decide to take a sledge hammer to it. You can change the oil as much as you like or not. You can leave it in your garage or outside. Why? Because you OWN it. Think of what OWNING something means. OWNERSHIP means sovereign control over an object or, in the case of slavery, a person. We are saying that no other person or institution can claim ownership over another person because that amounts to slavery - period.

You're partially correct. No other person can claim ownership to another person because that amounts to slavery. A righteous government does and justifiably can enslave someone that is committing acts that are harmful to not only others and society as a whole, but to themselves (they're called "correctional facilities").

Now I'll start getting specific here, as much as you Libertarians hate dealing with reality, it's time to do so.

Tell me that a man standing on the railing of a bridge has every "right" in the world to kill himself, and that it's wrong for people to physically pull that man from the bridge and put him in a place (a psychiatric hospital) where he'll get much needed help.

After you tell me that it's wrong, I'll follow up with:

"What if it were your son, brother or father, would your attitude change then?"

Your definition of the role of government is so broad ('to do good as seen through the Eyes of God') that anyone can make it mean whatever they want, including Locke. The government should IN FACT punish people for evil, namely, the evil of denying another the right to self ownership and ownership of their own property.

You've made your own standard for evil (i.e. immoral behavior). It's your and your fellow Libertarians' opinions that self ownership and property rights gives a person the supposed "right" to commit immoral acts. Again, you'll find that nowhere in the Bible nor in our nation's founding documents.

So murder, rape, stealing, fraud, vandalism, polluting, assault, trespassing, etc. would all be punishable.

As they are now. But in your Libertarian world, things like homosexuality, incest, pornography, prostitution, suicide and all recreational drug use would be legal. As we've seen for the past several decades since the decriminalization of abortion, homosexuality and pornography, it's a recipe for anarchy. Regarding murder and assault:

You do realize that dueling/gang warfare is "consensual murder" don't you? Both parties go into the ordeal knowing that one party will die. You do realize that BDSM is "consensual assault" don't you? Surely you wouldn't imprison "consenting adults" just because they're beating up one another?

Your verses say nothing about which sins should be punishable by law - and I think we can both agree that every sin should NOT be punishable by law - and so really are not proof texts against what I and other libertarians are saying. These verses need application and that is where we differ, not on what the text itself is saying.

Sexuality immorality has always been punished by the civil magistrate because of the seriousness of the matter. We've seen what has happened to individuals and society in general since these both immoral (adultery, cohabitation, abortion) and perverse (homosexuality, pornography) behaviors have been decriminalized: Peoples' lives are lost, destroyed and societies valuable institutions (marriage, the family, the Church, Education, youth mentor groups) are redefined to embrace immoral behaviors, not godly ones.

 

[Newman]

What is your definition of the word "right" in your response to cellist (#61)?

If it means ability, then yes--people have the "right" to sin. Humans are able to sin.

If it means one can do the thing and it is moral, then no--people do not have the "right" to sin. Sin is immoral, by definition.

If it means legal, then yes and no--some sins are on the books and some aren't, and this changes depending on where you are. It's illegal to murder, and murder is sin.

If it means one can do the thing without imposing force on others, then yes and no--some sins have a human victim other than the sinner, like murder, while others don't, like harboring anger.

If it means one can do the thing without any consequences at all, then there is no such thing as a right--all actions have consequences.

If it means one can do the thing because they have permission of some organization calling themselves government, then all sorts of things could be rights or not rights--in this case "right" would be an arbitrary distinction.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
First of all let's keep this conversation limited to what the righteous role of civil government is. It's been established that it is to "do good as seen through the Eyes of God", not as seen through the thoughts and actions of moral relativist man.

Agreed. But what about people outside the jurisdiction of this righteous, Godly government? Does this government you are proposing even have limits on its jurisdiction?

Proposing? We had that government for the most part up until the early 1970's when things like abortion and homosexuality were decriminalized. The moral decline continued with no-fault divorce, the decriminalization of adultery and cohabitation laws.

If something is sinful inside the boundaries of this government, then it's sinful outside. What are the limits to what this government can do, if any?

All people are subject to civil laws, even on private property.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

In a constitutional republic such as ours, the populace "consents" when men and women are voted into political office and push their agenda through legislation, i.e. we're all subject to said rules whether we like it or not. If we don't like it, then we do our best to elect people who will legislate our morals.

