View Full Version : A number of people here are Conservatives first, and Libertarians second
And thus the Libertarian movement fractures itself, with a number of libertarians saying they'd support Bernie, etc. over a conservative.
Ron and Rand were potentially unifying forces for Libertarianism, but trying to force people under the Libertarian umbrella which includes many Social Liberals who favor non-interventionism to vote for conservatives with neocon leanings (like Rubio/Cruz) is not going to work, hence why the movement is now fracturing. And who benefits from this fracturing? The Neocons. They succeed in destroying the Libertarian Movement in this process by breaking up the coalition, as was intended from the beginning.
fisharmor
02-23-2016, 03:14 PM
When I was a kid, my father explained that all a conservative is, is someone who wants to preserve the status quo. And even liberals turn into conservatives once they get what they want.
I'm the exact opposite of conservative. There is literally nothing about the current system I think is worth saving.
nobody's_hero
02-23-2016, 03:16 PM
Meh, the neocons are done, at least for a while. Trump just up and rode in out of nowhere and pretty much poured a hot kettle of diarrhea and piss in their cheerios. It would be nice if we could permanently drive them back to the democratic party because it would at least make it easier for someone with libertarian leanings to rise within the GOP.
Reading the 'reluctant case for trump' thread makes me think there is some good that can come from his campaign, if we could manage to survive his presidency.
AuH20
02-23-2016, 03:21 PM
Define conservative. The neoconservatives have entirely redefined what conservatism entails. Harry Jaffa and Irving Kristol have polluted the minds of millions.
Brett85
02-23-2016, 03:25 PM
Define conservative. The neoconservatives have entirely redefined what conservatism entails. Harry Jaffa and Irving Kristol have polluted the minds of millions.
You know, if Trump were actually a paleoconservative, I would be quite excited about him. I think that Pat Buchanan would've been a great President overall. But please explain how someone who supports abortion, a ban on assault weapons, universal healthcare, eminent domain, Obama's stimulus, the bank bailouts, the auto bailouts, etc. is actually a paleoconservative. Thanks.
You know, if Trump were actually a paleoconservative, I would be quite excited about it. I think that Pat Buchanan would've been a great President overall. But please explain how someone who supports abortion, a ban on assault weapons, universal healthcare, eminent domain, Obama's stimulus, the bank bailouts, the auto bailouts, etc. is actually a paleoconservative. Thanks.
The Fascists or 'Far Right' replaced the Paleos in Europe. The Paleos put an emphasis on tradition, hierarchy and order in the world and protection of organic communities. You have different priorities, but it explains why Paleos are more receptive to the Far-Right.
You are part of the split that is destroying the Libertarian movement that I'm talking about in the OP.
Brett85
02-23-2016, 03:35 PM
The Fascists or 'Far Right' replaced the Paleos in Europe. The Paleos put an emphasis on tradition, hierarchy and order in the world and protection of organic communities. You have different priorities, but it explains why Paleos are more receptive to the Far-Right.
You are part of the split that is destroying the Libertarian movement that I'm talking about in the OP.
I'm open to voting for both paleo conservatives as well as pro life libertarians. I have no trouble supporting liberty people in Congress like Amash and Massie, but would never support Gary Johnson. So yes, we probably do look at things from a slightly different perspective. But with all due respect, this split isn't really what's killing the liberty movement. What killed the liberty movement was the rise of ISIS, because it caused people to become scared and start supporting more authoritarian candidates who they felt would protect them.
I'm open to voting for both paleo conservatives as well as pro life libertarians. I have no trouble supporting liberty people in Congress like Amash and Massie, but would never support Gary Johnson. So yes, we probably do look at things from a slightly different perspective. But with all due respect, this split isn't really what's killing the liberty movement. What killed the liberty movement was the rise of ISIS, because it caused people to become scared and start supporting more authoritarian candidates who they felt would protect them.
Again, you're a conservative, not a libertarian. The Libertarian 'big tent' movement was crated to unify both liberal and conservatives who are libertarian, hence issues like abortion, etc. were put on the back-burner. By emphasizing them, you're playing into the conservative narrative. There was always terrorism, even in 2004, Ron Paul had a ton of support from both the right and left branches. The fact that you expect pro-choice libertarians to vote for pro-life libertarians, but you won't do the same, is part of the problem.
Brett85
02-23-2016, 03:43 PM
Again, you're a conservative, not a libertarian. The Libertarian 'big tent' movement was crated to unify both liberal and conservatives who are libertarian, hence issues like abortion, etc. were put on the back-burner. By emphasizing them, you're playing into the conservative narrative. There was always terrorism, even in 2004, Ron Paul had a ton of support from both the right and left branches. The fact that you expect pro-choice libertarians to vote for pro-life libertarians, but you won't do the same, is part of the problem.
Well, I'm a mix of both conservatism and libertarianism. I'm not exactly a standard conservative when I support ending the war on drugs, support bringing the troops home from overseas, and support rolling back the surveillance state. The thing that Ron always said though is that freedom brings people together, which is why more conservative libertarians like myself and more liberal libertarians all united and supported his Presidential runs.
Christian Liberty
02-23-2016, 03:43 PM
Again, you're a conservative, not a libertarian. The Libertarian 'big tent' movement was crated to unify both liberal and conservatives who are libertarian, hence issues like abortion, etc. were put on the back-burner. By emphasizing them, you're playing into the conservative narrative. There was always terrorism, even in 2004, Ron Paul had a ton of support from both the right and left branches. The fact that you expect pro-choice libertarians to vote for pro-life libertarians, but you won't do the same, is part of the problem.
Even by libertarian standards (which I'm not one) if abortion really is murder than its apporpriate to want to ban it and to put a high priority on banning it.
heavenlyboy34
02-23-2016, 03:48 PM
When I was a kid, my father explained that all a conservative is, is someone who wants to preserve the status quo. And even liberals turn into conservatives once they get what they want.
I'm the exact opposite of conservative. There is literally nothing about the current system I think is worth saving.
+a bunch
Even by libertarian standards (which I'm not one) if abortion really is murder than its apporpriate to want to ban it and to put a high priority on banning it.
Abortion was never classified as murder historically when we had actual Christian states, and guess what?, infanticide wasn't either.
Well, I'm a mix of both conservatism and libertarianism. I'm not exactly a standard conservative when I support ending the war on drugs, support bringing the troops home from overseas, and support rolling back the surveillance state. The thing that Ron always said though is that freedom brings people together, which is why more conservative libertarians like myself and more liberal libertarians all united and supported his Presidential runs.
And then your boys Cruz/Rubio betray those 'freedom' principles by turning their back on nsa spying, etc. and you still expect liberal libertarians to support them. That's why your efforts are futile. Those Bernie, etc. supporters don't share your values in the first place, there's no point in trying to convince them when the common liberty platform on issues on which you can both agree upon is dead.
Brett85
02-23-2016, 03:53 PM
And then your boys Cruz/Rubio betray those 'freedom' principles by turning their back on nsa spying, etc. and you still expect liberal libertarians to support them. That's why your efforts are futile. Those Bernie, etc. supporters don't share your values in the first place, there's no point in trying to convince them.
