List o' Libertarians

[M.Bellmore]

I found this interesting list of Libertarians:

http://mainstreamlibertarian.com/_wsn/page4.html

It includes:

Jesse Ventura, fmr. Wrestler & Governor
Arnold Schwarzenneger, Hollywood Actor & Governor
Clint Eastwood, Hollywood Actor, Director & Producer
Tom Selleck, Hollywood Actor
Kurt Russell, Hollywood Actor
Bruce Willis, Hollywood Actor
James Woods, Hollywood Actor
Mickey Rourke, Hollywood Actor

It also included comedians:

Doug Stanhope, Comedian
J.J. Jackson, Comedian
Drew Carey, Comedian & TV Sitcom Host

Sounds like a potential for fundraisers?

[dircha]

Arnold is no libertarian. He can call himself whatever he wants, but he is no libertarian.

He may have come in as a libertarian, I don't know, but he has governed as a Democrat since 2005 in order to win re-election.

He blows with the winds.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

he also has no regard of human life, he allows California to execute death row inmates.. not very libertarian, Arnold! How do Christians justify institutional murder, yet they're against abortion practices? If we're "born into sin" then what differentiates a fetus from a murderer?

[mdh]

Mainstream Libertarian is run by none other than our pal Eric Dondero. They've called Rudy Giuliani a libertarian, and have endorsed him for president. Check out more inside info about this group at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mainstreamlibertarians/

[dukker]

he also has no regard of human life, he allows California to execute death row inmates.. not very libertarian, Arnold! How do Christians justify institutional murder, yet they're against abortion practices? If we're "born into sin" then what differentiates a fetus from a murderer?

anti death penalty is not necessarily a libertarian principle. Ron Paul in the 80's used to be pro death penalty (there is an interview of him in youtube where he says he is) though I think he has since changed his mind - someone want to clarify? That's his personal opinion though, I'm sure officially he would say it is a matter for the states to decide.

[RP4ME]

anti death penalty is not necessarily a libertarian principle. Ron Paul in the 80's used to be pro death penalty (there is an interview of him in youtube where he says he is) though I think he has since changed his mind - someone want to clarify? That's his personal opinion though, I'm sure officially he would say it is a matter for the states to decide.

Ye si belive he cahnged his mind and is against teh death penalty - living with our current judicial systm - who wouldnt change?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

anti death penalty is not necessarily a libertarian principle. Ron Paul in the 80's used to be pro death penalty (there is an interview of him in youtube where he says he is) though I think he has since changed his mind - someone want to clarify? That's his personal opinion though, I'm sure officially he would say it is a matter for the states to decide.

Well, I'm staunchly against the DP, so are most libertarians.

[braeden0613]

he also has no regard of human life, he allows California to execute death row inmates.. not very libertarian, Arnold! How do Christians justify institutional murder, yet they're against abortion practices? If we're "born into sin" then what differentiates a fetus from a murderer?
Im a christian and dont believe we are born into sin...murderers are getting what they deserve. Abortions are killing innocent babies.

[bbachtung]

"Mainstream Libertarians" claim that they follow organizations like CATO and the Republican Liberty Caucus. RP is a key member of the House's Republican Liberty Caucus, yet they support Giuliani? They are whores, very scary whores.

[mdh]

"Mainstream Libertarians" claim that they follow organizations like CATO and the Republican Liberty Caucus. RP is a key member of the House's Republican Liberty Caucus, yet they support Giuliani? They are whores, very scary whores.

They are worse than whores, believe me.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'd like to use Dondero's head as a punching bag :p He's trying to hijack the philosophy. How about we create "neo cons for Dr. Paul"? :D

[mdh]

I'd like to use Dondero's head as a punching bag :p He's trying to hijack the philosophy. How about we create "neo cons for Dr. Paul"?

It goes deeper than just hijacking the philosophy.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

It goes deeper than just hijacking the philosophy.

oh yea? We should do the same to neo conservatism then.

[allyinoh]

How do Christians justify institutional murder, yet they're against abortion practices? If we're "born into sin" then what differentiates a fetus from a murderer?

I don't want to hijack the thread but comparing capital punishment to abortion is ridiculous.

I am a Christian who is 100% pro-life but supports capital punishment for murderers only.

People who are on death row are guilty of taking another person's life. They infringed on someone's right to life.

Now a fetus is an innocent being. A fetus has not infringed on someone else's right to life.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Well, the bible does tell us that we're all born into sin. And why should we have institutional murder? I don't think jesus would support this measure. Jesus was big on forgiveness, and mercy. In fact, I believe all you need to do in order to be a good christian is to be a good libertarian... don't buy into the bible

[braeden0613]

Well, the bible does tell us that we're all born into sin. And why should we have institutional murder? I don't think jesus would support this measure. Jesus was big on forgiveness, and mercy. In fact, I believe all you need to do in order to be a good christian is to be a good libertarian... don't buy into the bible
I know im hijacking the thread here but ezekiel 18:20 says ,The person who sins will die The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity

This subject is up to debate and is about the only thing i disagree with Ron Paul on. Some might say that being in prison for the rest of your life is worse than just being killed, so i wouldnt be up in arms if the death penalty was abolished.

And to be a good christian one needs to buy into the bible, why call yourself a christian if you dont believe the bible?