I would strongly disagree here. Voting =/= consent. If my neighbor comes up to my door and asks if I want to take part in the discussion all my neighbors are having over at his house, and they are discussing whether or not to burn my house down, then I would go try to convince them not to do it, but I wouldn't be consenting to the process or the outcome.

Hence the reason government has to live up to it's role God ordained it for. Regarding your house burning analogy: Here in the US we're supposed to be protected under the Due Process clause. Unfortunately for the unborn, they're not.

Besides, this means that you have incriminated yourself. If voting = consent, and you have voted, then you are guilty of all of the heinous crimes of the US government.

Voting doesn't mean taking rights away from others. You've yet to establish that if sexual perversion is a "right" like you Libertarians seem to think it is, where that "right" originated from.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarriorIf you're backtracking on your previous stance and are now saying that people have some kind of "right" to engage in homosexuality, abortion, incest, pornography, prostitution, recreational drug use and suicide because those acts are taking place on private property, then make your case. If you're claiming that the Libertarian doctrine of "self ownership" ("It's my body and I can damn well do with it as I please!") takes precedent over a righteous government that embraces godly values, then say so.

Please clarify the jurisdiction of this righteous government.

Because you're on your own property, does that give you a supposed "right" to engage in immoral behavior? Is consensual incest permissible just because it's done in a private home? Is assisted suicide permissible in your own home? Again: other than Libertarian doctrine, where does this supposed "right" to engage in immoral behavior come from? It's certainly not biblically based nor based on the writings of our Founding Fathers.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

As an individual I have no authority either by God or man to write and enforce legislation, in fact there's a law that prohibits me from restraining someone that is doing a lawful act (even if it is an immoral act on their part).

Unlawful imprisonment.
(1) A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment if he or she knowingly restrains another person.

(2) Unlawful imprisonment is a class C felony.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.40.040

If you don't believe that government does have that authority, (to arrest, prosecute and imprison law breakers) make your case (I'll then call you an "anarchist").

Sure you do! If you are a homeowner, you make the rules for your house, right? Suppose you invite some guests over, and they begin to behave in a way that displeases you. Don't you have the authority to kick them out? If you own a business, don't you have the authority to set terms for your customers? If they violate your rules, can't you impose consequences on the customer? You do not, however, have the authority to enforce rules on people that have not agreed to follow the rules, either by stepping on your property or signing some contract with you.

It seems we are in agreement here, in terms of who has what authority. This is all it takes for you to call yourself libertarian.

I have rights to my property as long as they are moral. I cannot demand someone to commit an immoral act, or even if they are consenting to it (as in the incest and assisted suicide analogy above) just because it's on my property. Again: I'm aware that is the Libertarian stance, but you have no precedence (biblical or constitutional) behind it.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

The criminal element I would imagine rarely agrees to the laws that they're breaking (unless they're the victim of criminal actions). Your point is irrelevant because not all people are going to agree between what is morally right and morally wrong. That's why our laws must have unchangeable basis of morality (Biblical) behind them.

We have cases of 100% agreement all the time. Whenever you engage in any voluntary interaction with anybody, there is 100% agreement. Whenever you step foot on somebody's property, you consent to follow the property owner's rules, so there is 100% consent. Whenever somebody moves into an HOA, they must sign a contract saying they will follow certain rules, therefore 100% agreement. You and your employer have a contract--100%. You and TOL.com have a contract--100%. Anybody driving on public roads must agree to follow traffic rules first--100%. Etc., etc., etc.

All are based on laws that are written with a strong moral code with the intention of protecting the inhabitants of the respective community. Look at civil government (in it's proper role, along with the family and the Church) as the protector of it's respective community.

100% is far easier to achieve than you imagine. Of course, if you want governments the size of the current United States, this would be tough. But if that's a condition for you to have your righteous government, good luck.

I should be congratulating you Newman. You have the nation that every Libertarian dreams of. Homosexuality, abortion, pornography, recreational drug use: a Libertarian's dream come true when it comes to "self ownership". Unfortunately morally decayed countries don't last long, look at history.

I would rather have the rules/laws I want enforced in my area. People in other areas are outside the jurisdiction of my area, and while I would want them to live God-honoring lives and set up a government-type organization similar to mine, I cannot force them to do so. Just like you can't force Ethiopians, Oregonians, or even unconsenting Seattleites to do your bidding.