I'm not really trying to convince people to support Cruz at this point. I think his comments in favor of increasing defense spending and praising John Bolton are too much for libertarians to support. (I also think his campaign is basically over after coming in 3rd in South Carolina) I was just defending Amash for his endorsement of Cruz because I think people need to try to understand where Amash was coming from in his endorsement.
I'm not really trying to convince people to support Cruz at this point. I think his comments in favor of increasing defense spending and praising John Bolton are too much for libertarians to support. (I also think his campaign is basically over after coming in 3rd in South Carolina) I was just defending Amash for his endorsement of Cruz because I think people need to try to understand where Amash was coming from in his endorsement.
Well, hopefully you now understand why various libertarians are supporting 'non-conservative' candidates, because those libertarians weren't necessarily conservative in the first place, they were libertarians. With the common platform of libertarianism removed and the unifying umbrella gone, they go back to voting on non-libertarian issues, just like you do with your conservatives.
Brett85
02-23-2016, 04:01 PM
Well, hopefully you now understand why various libertarians are supporting 'non-conservative' candidates, because those libertarians weren't necessarily conservative in the first place, they were libertarians. With the common platform of libertarianism removed and the unifying umbrella gone, they go back to voting on non-libertarian issues, just like you do with your conservatives.
Sure, and many of the people who supported Ron really weren't pure libertarians either but were anti war liberals or libertarian-leaning liberals. Ron had a lot of support from the left, much of which is going to Bernie Sanders. I'm not saying that it's not possible for a pure ideological libertarian to vote for someone like Bernie Sanders, but I think most of his support among those who supported Ron comes from those who are at least left leaning.
Sure, and many of the people who supported Ron really weren't pure libertarians either but were anti war liberals or libertarian-leaning liberals. Ron had a lot of support from the left, much of which is going to Bernie Sanders. I'm not saying that it's not possible for a pure ideological libertarian to vote for someone like Bernie Sanders, but I think most of his support among those who supported Ron comes from those who were at least left leaning.
Going by that logic it wouldn't be possible for a 'pure ideological libertarian' to vote for an interventionist who supports government spying, etc. either. That's the point, when the common platform of libertarianism that both liberal and right-wing libertarians can agree to is dead, people will vote on other issues unrelated to libertarianism, since libertarianism would no longer be in the picture. That the defeat of the libertarian platform is exactly what the neocons wanted, and so you're playing into that game, because you put your conservatism first, you're not going to convince non-conservatives of anything, no matter how hard you try here by bashing other candidates.
Brett85
02-23-2016, 04:10 PM
Going by that logic it wouldn't be possible for a 'pure ideological libertarian' to vote for an interventionist who supports government spying, etc. either. That's the point, when the common platform of libertarianism that both liberal and right-wing libertarians can agree to is dead, people will vote on other issues unrelated to libertarianism, since libertarianism would no longer be in the picture. That the defeat of the libertarian platform is exactly what the neocons wanted, and so you're playing into that game, because you put your conservatism first, you're not going to convince non-conservatives of anything, no matter how hard you try here by bashing other candidates.
I just wanted AUH20 to explain to me how Trump is a paleo-conservative, because he's given that label to him before. I do like some of Trump's foreign policy positions like opposing the Iraq War, opposing nation building, opposing overthrowing dictators in the Middle East, opposing entangling alliances, etc. But, I don't see his views on domestic issues as being conservative and wanted AUH20 to try to explain how Trump can accurately be labeled a paleoconservative in light of his more liberal views on domestic issues.
Libertas Aut Mortis
02-23-2016, 04:15 PM
Abortion was never classified as murder historically when we had actual Christian states, and guess what?, infanticide wasn't either.
I wouldn't really say anything that "Christian States" ever did was very "Christian".
It doesn't really matter what a Tyrannical Dark Ages Theocracy thought....all that matters is that somehow, a "clump of cells", that happens to have a heartbeat, separate DNA, its own organs and body parts, whose body is literally living, growing, and kicking inside of a womb...can be aborted, or stillborn, or miscarried; in which that "clump of cells" no longer has a heart beat, is no longer producing DNA, or developing organs and body parts, whose body is no longer living, growing, or kicking, and is then expelled from the womb.....
what matters is how you can have that, but not come to the realization that the "clump of cells" in question, make up a living human being, just currently unborn. And with the knowledge that the unborn is living, how the hell can we be indifferent or supportive of his or her murder?
See, I don't know about you...but i would rather see every single person who uses drugs in America voluntarily go to prison for the maximum sentence as established by the law....than allow one unborn child, completely guiltless and innocent of any wrongdoing, be murdered by his or her own parents.
If the body has different DNA than yours, then it isn't your body. And if the body can be killed, then it must be living. And if you kill someone elses body....that is called murder. I'm very against murder, and I will never vote for someone who isn't.
I just wanted AUH20 to explain to me how Trump is a paleo-conservative, because he's given that label to him before. I do like some of Trump's foreign policy positions like opposing the Iraq War, opposing nation building, opposing overthrowing dictators in the Middle East, opposing entangling alliances, etc. But, I don't see his views on domestic issues as being conservative and wanted AUH20 to try to explain how Trump can accurately be labeled a paleoconservative in light of his more liberal views on domestic issues.
Again, see how in Europe, paleoconservativism is dead, and what has replaced it is Fascism and Third Party's like FN Jobbik, etc. Because the core of Paleoconservative ideology is anti-egalitarian, it's based on hierarchy, order, tradition and protecting national communities. That's also why the paleocons allowed Hitler to rise to power in Germany, with the Monarchists backing the Nazi Party in the coalition. They have other priorities on the issues and a different view of the world otherwise, same goes for Bernie supporters, etc. You're not going to convince them by hammering on like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4VJ3JuJaig
Evictionism: The Only True Libertarian Position on Abortion
Walter E. Block
At the Ron Paul Festival, I gave a short lecture on abortion. Moving past the pro-life versus pro-choice issue, I offered the libertarian position of evictionism, which provides the best compromise on this issue. In a nutshell, the argument for evictionism is as follows:
1. The unborn fetus is trespassing into the womb of the woman.
2. The rights of all fetuses are equal.
3. Therefore, the only right choice would be evicting the fetus. Killing it would be wrong.
Half way in to the video, I explain the practical aspects of evictionism as the technology of the health industry becomes more capable of saving more fetuses at earlier trimesters. Toward the later quarter of the video, I handle objections to evictionism.
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/evictionism-the-only-true-libertarian-position-on-abortion/
I wouldn't really say anything that "Christian States" ever did was very "Christian".
It doesn't really matter what a Tyrannical Dark Ages Theocracy thought....all that matters is that somehow, a "clump of cells", that happens to have a heartbeat, separate DNA, its own organs and body parts, whose body is literally living, growing, and kicking inside of a womb...can be aborted, or stillborn, or miscarried; in which that "clump of cells" no longer has a heart beat, is no longer producing DNA, or developing organs and body parts, whose body is no longer living, growing, or kicking, and is then expelled from the womb.....
what matters is how you can have that, but not come to the realization that the "clump of cells" in question, make up a living human being, just currently unborn. And with the knowledge that the unborn is living, how the hell can we be indifferent or supportive of his or her murder?