[mdh]

People who are on death row are guilty of taking another person's life.

We cannot be sure of that in every case.

[M.Bellmore]

Well, hijackers, isn't there numerous threads on those subjects? I'm not sure how any of that helps get Ron Paul elected. All I wanted to do is try and identify those famous Libertarians (and other RP supporters) that we might want to try and get to help spread the message (and help generate $)

[dircha]

I know im hijacking the thread here but ezekiel 18:20 says ,The person who sins will die The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity

This subject is up to debate and is about the only thing i disagree with Ron Paul on. Some might say that being in prison for the rest of your life is worse than just being killed, so i wouldnt be up in arms if the death penalty was abolished.

And to be a good christian one needs to buy into the bible, why call yourself a christian if you dont believe the bible?

If we take that verse to be a prescription for the use of the death penalty in contemporary American civil government, I find it exceedingly difficult to see why we would not also be bound to take the preceding passages to be prescriptive:

NIV Ezekiel 18:10-13
10 "Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things {emphasis mine} (though the father has done none of them):
"He eats at the mountain shrines.
He defiles his neighbor's wife.
12 He oppresses the poor and needy.
He commits robbery.
He does not return what he took in pledge.
He looks to the idols.
He does detestable things.
13 He lends at usury and takes excessive interest.
Will such a man live? He will not! {emphasis mine} Because he as done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head {emphasis mine}.

If 18:20 is prescriptive, then a claim that 18:10-13 are not prescriptive seems to require an explanation. Of course we could just bite the bullet and say that the Bible prescribes that in contemporary American civil society we ought to put to death robbers, adulterers, credit card company executives, and loan sharks, but I'm sure you see the complications there.

I realize there are other verses, but I just want to point out that this one in particular is problematic if we assume the interpretation you seem to imply. Though I suspect we are fast reaching the limit of other posters' patience for Bible study hour :)

[braeden0613]

If we take that verse to be a prescription for the use of the death penalty in contemporary American civil government, I find it exceedingly difficult to see why we would not also be bound to take the preceding passages to be prescriptive:

NIV Ezekiel 18:10-13
10 "Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things {emphasis mine} (though the father has done none of them):
"He eats at the mountain shrines.
He defiles his neighbor's wife.
12 He oppresses the poor and needy.
He commits robbery.
He does not return what he took in pledge.
He looks to the idols.
He does detestable things.
13 He lends at usury and takes excessive interest.
Will such a man live? He will not! {emphasis mine} Because he as done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head {emphasis mine}.

If 18:20 is prescriptive, then a claim that 18:10-13 are not prescriptive seems to require an explanation. Of course we could just bite the bullet and say that the Bible prescribes that in contemporary American civil society we ought to put to death robbers, adulterers, credit card company executives, and loan sharks, but I'm sure you see the complications there.

I realize there are other verses, but I just want to point out that this one in particular is problematic if we assume the interpretation you seem to imply. Though I suspect we are fast reaching the limit of other posters' patience for Bible study hour :)
I was implying that if you do not believe in the doctrine of original sin, it is easier to accept the death penalty. But like you said, you have to look at all the verses on this subject to make a conclusion. Oh well no more comments from me on this, back to the original discussion. :D

[JosephTheLibertarian]

And to be a good christian one needs to buy into the bible, why call yourself a christian if you dont believe the bible?

Because it's full of contradictions. Why not just say you believe in jesus, and that you're a libertarian? You can't go wrong.

[noztnac]

Dennis Miller is not a libertarian. He says he is but is not. He has publicly endorsed Rudy Giuliani.

[wildflower]

If we take that verse to be a prescription for the use of the death penalty in contemporary American civil government, I find it exceedingly difficult to see why we would not also be bound to take the preceding passages to be prescriptive:

NIV Ezekiel 18:10-13
10 "Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things {emphasis mine} (though the father has done none of them):
"He eats at the mountain shrines.
He defiles his neighbor's wife.
12 He oppresses the poor and needy.
He commits robbery.
He does not return what he took in pledge.
He looks to the idols.
He does detestable things.
13 He lends at usury and takes excessive interest.
Will such a man live? He will not! {emphasis mine} Because he as done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head {emphasis mine}.

If 18:20 is prescriptive, then a claim that 18:10-13 are not prescriptive seems to require an explanation. Of course we could just bite the bullet and say that the Bible prescribes that in contemporary American civil society we ought to put to death robbers, adulterers, credit card company executives, and loan sharks, but I'm sure you see the complications there.

I realize there are other verses, but I just want to point out that this one in particular is problematic if we assume the interpretation you seem to imply. Though I suspect we are fast reaching the limit of other posters' patience for Bible study hour :)

I'm not for the DP (like Ron Paul, I used to be for it, but not anymore... because I don't really trust the government enough and the way it has been carried out) but to reply to your post - the verse that was quoted earlier is not usually the verse used in regard to the death penalty.

The verse that is usually used is Genesis 9:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209:6&version=31).

Unlike the Mosaic old covenant laws (that were meant for the Hebrews at that time but not applicable today because Jesus is the new covenant) the argument can be made that the Genesis scripture predates the Mosaic laws and is not temporal, but an eternal principle. (christians who are anti-death penalty will probably disagree with that)

Yikes, sorry to continue the off topic conversation, but I just wanted to add that. :p :o