While our constitution was written only for a moral and religious people, I believe that these moral issues are best left up to the respective states to decide. Federal legislation (or more like judicial activist SCOTUS rulings) got the US to the cesspool we're currently in with rulings like Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges.



Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

Once I get you to acknowledge that a righteous government has authority over immoral individual behaviors, then we can move on.

Once you clarify the jurisdiction of this government and admit that one can only delegate authority that originates in the one doing the delegating, then I will agree

You have to provide the basis that allegedly gives people a supposed "right" to commit immoral behaviors on their property. Since you have no basis other than godless Libertarian doctrine, explain the benefits to society when a righteous government turns a blind eye to such behaviors (drug dealing, prostitution, 'gay' bathhouses, etc.)

 

[aCultureWarrior]

What is your definition of the word "right" in your response to cellist (#61)?

God-given rights. All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.
http://unalienable.com/

If it means ability, then yes--people have the "right" to sin. Humans are able to sin.

If it means one can do the thing and it is moral, then no--people do not have the "right" to sin. Sin is immoral, by definition.

If it means legal, then yes and no--some sins are on the books and some aren't, and this changes depending on where you are. It's illegal to murder, and murder is sin.

If it means one can do the thing without imposing force on others, then yes and no--some sins have a human victim other than the sinner, like murder, while others don't, like harboring anger.

If it means one can do the thing without any consequences at all, then there is no such thing as a right--all actions have consequences.

If it means one can do the thing because they have permission of some organization calling themselves government, then all sorts of things could be rights or not rights--in this case "right" would be an arbitrary distinction.

All actions have consequences, that's why it's so important that we do our very best to choose the correct ones, be it as individuals or lawmakers legislating laws.

 

[Newman]

Proposing? We had that government for the most part up until the early 1970's when things like abortion and homosexuality were decriminalized. The moral decline continued with no-fault divorce, the decriminalization of adultery and cohabitation laws.

You didn't answer the question. Does your ideal government have any limit on its jurisdiction?

All people are subject to civil laws, even on private property.

Not true. The government does not have to follow its own rules. Ethiopians are not subject to US laws. You are not subject to Sharia law. Oregonians are not subject to Washington state law. Governments, even the tyrannical empires we suffer today, have boundaries, both geographic and in authority. All I'm proposing is smaller jurisdictions. Much smaller. Small enough to allow for 100% consent.

Hence the reason government has to live up to it's role God ordained it for. Regarding your house burning analogy: Here in the US we're supposed to be protected under the Due Process clause. Unfortunately for the unborn, they're not.

I don't follow. Can you explain what this has to do with my claim that voting =/= consent?

Voting doesn't mean taking rights away from others.

Yes it does. If 51% of the US wants so-called "free college", to be paid for by stealing from the other 49%, wouldn't that represent a violation of property rights? If a Supreme Court, full of appointees from Presidents who were elected, via voting, rules that unborn children may be murdered, hasn't voting taken the right to life away from all those children?

You've yet to establish that if sexual perversion is a "right" like you Libertarians seem to think it is, where that "right" originated from.

You are deflecting and you are using the term "right" in an ambiguous way. I don't think sexual perversion is moral, if that is what you are asking. Some kinds of sexual perversion are legal, but others aren't, if that is what you are asking. Humans have the ability to engage in sexual perversion, if that is what you are asking. I would prefer that people abstain from sexual perversion, if that is what you are asking. I would not use violence to keep people from engaging some kinds of sexual perversion, but I would for other kinds (esp. pedophilia and rape), if that is what you are asking.

Because you're on your own property, does that give you a supposed "right" to engage in immoral behavior? Is consensual incest permissible just because it's done in a private home? Is assisted suicide permissible in your own home? Again: other than Libertarian doctrine, where does this supposed "right" to engage in immoral behavior come from? It's certainly not biblically based nor based on the writings of our Founding Fathers.

You keep using this word, "right". But you do not clarify what it means.

Rights can be de facto, meaning one simply has the ability to do something. I have the de facto right to reply to your post. You have the de facto right to say whatever you want. A thief has the de facto right to sell his stolen goods. This is not a very limiting definition of "right", because it is simply a synonym for ability or control, with no regard for what is moral or legal.