See, I don't know about you...but i would rather see every single person who uses drugs in America voluntarily go to prison for the maximum sentence as established by the law....than allow one unborn child, completely guiltless and innocent of any wrongdoing, be murdered by his or her own parents.
If the body has different DNA than yours, then it isn't your body. And if the body can be killed, then it must be living. And if you kill someone elses body....that is called murder. I'm very against murder, and I will never vote for someone who isn't.
That's egalitarian/humanism which was adopted in the modern era of post-enlightenment, and this was derived from platonic principles, not Judeo-Christian ones. Same thing with Women's rights, etc.
AuH20
02-23-2016, 04:24 PM
I just wanted AUH20 to explain to me how Trump is a paleo-conservative, because he's given that label to him before. I do like some of Trump's foreign policy positions like opposing the Iraq War, opposing nation building, opposing overthrowing dictators in the Middle East, opposing entangling alliances, etc. But, I don't see his views on domestic issues as being conservative and wanted AUH20 to try to explain how Trump can accurately be labeled a paleoconservative in light of his more liberal views on domestic issues.
Trump isn't a paleo. He's borrowed key planks of the paleo philosophy.
heavenlyboy34
02-23-2016, 04:44 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4VJ3JuJaig
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/evictionism-the-only-true-libertarian-position-on-abortion/
Block has done a lot of good stuff, but his position is basically the same as Rothbard's. Neither are actually 100% libertarian. "Evictionism" is a subset of libertarianism that is more Randian Objectivist than libertarian.
Libertas Aut Mortis
02-23-2016, 04:47 PM
That's egalitarian/humanism which was adopted in the modern era of post-enlightenment, and this was derived from platonic principles, not Judeo-Christian ones. Same thing with Women's rights, etc.
Woah woah woah, slow down power ranger.
Drop the labels. This issue is pressing, not because of egalitarian humanism....but because millions of unborn human beings are being killed every year, by choice. In the past, people were lucky to have a child survive pregnancy, then birth, then their first year....then their childhood, and then get through being a teenager....and then not die by the time you were married....and then not die ect ect ect..
We live in a time with a very different standard of living. We largely do not have to have 18 children hoping a few will survive. If we choose to have 18 children, we will likely end up will all 18, losing none (or very few) along the way.
This is an issue because it is being facilitated by the government, it has been ruled upon by an activist left-wing court, and the basic premise that "All Men are Created Equal...with Life, Liberty ect..." is being shit on.
Don't try to justify deliberate murder with Judeo-Christian values.
Science is science. The unborn, is living. When you abort, the unborn is dead. Thus to abort, is to murder (unless you are insinuating that the unborn was an enemy combatant, and Congress has declared war on the unborn; as the unborn is technically not a US Citizen, and not necessarily to be given the full rights and privileges of a Natural BORN citizens....thus they must be regarded as any other foreigner....who may be killed in war)
Go ahead. Tell me that we are at war with the unborn menace...and then I might understand how it could be even remotely acceptable to murder millions of people every year.....but even then, I would ask...what is our goal in this endevour? Is this a Just War?
When in doubt...pull out.
euphemia
02-23-2016, 05:00 PM
It used to be that conervatives were for a conservative (limited) government. That changed about the mid 70s to mean conservative on social issues. Now they are both big government parties, but differ on the issues government should focus on.
69360
02-23-2016, 05:07 PM
It's just a name, a word. If it was Trump and Sanders, I would vote for Sanders simply because I see him as an honest person and not a lying asshole like Trump. I obviously don't agree with socialism.
Brett85
02-23-2016, 05:08 PM
It used to be that conervatives were for a conservative (limited) government. That changed about the mid 70s to mean conservative on social issues. Now they are both big government parties, but differ on the issues government should focus on.
What are the "social issues?"
otherone
02-23-2016, 05:12 PM
And thus the Libertarian movement fractures itself, with a number of libertarians saying they'd support Bernie, etc. over a conservative.
What's a "Libertarian movement"? Was that ever a thing, here?
ThePaleoLibertarian
02-23-2016, 05:16 PM
Conservatism is dead, and has been dead since at least the post-World War II era. The conservatives of today are the progressives of previous generations. In twenty or thirty years, so-called "conservatives" will sound exactly like Bernie Sanders. Such is the leftward march of democracy.
Conservatism is dead, and a good riddance it is. Reaction is the future. Reaction understands power is what must be seized.
Dianne
02-23-2016, 05:21 PM
Is there some kind of test to determine if you are a libertarian. Actually to me, a libertarian wouldn't give a shit what you are; i.e., conservative, liberal, as long as you don't infringe upon his personal rights. I was registered and voted democratic all my life pre Ron Paul. Back then the democratic party did pretend to be anti war. I worked on the campaign committee for George McGovern. I campaigned for Bill Clinton. It's easy for me to see now that there is truly no difference in the parties. Both are globalist owned schills robbing all Americans and the world blind.
There is no way in hell I would vote for Hillary or Bernie. There is no way in hell I would vote for Cruz or Rubio. The only reason I might vote for Trump, is because he told the truth about George Bush telling a lie to lead us into war. And, Trump says let Russia deal with Syria while we stay out of it. The rest of the neocons, including Hillary, are ready to declare a no fly zone and shoot down Russian aircraft leading us to WW3.
Woah woah woah, slow down power ranger.
Drop the labels. This issue is pressing, not because of egalitarian humanism....but because millions of unborn human beings are being killed every year, by choice. In the past, people were lucky to have a child survive pregnancy, then birth, then their first year....then their childhood, and then get through being a teenager....and then not die by the time you were married....and then not die ect ect ect..
We live in a time with a very different standard of living. We largely do not have to have 18 children hoping a few will survive. If we choose to have 18 children, we will likely end up will all 18, losing none (or very few) along the way.
This is an issue because it is being facilitated by the government, it has been ruled upon by an activist left-wing court, and the basic premise that "All Men are Created Equal...with Life, Liberty ect..." is being shit on.
Don't try to justify deliberate murder with Judeo-Christian values.
Science is science. The unborn, is living. When you abort, the unborn is dead. Thus to abort, is to murder (unless you are insinuating that the unborn was an enemy combatant, and Congress has declared war on the unborn; as the unborn is technically not a US Citizen, and not necessarily to be given the full rights and privileges of a Natural BORN citizens....thus they must be regarded as any other foreigner....who may be killed in war)
Go ahead. Tell me that we are at war with the unborn menace...and then I might understand how it could be even remotely acceptable to murder millions of people every year.....but even then, I would ask...what is our goal in this endevour? Is this a Just War?
When in doubt...pull out.
It's based on egalitarianism, this whole issue. The abortion obsession was pushed by first wave feminists. It stems from the enlightenment philosophy of egalitarianism, it has nothing to do with judeo-christian values. The Vatican did not even declare life to formally began at conception until the 19th century.
What are the "social issues?"