Rights can be legal, meaning one has the authority to do something according to what a given law says or what a judge and jury decide in civil cases. Somebody could have the legal right to do something but not the de facto right. The guy who was robbed has the legal right to his stuff, but doesn't currently have it, and so can't use it or control it.

Rights can be "horizontally" moral, meaning one ought to be able to do something without undue repercussions from other humans. We have this kind of right to say whatever we want on the internet. We can commit some sin, and while others may judge, they shouldn't throw you in jail for the sin (depending on the sin).

Rights can be "vertically" moral, meaning the action is not sinful. We have the right to worship God. We have the right to work and rest and play and help others and so on. We do not have the right to blaspheme or worship some idol or covet, etc.

Some actions satisfy all of these. I have the ability to smile (de facto right). I have the legal right to smile (in the US, smiling is allowed). I should be able to smile without others slapping me in the face (moral right). God is ok with me smiling (moral right).

Some only satisfy one, or none, or two or whatever combination. I think you confuse these. A lot.

I have rights to my property as long as they are moral. I cannot demand someone to commit an immoral act, or even if they are consenting to it (as in the incest and assisted suicide analogy above) just because it's on my property. Again: I'm aware that is the Libertarian stance, but you have no precedence (biblical or constitutional) behind it.

Who cares what the Constitution says?

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” - Spooner

All are based on laws that are written with a strong moral code with the intention of protecting the inhabitants of the respective community. Look at civil government (in it's proper role, along with the family and the Church) as the protector of it's respective community.

You do not need rules to make rules. You do not need laws to make contracts.

I should be congratulating you Newman. You have the nation that every Libertarian dreams of. Homosexuality, abortion, pornography, recreational drug use: a Libertarian's dream come true when it comes to "self ownership". Unfortunately morally decayed countries don't last long, look at history.

I'll bite on this one. The US is nowhere near libertarian. Look at the size of the government. Look at all the snooping they do. Look at all the wars, the spending, the welfare, the regulations, the prohibitions, the monopolization, the everything. There are no de facto property rights. The right to life is absolutely in shambles. People cannot live as they would like, even to do moral things like feeding the homeless, gifting inheritance to the next generation, teaching kids the value of work and money by helping them set up a lemonade stand, travelling without being viewed naked or being groped, driving without harassment to see your papers at a police checkpoint. The list is gigantic.

While our constitution was written only for a moral and religious people, I believe that these moral issues are best left up to the respective states to decide. Federal legislation (or more like judicial activist SCOTUS rulings) got the US to the cesspool we're currently in with rulings like Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas and Obergefell v Hodges.

See the Spooner quote above. Be careful thinking about it, though, because it will radically change the way you view the US government.

You have to provide the basis that allegedly gives people a supposed "right" to commit immoral behaviors on their property. Since you have no basis other than godless Libertarian doctrine, explain the benefits to society when a righteous government turns a blind eye to such behaviors (drug dealing, prostitution, 'gay' bathhouses, etc.)

See discussion on "rights" above.

 

[Newman]

God-given rights. All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

Do you realize that you have used the term to be defined in your definition?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

God-given rights. All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

Do you realize that you have used the term to be defined in your definition?

Purposely so. As a representative of the godless Libertarian movement, it's your job to define what rights are and as I've requested so many times before, what is the basis for those supposed "rights" (The Bible? the Constitution of the United States,? LGBTQ doctrine? etc.).

Also: You're straying from the original intent of the thread which deals sexual immorality and the Libertarian definition of self ownership. Either agree that people don't have some kind of "right to engage in those sinful behaviors or defend them. After that we can move onto whether building codes, health codes and zoning laws are justified in society.

 

[drbrumley]

He just can't get past the fact that libertarianism isn't political.

 

[Newman]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

God-given rights. All men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.

Originally Posted by Newman
Do you realize that you have used the term to be defined in your definition?

Purposely so. As a representative of the godless Libertarian movement, it's your job to define what rights are and as I've requested so many times before, what is the basis for those supposed "rights" (The Bible? the Constitution of the United States,? LGBTQ doctrine? etc.).

Also: You're straying from the original intent of the thread which deals sexual immorality and the Libertarian definition of self ownership. Either agree that people don't have some kind of "right to engage in those sinful behaviors or defend them. After that we can move onto whether building codes, health codes and zoning laws are justified in society.