The ones you and your ilk obsess over, you know what they are, especially the one that drives you apoplectic, to the extent that you'd vote for the biggest warmonger possible simply because he might possible be 'slightly less bad' on the issue..despite historically for thousands of years no one really caring about it in practice.
Cabal
02-23-2016, 05:26 PM
If the body has different DNA than yours, then it isn't your body. And if the body can be killed, then it must be living. And if you kill someone elses body....that is called murder. I'm very against murder, and I will never vote for someone who isn't.
Your conclusion is missing at least one premise. You never establish personhood, you leap to it. You go from living body to someone elses body. What makes it someone's body? You never establish this, and this is the premise by which you arrive at the conclusion of murder, so your argument doesn't really follow until you do establish personhood. And this personhood must also be applicable to all stages of pregnancy from fertilization on, from single-celled zygote, to embryo, to fetus if you intend on classifying abortion at all stages to be murder of an individual, human person.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2010/early_human_embryos_photo.jpg
When does personhood begin? Because, quite honestly, I'd say you have your work cut out for you if you intend on claiming the above to be individual people no different in terms of individual, human personhood to those humans who have been born. And, to be clear, I do not fit into the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" crowds. I tend to find both extremes to be equally unreasonable and arbitrary.
Libertas Aut Mortis
02-23-2016, 05:35 PM
It's based on egalitarianism, this whole issue. The abortion obsession was pushed by first wave feminists. It stems from the enlightenment philosophy of egalitarianism, it has nothing to do with judeo-christian values. The Vatican did not even declare life to formally began at conception until the 19th century.
Fine, I'll bite. Explain to me the correct way of looking at the issue...and feel free to counter my arguments while you are at it. Because, at least to me, justifying the murder to the unborn is even more of a "Cruel War against Mankind" than Slavery.
So please, elaborate on how killing a human being should be acceptable.
Ronin Truth
02-23-2016, 05:38 PM
No they aren't. That's like being brown eyed first and blue eyed second. Or like being statist first and anarchist second. :rolleyes:
cajuncocoa
02-23-2016, 05:42 PM
I consider myself Libertarian, period.
cajuncocoa
02-23-2016, 05:44 PM
Even by libertarian standards (which I'm not one) if abortion really is murder than its apporpriate to want to ban it and to put a high priority on banning it.
Didn't you say you were leaving? I don't care if you stay, just asking.
cajuncocoa
02-23-2016, 05:46 PM
What are the "social issues?"
Everything that doesn't fall under economic issues or foreign policy: abortion, gay rights, immigration, welfare, environmental issues, education issues, etc.
Libertas Aut Mortis
02-23-2016, 05:47 PM
Your conclusion is missing at least one premise. You never establish personhood, you leap to it. You go from living body to someone elses body. What makes it someone's body? You never establish this, and this is the premise by which you arrive at the conclusion of murder, so your argument doesn't really follow until you do establish personhood. And this personhood must also be applicable to all stages of pregnancy from fertilization on, from single-celled zygote, to embryo, to fetus if you intend on classifying abortion at all stages to be murder of an individual, human person.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2010/early_human_embryos_photo.jpg
When does personhood begin? Because, quite honestly, I'd say you have your work cut out for you if you intend on claiming the above to be individual people no different in terms of individual, human personhood to those humans who have been born. And, to be clear, I do not fit into the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" crowds. I tend to find both extremes to be equally unreasonable and arbitrary.
Sure, I would turn simply to this. As soon as a cell has a unique and separate DNA from the host body. Simple as that. I personally do not know if that is at conception, or if that is a longer process....but that is, rationally, when life begins.
The unfertilized egg, is wholly of the mother. The sperm is wholly of the father. Once they do their magic mixing....and they they combine together to create an unique organisim. In your pictures, it seems as though the cell is replicating...so i would say, yes, that is a life.
AuH20
02-23-2016, 05:48 PM
Abortion isn't a victimless act like homosexuality is. I expect more out of my fellow beings.
Cabal
02-23-2016, 05:51 PM
Sure, I would turn simply to this. As soon as a cell has a unique and separate DNA from the host body. Simple as that.
And as a pointed out above, that is inadequate. Unique DNA =/= personhood. When life "begins," whatever that even means since all cellular activity is that of living organisms =/= personhood.
You're still failing to establish personhood. And you don't seem to understand why this is necessarily a problem, which is why your argument will continue to be weak.
Fine, I'll bite. Explain to me the correct way of looking at the issue...and feel free to counter my arguments while you are at it. Because, at least to me, justifying the murder to the unborn is even more of a "Cruel War against Mankind" than Slavery.
So please, elaborate on how killing a human being should be acceptable.
That is an ambiguous theological question, and generally why any restrictions weren't enforced very well for that reason, because it could not be justified as murder per the bible:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christian_thought_on_abortion
otherone
02-23-2016, 05:52 PM
When does personhood begin?
When it, or someone on it's behalf, exercises second amendment rights.
heavenlyboy34
02-23-2016, 05:52 PM
Your conclusion is missing at least one premise. You never establish personhood, you leap to it. You go from living body to someone elses body. What makes it someone's body? You never establish this, and this is the premise by which you arrive at the conclusion of murder, so your argument doesn't really follow until you do establish personhood. And this personhood must also be applicable to all stages of pregnancy from fertilization on, from single-celled zygote, to embryo, to fetus if you intend on classifying abortion at all stages to be murder of an individual, human person.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2010/early_human_embryos_photo.jpg
When does personhood begin? Because, quite honestly, I'd say you have your work cut out for you if you intend on claiming the above to be individual people no different in terms of individual, human personhood to those humans who have been born. And, to be clear, I do not fit into the "pro-life" or "pro-choice" crowds. I tend to find both extremes to be equally unreasonable and arbitrary. (almost)All value statements about abortion (and everything else) are arbitrary and subjective.
Fivezeroes
02-23-2016, 05:54 PM
And as a pointed out above, that is inadequate. Unique DNA =/= personhood. When life "begins," whatever that even means since all cellular activity is that of living organisms =/= personhood.
You're still failing to establish personhood. And you don't seem to understand why this is necessarily a problem, which is why your argument will continue to be weak.
18 days after conception there is a heartbeat, that in itself establishes person-hood. Anything before that is a mass of cells but once there is a heartbeat, that mass of cells is now a life.
Cabal
02-23-2016, 05:55 PM
18 days after conception there is a heartbeat, that in itself establishes person-hood. Anything before that is a mass of cells but once there is a heartbeat, that mass of cells is now a life.
Why does heartbeat establish personhood? Lots of different organisms have a heartbeat.
redmed
02-23-2016, 06:05 PM
Why does heartbeat establish personhood? Lots of different organisms have a heartbeat.
Cabal How do you define personhood?
Cabal
02-23-2016, 06:08 PM
Cabal How do you define personhood?
The quality or condition of being an individual person. (And thus, having individual rights in the libertarian tradition)
AuH20
02-23-2016, 06:08 PM
Aren't humans being quite presumptuous to think that they accurately ascertain when life begins? It's like watching a caveman attempt to repair a combustion engine. Common sense would dictate that you would err on the side of caution, but that's never the deterred the wannabe Icaruses on this planet. The same schemers who sold us Keynesian Economics are the same schemers who sold the abortion lie.
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/35654634.jpg
spudea
02-23-2016, 06:14 PM
I don't want the past, I don't want the status quo. I want to look to the future and take steps to make life better for everyone. Libertarianism is my core beliefs but is incompatible with the current system of majority rule. Maybe I'm more of a Progressivist.
tod evans
02-23-2016, 06:18 PM
I consider myself Libertarian, period.
I consider myself an asshole...
Nobody has ever disputed me or tried to set forth ideologies that I needed to subscribe to in order to be an asshole in their opinion...;)
Fivezeroes
02-23-2016, 06:18 PM
I consider myself an asshole...
Nobody has ever disputed me or tried to set forth ideologies that I needed to subscribe to in order to be an asshole in their opinion...;)
+rep
otherone
02-23-2016, 06:24 PM
Abortion isn't a victimless act like homosexuality is.
or like punching somebody in the dark.
AuH20
02-23-2016, 06:26 PM
I don't want the past, I don't want the status quo. I want to look to the future and take steps to make life better for everyone. Libertarianism is my core beliefs but is incompatible with the current system of majority rule. Maybe I'm more of a Progressivist.
Past = future. Same fears. Same struggles. Same insecurities. Same flaws. Regardless of the time period. Maybe you could save humans if you eliminated mortality, but even that is a huge if. I guess someone could continually make the same mistakes over and over again, until they finally wised up.
groverblue
02-23-2016, 06:40 PM
And thus the Libertarian movement fractures itself, with a number of libertarians saying they'd support Bernie, etc. over a conservative.
Ron and Rand were potentially unifying forces for Libertarianism, but trying to force people under the Libertarian umbrella which includes many Social Liberals who favor non-interventionism to vote for conservatives with neocon leanings (like Rubio/Cruz) is not going to work, hence why the movement is now fracturing. And who benefits from this fracturing? The Neocons. They succeed in destroying the Libertarian Movement in this process by breaking up the coalition, as was intended from the beginning.
Not me. Libertarian all the way.
Brett85
02-23-2016, 06:41 PM
The ones you and your ilk obsess over, you know what they are, especially the one that drives you apoplectic, to the extent that you'd vote for the biggest warmonger possible simply because he might possible be 'slightly less bad' on the issue..despite historically for thousands of years no one really caring about it in practice.
Why is it that you have to be pro choice on abortion in order to be a libertarian or not care about the issue at all in order to be a libertarian?
otherone
02-23-2016, 06:51 PM
Why is it that you have to be pro choice on abortion in order to be a libertarian or not care about the issue at all in order to be a libertarian?
what's a libertarian?
euphemia
02-23-2016, 07:02 PM
It's not about morality or social issues. It's about the use of government.
liveandletlive
02-23-2016, 07:25 PM
Cabal How do you define personhood?
for me, it is consciousness. I dont consider my sperm to be a person, but others here may disagree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk
Why is it that you have to be pro choice on abortion in order to be a libertarian or not care about the issue at all in order to be a libertarian?
Because you go on and hypocritically whine about other libertarians supporting other candidates that you disagree with.
This is what I'm talking about, people like you end up choosing the neocon warmonger candidate who says he is more anti-abortion, while also hypocritically complaining when other people do it for Bernie for other reasons. Once the common platform of libertarianism is abandoned, then people won't vote for libertarian reasons, but for other reasons, and you can't hold them accountable for that. You can't expect libertarians to not support Bernie, if you go ahead and support Rubio, etc., despite neither candidate being libertarian candidates.
Cleaner44
02-23-2016, 08:17 PM
Meh, the neocons are done, at least for a while. Trump just up and rode in out of nowhere and pretty much poured a hot kettle of diarrhea and piss in their cheerios. It would be nice if we could permanently drive them back to the democratic party because it would at least make it easier for someone with libertarian leanings to rise within the GOP.
Reading the 'reluctant case for trump' thread makes me think there is some good that can come from his campaign, if we could manage to survive his presidency.
This and I think we have done a good job of nudging the GOP in a more libertarian direction. The Ron Paul R3VOLUTION has improve the Republican party to some degree.
ProBlue33
02-23-2016, 08:40 PM
I don't think Ron was converting people to libertarianism, based on the reactions in 2008/2012/2016, I think he got a coalition of people that heard him speak and they were logically minded people, that all respected him and agreed with his world view, and they came from all political backgrounds blue and red.
After 2012 things began to go back to the way they were before, how else can you explain how 2 genuine people that signed up to RPF in 07 and voted for Ron in both primaries and wrote his name in the generals....now one supports Sanders and one supports Trump. Ron was like the lead singer in a band that held the band together, when he retired the band broke up, and they all went their separate ways.
Sorry guys libertarianism is right back where it was in 2006.
Dianne
02-23-2016, 08:41 PM
This and I think we have done a good job of nudging the GOP in a more libertarian direction. The Ron Paul R3VOLUTION has improve the Republican party to some degree.
I think this election clearly shows the Ron Paul movement has effected the future of the republican party. It was Ron that created the new "tea party" movement, although later hijacked by mini neocons. We have some great people that are jacking them up in Washington right now. And the people are rejecting the establishment candidates. Four years ago, Ron Paul was right in the middle of this Nevada caucus. If I remember correctly he was #3 going into the cause. I think Rand should stay in the Senate.. He is not his Dad. If he were, he would be in the Trump shoes this time as the anti establishment candidate, rather than Trump. The country is saying "enough", but Rand was not the man to lead the revolution. I actually think Ron might have run this time, had his son passed on it.
RJ Liberty
02-23-2016, 10:59 PM
A number of people here are Conservatives first, and Libertarians second
Yes. Witness the fact that about 8% of the forum-goers here believe that homosexuals should be punished by the death penalty (www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?490332-Do-Homosexuals-Deserve-the-Death-Penalty-or-Entitlements). Eight percent actually are calling for state executions based on someone's sexuality. Another 5% believe homosexuality should be a felony. This is, of course, fascism, not liberty at all.
It's a credit to the great Ron Paul that four years ago, his message was able to cross over and influence the bible-thumping Religious Right, but make no mistake: the people who are (for example) calling for state executions of gays were never actually small-L libertarians (much less big-L Libertarians). They would never vote for, say, Gary Johnson, who actually ran on the Libertarian Party ticket, and who won the largest number of voters in LP history. To these guys, Gary Johnson is a "hippy clown".
Ronin Truth
02-24-2016, 08:50 AM
"The problem with American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America." -- Lew Rockwell
Brett85
02-24-2016, 09:41 AM
Yes. Witness the fact that about 8% of the forum-goers here believe that homosexuals should be punished by the death penalty (www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?490332-Do-Homosexuals-Deserve-the-Death-Penalty-or-Entitlements). Eight percent actually are calling for state executions based on someone's sexuality. Another 5% believe homosexuality should be a felony. This is, of course, fascism, not liberty at all.