I'll take this as an unofficial concession.

I have offered many different definitions of "right" (*one of such occasions is copied below), while you have argued in circles, by your own admission. I have offered many different claims backing up Christian libertarianism, while you have offered nothing of substance. I have given you many chances to provide substantial criticisms to my claims, you have deflected, ignored, and insulted (the aCW M.O.).

So, until next time.

*Rights can be de facto, meaning one simply has the ability to do something. I have the de facto right to reply to your post. You have the de facto right to say whatever you want. A thief has the de facto right to sell his stolen goods. This is not a very limiting definition of "right", because it is simply a synonym for ability or control, with no regard for what is moral or legal.

Rights can be legal, meaning one has the authority to do something according to what a given law says or what a judge and jury decide in civil cases. Somebody could have the legal right to do something but not the de facto right. The guy who was robbed has the legal right to his stuff, but doesn't currently have it, and so can't use it or control it.

Rights can be "horizontally" moral, meaning one ought to be able to do something without undue repercussions from other humans. We have this kind of right to say whatever we want on the internet. We can commit some sin, and while others may judge, they shouldn't throw you in jail for the sin (depending on the sin).

Rights can be "vertically" moral, meaning the action is not sinful. We have the right to worship God. We have the right to work and rest and play and help others and so on. We do not have the right to blaspheme or worship some idol or covet, etc.

Some actions satisfy all of these. I have the ability to smile (de facto right). I have the legal right to smile (in the US, smiling is allowed). I should be able to smile without others slapping me in the face (moral right). God is ok with me smiling (moral right).

Some only satisfy one, or none, or two or whatever combination. I think you confuse these. A lot.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

He just can't get past the fact that libertarianism isn't political.

Oh how 'he' wishes that the Libertarian movement wasn't political. Instead of pursuing legislation that promotes it's godless agenda, they'd all be sitting around discussing important things like:

I have the ability to smile (de facto right).

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I'll take this as an unofficial concession.

I know my limitations when having a discussion with a Libertarian (they want to talk about anything other than the subject at hand).

I have offered many different definitions of "right" (*one of such occasions is copied below), while you have argued in circles, by your own admission.

I didn't know that I had a defacto right to smile Newman (the things we learn from Libertarians).

I've dealt with your kind for years (hence the term "Loonatarian"). The Libertarian mentally is that if it's legal for me to take an aspirin for the headache that I get from listening to your lunacy, then it should be legal for someone to shoot up heroin.

If I have the right to have a 2nd piece of pie for dessert, then someone else has the right to same sex sodomy.

I've heard all of the Libertarian lunacy before.

I have offered many different claims backing up Christian libertarianism,

The term Christian Libertarianism is an oxymoron, because you fail to acknowledge Jesus' 2 greatest commandments, the 2nd being "love your neighbor as you'd love yourself". It isn't "love" when you promote legislation that allows morally and psychologically confused people to kill themselves. I often use the man standing on the railing of a bridge on the verge of committing suicide as a scenario. Your doctrine states that he has self ownership and that anyone can't forcibly remove him from that bridge because it would be an unjustifiable act of aggression.

Again, I've heard it all before.

while you have offered nothing of substance. I have given you many chances to provide substantial criticisms to my claims, you have deflected, ignored, and insulted (the aCW M.O.).

So, until next time.

When it comes to the insults, I've bitten my tongue in regards to the extreme harm that your godless cult has done to society and how I feel about it.

 

[drbrumley]

suicide is a violent act. your gonna have to do better than that. so your point is moot.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

suicide is a violent act. your gonna have to do better than that. so your point is moot.

Take it up with your political movement that wants suicide/assisted suicide legalized.

Gosh doc, if you start saying that someone can't legally jump off a bridge to their death, the next thing you Libertarians will be saying is that someone can't legally overdose from recreational drugs or knowingly contract HIV/AIDS (it's called "bugchasing").

Either people have "self ownership" ("It's my body and I can do with it as I damn well please!") or they don't.

Don't take my word for it:

1.1 Self-Ownership

Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life.
http://www.lp.org/platform

There ya have it. (But then if we as a nation continue to outlaw suicide, the next thing we'll be doing is outlawing people who smile, which is I'm told a "de facto right").

 

[drbrumley]

Take it up with your political movement that wants suicide/assisted suicide legalized.