It's a credit to the great Ron Paul that four years ago, his message was able to cross over and influence the bible-thumping Religious Right, but make no mistake: the people who are (for example) calling for state executions of gays were never actually small-L libertarians (much less big-L Libertarians). They would never vote for, say, Gary Johnson, who actually ran on the Libertarian Party ticket, and who won the largest number of voters in LP history. To these guys, Gary Johnson is a "hippy clown".
Those people are theonomists. They agree with libertarians on a large number of issues but still support enacting Biblical law at a local level. You don't necessarily have to be a theonomist to not be a fan of Gary Johnson. Johnson basically seems like a liberal with a few libertarian leanings to me. He's for abortion, for forcing Christian businesses to participate in gay marriage ceremonies, for humanitarian wars, etc. I don't consider him to be a libertarian. People like Tom Woods, Peter Schiff, etc are libertarians. Gary Johnson is "fiscally conservative and socially liberal," but that's not libertarianism. That's not what the term means. If being fiscally conservative and socially liberal is all that's required in order to be a libertarian, then people like Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton would be libertarians.
Christian Liberty
02-24-2016, 11:26 AM
Abortion was never classified as murder historically when we had actual Christian states, and guess what?, infanticide wasn't either.
That's egalitarian/humanism which was adopted in the modern era of post-enlightenment, and this was derived from platonic principles, not Judeo-Christian ones. Same thing with Women's rights, etc.
Wait, WHAT? Not murdering unborn children is a post-enightenment innovation? I guess I've heard it all now.
Didn't you say you were leaving? I don't care if you stay, just asking.
I'm trying to post less to limit my frustration... I'm a little conflicted about things like this... its complicated and not easy to explain.
Those people are theonomists. They agree with libertarians on a large number of issues but still support enacting Biblical law at a local level. You don't necessarily have to be a theonomist to not be a fan of Gary Johnson. Johnson basically seems like a liberal with a few libertarian leanings to me. He's for abortion, for forcing Christian businesses to participate in gay marriage ceremonies, for humanitarian wars, etc. I don't consider him to be a libertarian. People like Tom Woods, Peter Schiff, etc are libertarians. Gary Johnson is "fiscally conservative and socially liberal," but that's not libertarianism. That's not what the term means. If being fiscally conservative and socially liberal is all that's required in order to be a libertarian, then people like Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton would be libertarians.
Indeed.
hells_unicorn
02-24-2016, 11:32 AM
Those people are theonomists.
I'm not a theonomist, I've stated my divergence with that school of thought on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. How many times do I have to say it? The only thing required of a Christian in order to find the point in Leviticus regarding sodomy to be eternally binding is a clear understanding on the distinction between natural/moral law vs. ceremonial/positive law. Theonomy tends to conflate the 2 on several key points actually, though not regarding the spirit of said prohibition on this particular point.
Cabal
02-24-2016, 12:06 PM
I'm not a theonomist, I've stated my divergence with that school of thought on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. How many times do I have to say it? The only thing required of a Christian in order to find the point in Leviticus regarding sodomy to be eternally binding is a clear understanding on the distinction between natural/moral law vs. ceremonial/positive law. Theonomy tends to conflate the 2 on several key points actually, though not regarding the spirit of said prohibition on this particular point.
http://i.imgur.com/BRuuaLq.gif
otherone
02-24-2016, 12:52 PM
Gary Johnson is "fiscally conservative and socially liberal," but that's not libertarianism. That's not what the term means. If being fiscally conservative and socially liberal is all that's required in order to be a libertarian, then people like Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton would be libertarians.
What is required to be a libertarian?
Christian Liberty
02-24-2016, 01:11 PM
I'm not a theonomist, I've stated my divergence with that school of thought on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. How many times do I have to say it? The only thing required of a Christian in order to find the point in Leviticus regarding sodomy to be eternally binding is a clear understanding on the distinction between natural/moral law vs. ceremonial/positive law. Theonomy tends to conflate the 2 on several key points actually, though not regarding the spirit of said prohibition on this particular point.
We should discuss this on the phone sometime.
Theonomists vary among themselves on some issues and the term is somewhat loose. I know that some theonomists like Greg Bahnsen said that the law is binding "in exhaustive detail" but if you really look at the details of what he said, he did at least believe in something close to a Westminster tripartite division. I'm still learning some of the divisions but I thinkin practice a covenanter such as yourself would disagree with some of the closer to confessional theonomists (like Bahnsen) more on a spectrum of how broad "general equity" is than having a clear disagreement on principle.
Basically just because someone is a theonomist doesn't necessarily mean they agree on every single point regarding the application of the OT civil law in the NT area, as it is true some portions thereof were either ceremonial in nature or particular to Israel's situations. I think the terms are somewhat fuzzy.
Brett85
02-24-2016, 01:15 PM
What is required to be a libertarian?
I would say to believe in life, liberty, and property. Gary Johnson doesn't believe in any of those principles. He opposes life since he supports legalized murder, opposes liberty since he opposes freedom of association for Christians as well as all other individuals, and opposes private property rights since he believes that people should be forced to allow others onto their own private property.
otherone
02-24-2016, 01:25 PM
I would say to believe in life, liberty, and property.
Besides "I would say"....is there a group that espouses these ideas? They are vague...purposefully? Do you consider yourself classically liberal rather than libertarian, considering your Locke quote?
Brett85
02-24-2016, 01:28 PM
Besides "I would say"....is there a group that espouses these ideas? They are vague...purposefully? Do you consider yourself classically liberal rather than libertarian, considering your Locke quote?
The Constitution Party is probably the best political party for the cause of liberty. I'm not a member of the party, but they're probably better than the other parties. They at least believe in Constitutionally limited government and don't believe in baby murder. There's some disagreement on some of the other social issues, but they at least believe in federalism and believe that social issues should be decided at the state level.
otherone
02-24-2016, 01:31 PM
The Constitution Party is probably the best political party for the cause of liberty. I'm not a member of the party, but they're probably better than the other parties. They at least believe in Constitutionally limited government and don't believe in baby murder. There's some disagreement on some of the other social issues, but they at least believe in federalism and believe that social issues should be decided at the state level.
The Constitution party is paleo-conservative, not libertarian. It's a great party for Christians. Frankly, if there was an anti-federalist party, I'd probably join it.
Christian Liberty
02-24-2016, 01:32 PM
'life, liberty, and property' hey if we're defining that way theonomists are libertarians too ;)
specsaregood
02-24-2016, 01:34 PM
//
otherone
02-24-2016, 01:39 PM
I'm not Christian or religious and I prefer the CP and their past candidates over the LP.
why?
r3volution 3.0
02-24-2016, 01:55 PM
A number of people here are conservatives first, and libertarians second.
And thus the Libertarian movement fractures itself, with a number of libertarians saying they'd support Bernie, etc. over a conservative.
Ron and Rand were potentially unifying forces for Libertarianism, but trying to force people under the Libertarian umbrella which includes many Social Liberals who favor non-interventionism to vote for conservatives with neocon leanings (like Rubio/Cruz) is not going to work, hence why the movement is now fracturing. And who benefits from this fracturing? The Neocons. They succeed in destroying the Libertarian Movement in this process by breaking up the coalition, as was intended from the beginning.
It's obvious that the movement is fracturing along socially liberal/conservative lines, but it's inappropriate to place the blame solely on the social conservatives, as you appear to be doing. Those who are social conservatives first and libertarians second are jumping ship for some other Republican candidate and those who are social liberals first and libertarians second are jumping ship for Bernie. Even some of those who are libertarians first, but who nonetheless have views on social issues, are holding their nose and pragmatically supporting a spectacularly unlibertarian candidate for their stance on social issues.
Anyway, at this point, the issue is moot.
There are no remaining libertarian presidential candidates to rally around, with Rand having dropped out.
It doesn't really matter if former Paulites are now supporting Cruz/Bernie, since this cycle is already lost.
We'll certainly want to herd everyone back together for the next cycle, though.
specsaregood
02-24-2016, 02:09 PM
why?
Too many reasons to bother listing. I just can't take the LP seriously nor would I want to willingly associate myself as a supporter of theirs.
otherone
02-24-2016, 02:12 PM
Too many reasons to bother listing. I just can't take the LP seriously nor would I want to willingly associate myself as a supporter of theirs.
ooookaaaay.
Cabal
02-24-2016, 02:14 PM
Too many reasons to bother listing. I just can't take the LP seriously nor would I want to willingly associate myself as a supporter of theirs.
Can't be much worse than willingly associating with the GOP.
specsaregood
02-24-2016, 02:19 PM
Can't be much worse than willingly associating with the GOP.
Nope, but just because I've covered myself in elephant shit in order to have a chance to vote in a taxpayer funded primary doesn't mean I want to cover myself in dog shit with absolutely nothing to show for it.
specsaregood
02-24-2016, 02:22 PM
//
otherone
02-24-2016, 02:28 PM
Even though I'm not religious, I don't generically hate religious people. I've met CP people and CP candidates for local office and are people I actually like, of course I've met many of them at bircher meetings which is also full of people I like, and many are religious. Most of the LP people I have met IRL are not people I'd want to work with or be around all that often.
Thanks for the clarification. I've voted LP since 92; my first interaction w/ the party was in 99; I took my son. It was at an Applebee's and all they talked about was getting matching federal campaign funds. I never went back. The CP people I've met have been flakes, if we're being anecdotal.
Jingles
02-24-2016, 06:53 PM
I'm a libertarian. I'm neither conservative or liberal.
But I do dislike the religious right and socialist left equally.
But I don't care if people are religious, I just don't like the idea of people using their religion to enforce their morality on others. I equally dislike the left trying to do the same with social issues via the state. I just want the state out of social issues in general.
otherone
02-24-2016, 07:10 PM
I'm a libertarian. I'm neither conservative or liberal.
But I do dislike the religious right and socialist left equally.
But I don't care if people are religious, I just don't like the idea of people using their religion to enforce their morality on others. I equally dislike the left trying to do the same with social issues via the state. I just want the state out of social issues in general.
A true Pocono-Libertarian.
RJ Liberty
02-24-2016, 07:40 PM
Those people are theonomists. They agree with libertarians on a large number of issues but still support enacting Biblical law at a local level.
Thanks for teaching me a new word. : )
You don't necessarily have to be a theonomist to not be a fan of Gary Johnson. Johnson basically seems like a liberal with a few libertarian leanings to me. He's for abortion, for forcing Christian businesses to participate in gay marriage ceremonies, for humanitarian wars, etc. I don't consider him to be a libertarian.
The (big-L) Libertarian Party, who nominated him in 2012, would disagree with you. Johnson also favors requiring a balanced budget, abolishing the corporate federal income tax, supports free-market economies, supports auditing the Federal Reserve, campaigned on slashing the military budget, opposed the endless wars in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, opposed the so-called PATRIOT Act, opposed Guantanamo torture, opposes eminent domain, opposes the so-called War on Drugs, opposes state-sponsored murder (death penalty), is pro-legalization of marijuana, opposes gun control, etc. These positions are largely liberty-minded issues.
cajuncocoa
02-24-2016, 08:09 PM
Yes. Witness the fact that about 8% of the forum-goers here believe that homosexuals should be punished by the death penalty (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?490332-Do-Homosexuals-Deserve-the-Death-Penalty-or-Entitlements). Eight percent actually are calling for state executions based on someone's sexuality. Another 5% believe homosexuality should be a felony. This is, of course, fascism, not liberty at all.
It's a credit to the great Ron Paul that four years ago, his message was able to cross over and influence the bible-thumping Religious Right, but make no mistake: the people who are (for example) calling for state executions of gays were never actually small-L libertarians (much less big-L Libertarians). They would never vote for, say, Gary Johnson, who actually ran on the Libertarian Party ticket, and who won the largest number of voters in LP history. To these guys, Gary Johnson is a "hippy clown".
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that every participating member of this board did not vote in that poll, and if more had done so, that 8% statistic would be much lower.
These labels really have no meanings. Progressivism and conservatism are based on pragmatism. One is future based while the other is against change from what one grew up with. Classical Liberalism and Socialism have souls while the other two do not. When we discuss Classical Liberalism we can talk about Mises, Hayek, Adam Smith, John Locke, Epicurus. Socialism has Engels and Marx attacking Classical Liberalism while pining for the world it demolished. The other two are fads that now support the third way/fabian socialism/corporatism. The best way to bring down a self righteous progressive is to talk about eugenics which they now seem to disavow except when it comes to babies. Conservatives change their stripes as the old generations die off to be replaced with the new.
Mises wrote a book on liberalism: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1463
RJ Liberty
02-24-2016, 11:04 PM
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that every participating member of this board did not vote in that poll, and if more had done so, that 8% statistic would be much lower.
No, of course not everyone voted in that poll, and I sure don't think it was a scientific poll: it was self-selecting. That being said, there were five people calling for state execution of gays.
Christian Liberty
02-24-2016, 11:30 PM
No, of course not everyone voted in that poll, and I sure don't think it was a scientific poll: it was self-selecting. That being said, there were five people calling for state execution of gays.
Thank God for four of those five :p
Cabal
02-25-2016, 12:37 AM
No, of course not everyone voted in that poll, and I sure don't think it was a scientific poll: it was self-selecting. That being said, there were five people calling for state execution of gays.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves, I think that's still up for debate.
Christian Liberty
02-25-2016, 12:39 AM
Let's not get ahead of ourselves, I think that's still up for debate.
Ha, very funny :P
thoughtomator
02-25-2016, 12:44 AM
There are many here these days who are neither conservative nor libertarian. The amount of progressive bullshit I've seen here over the past year is vomit-worthy, the anarchists simply don't give a shit about anything beyond their own personal selves, and the religious nutters actively work to scare people away thinking that they are doing good by promoting their beliefs ad nauseam in any conversation no matter how grossly inappropriate.