Gosh doc, if you start saying that someone can't legally jump off a bridge to their death, the next thing you Libertarians will be saying is that someone can't legally overdose from recreational drugs or knowingly contract HIV/AIDS.

Either people have "self ownership" ("It's my body and I can do with it as I damn well please!") or they don't.

Don't take my word for it:

1.1 Self-Ownership

Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life.
http://www.lp.org/platform

There ya have it. (But then if we as a nation continue to outlaw suicide, the next thing we'll be doing is outlawing people who smile, which is I'm told a "de facto right").

nice try. suicide is intentional. so try again.

so is suicide a violent act, yes or no

 

[aCultureWarrior]

nice try. suicide is intentional. so try again.

so is suicide a violent act, yes or no

"Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life."

Again, take it up with your political party.

Boy doc, you're getting all theocratic on me. If you want to continue to keep suicide illegal, it goes without saying that you want to establish a state religion. Yep, smiling (which is a "de facto right") and religion will have to be government approved if suicide is to remain illegal.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Back to the oxymoron term "Christian Libertarianism".

Wikipedia has an article on "Christian Libertarianism".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_libertarianism

I found this part to be an outright lie (the part I put in bold):

Differences with Christian right

As Jesus did not call upon the political and legal authorities to enforce piety or discourage sinful behavior, Christian libertarians do not believe in a political mandate to Christianize culture. Behavior considered sinful by the Church—but which does not violate the lives, liberty, or property of others—must be disciplined within the Church itself.

According to "Christian Libertarian" doctrine, it appears that Jesus Christ didn't believe in the rule of law when it came to things like adultery, homosexuality, incest and (the topic no Libertarian on TOL seems to want to talk about) bestiality (He was obviously one of those "consensual moralists").

I just don't understand why He didn't go to the Roman authorities and demand that those being incarcerated for those crimes be released.

One TOL'er responded some time ago that Jesus was probably in fear of being persecuted by the Romans for saying something.

Ummmmm...what, like being nailed to a cross?

I have to ask where in Scripture is the Church authorized to do anything to it's sinful members other than banish them for their respected church? And how about those that don't attend church services, who is to punish them for immoral behaviors?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

An excellent article by a Christian lady entitled:

No, we are not all libertarians

March 30, 2013

By Sylvia Thompson

In response to an article posted on 3/19/2013, written by Jacob Perry for the Conservative Intelligence Briefing blog, I penned the following statement. Perry's article is titled "We're All Libertarians Now." I say resoundingly, "No, we are not."

As a conservative Christian, I oppose libertarianism and conclude that it is impractical primarily because it is a godless ideology. As Mr. Perry indicated in his article, Libertarians hold that moral issues have no place in governing but should be left to the church.

That is not, however, the position of the Founders of the United States. They based the Constitution upon Judeo-Christian principles (and this is historical fact). Without those principles, the Constitution is an unworkable tool, as some of the Founders so aptly acknowledged in their writings. In a similar vein, capitalism devoid of Judeo-Christian underpinnings is as unworkable as socialism. The Constitution was not written for a godless people.

It is the godless quality of libertarianism that will not fly with most Americans. That's not to say that all who embrace libertarianism are themselves godless, but their ideology makes no connection to God. Traditional conservatism does make that connection. The difference between these two ideologies explains why Libertarians can embrace the homosexual agenda and other morally unacceptable behaviors. Individual liberty trumps all else; nobody or nothing can infringe upon it. Judeo-Christian conservatives cannot embrace such idealism. Biblical morality is the determiner of what is and is not acceptable. We know that the individual liberty of one person generally always infringes upon the individual liberty of someone else; therefore, the arbiter of human behavior must be outside the human realm.

Read more: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/sthompson/130330

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Panhandling. According to Libertarians, this is a "victimless crime".

Does anyone see a victim here? I see many.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Bump for any TOL Libertarians that want to defend Paleo-Libertarianism and/or attack me for my "liberalism".

Paleolibertarianism is a variety of libertarianism developed by anarcho-capitalist theorists Murray Rothbard and Llewellyn Rockwell that combines conservative social philosophy and cultural values with a libertarian opposition to government intervention.

i.e. Paleo Libertarians are allegedly against things like homosexuality, but they just don't want to do anything about it.

 

[patrick jane]

Libertarianism is a free market economy based on Austrian economics and then minding your own business.