A proper liberty movement would be the best option for the anarchists and religious nutters but would not be beholden to them or be seriously influenced by them. And it would have open contempt for the progressives, including and perhaps especially the open-borders globalists, as well as the self-righteous tyrants who prostitute themselves under various anti-discrimination banners.
kcchiefs6465
02-25-2016, 03:25 AM
There are many here these days who are neither conservative nor libertarian. The amount of progressive bullshit I've seen here over the past year is vomit-worthy, the anarchists simply don't give a shit about anything beyond their own personal selves, and the religious nutters actively work to scare people away thinking that they are doing good by promoting their beliefs ad nauseam in any conversation no matter how grossly inappropriate.
A proper liberty movement would be the best option for the anarchists and religious nutters but would not be beholden to them or be seriously influenced by them. And it would have open contempt for the progressives, including and perhaps especially the open-borders globalists, as well as the self-righteous tyrants who prostitute themselves under various anti-discrimination banners.
Funny, I liken the closed borders protectionists to progressive so called luminaries.
Might as well draft a New New Deal.
One where illiterate butt-fucking bumpkins are guaranteed higher wages than the market demands.
Because, you know, America, and what not.
cajuncocoa
02-25-2016, 07:28 AM
Thank God for four of those five :p
Because Jesus' forgiveness is so overrated
thoughtomator
02-25-2016, 10:03 AM
Funny, I liken the closed borders protectionists to progressive so called luminaries.
Then you lack the understanding that an integral nation that controls its own borders is an absolutely essential, non-negotiable prerequisite in order for liberty to exist.
Or perhaps it is honesty you lack, as nobody is calling for "closed borders", simply borders regulated according to the Rule of Law - a duty so fundamental that it is one of the core functions written into the Constitution for delegation to the federal government.
Christian Liberty
02-25-2016, 10:20 AM
Because Jesus' forgiveness is so overrated
I think a lot of people just believe this because they want to believe it, not because it actually makes exegetical sense. Few try to argue that because of Christ's death we shouldn't punish murderers now. Some do argue against the death penalty on these grounds, but even those that do usually want murderers to have to spend a lifetime in prison. Yet I'm sure you would object to someone proposing that homosexuals spend a lifetime in prison as an alternative (indeed, prison systems are only used by tyrants in the Bible and are never condoned by God or prescribed for Israel.)
The adulterous woman case isn't applicable for so many reasons, the most obvious being the entire episode still took place under the Old Covenant (the New Covenant did not begin until Christ's death and resurrection) and so the law against adultery would have applied then even if you don't believe it applied now (I think the case of adultery is similar enough to be comparable.) "he who is without sin cast the first stone" is not talking about all sins whatsoever (it would prove too much, as nobody could then be punished for any crime) but rather the victimized party who had not committed adultery (furthermore the law wasn't actually being followed as only the woman was brought out for punishment rather than the man). The Pharisees were testing Jesus, and Jesus immediately discerned where they were breaking the law and used this to avoid the trap.
Christ's forgiveness is certainly available for anyone who has personal faith in his life, death, and resurrection for their justification. Anyone who trusts in him alone for salvation, even someone who has committed adultery or homosexuality, can be forgiven. However, just as with a murderer, being forgiven by Christ does not negate the punishment.
I really think these kinds of arguments from evangelicals and so forth today stems not from sound Biblical exegesis, but because we don't really take sexual sin as seriously as the Bible does, and we want an excuse not to take it as seriously. I think there are some bad philosophical reasons behind this aas well, without a robust understanding of the real improtance of both ideas and spirituality, it doesn't really make sense why God would take this kind of covenant breaking this seriously. I think our arguments here are more stemmed from what we do or don't like than what is actually BIblical.
Cabal
02-25-2016, 10:33 AM
Then you lack the understanding that an integral nation that controls its own borders is an absolutely essential, non-negotiable prerequisite in order for liberty to exist.
"Muh statism!!!!111"
http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-26-2015/m_JWqS.gif
GunnyFreedom
02-25-2016, 10:47 AM
http://i.imgur.com/JAFRMiz.png
AuH20
02-25-2016, 10:59 AM
"Muh statism!!!!111"
http://cdn.makeagif.com/media/11-26-2015/m_JWqS.gif
More like this guy, but I digress.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/Hans-Hermann-Hoppe.jpg/220px-Hans-Hermann-Hoppe.jpg
acptulsa
02-25-2016, 11:28 AM
It used to be that conervatives were for a conservative (limited) government. That changed about the mid 70s to mean conservative on social issues. Now they are both big government parties, but differ on the issues government should focus on.
The United States was founded on liberty. Liberty gave its citizens the working space they needed to make it great. In the U.S. true conservatism works to preserve liberty.
The powers that be keep us divided with labels and keep us fighting over social issues while they grow their authoritarian, robber baron regime. Which of them is going to lift a finger to stop abortion? None of them. Not one.
If we cannot restore government of the people, by the people, and for the people, we might just as well have a circle jerk as fight for 'social issues' like the unborn. We can't keep the doctors from killing the unborn and fight with those who are trying to keep the cops from killing the born too. Either we figure out that the 'conservatives' and the 'liberals' are on the same side, or the 'conservatives' and the 'liberals' continue to fight each other while the doctors and cops continue to kill with impunity.
The trolls keep slapping labels on us and the killing continues, born and unborn alike. But the fact that we're busy fighting over labels and fighting over whether the born or the unborn should be saved first has nothing to do with that. Right?
Christian Liberty
02-25-2016, 12:41 PM
http://i.imgur.com/JAFRMiz.png
I am curious where I end up on this.
GunnyFreedom
02-25-2016, 12:44 PM
I am curious where I end up on this.https://www.nolanchart.com/survey-php
Ronin Truth
02-25-2016, 12:45 PM
"Political tags - such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth - are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Ronin Truth
02-25-2016, 12:47 PM
I am curious where I end up on this.
nolan chart
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=nolan+chart
GunnyFreedom
02-25-2016, 12:54 PM
I am curious where I end up on this.
Just bear in mind that Nolan puts libertarian on top instead of bottom, so the chart will be reflected along a horizontal axis.
cajuncocoa
02-25-2016, 01:02 PM
My survey results:
http://s12.postimg.org/ujqt29ul9/My_Nolan_Chart.jpg
Christian Liberty
02-25-2016, 01:11 PM
How do I share my results?
I'm in the libetarian quadrant... very slightly to the right
Ronin Truth
02-25-2016, 03:15 PM
My survey results:
http://s12.postimg.org/ujqt29ul9/My_Nolan_Chart.jpg
Ditto! ;) :D
+Rep!
GunnyFreedom
02-25-2016, 03:44 PM
How do I share my results?
I'm in the libetarian quadrant... very slightly to the right
That particular survey doesn't really have enough detail to be extremely accurate. I'd probably put you closer to Paleocons or Traditional Conservatives.
Here is a better one that allows you to weigh policies, which is important for accuracy:
http://www.quiz2d.com/quiz/
http://i.imgur.com/oA56i4l.png
Noticing that yellow dot is AWFULLY close to where I put "Constitutionalism" in my prior drawing....
GunnyFreedom
02-25-2016, 03:50 PM
I went ahead and reflected my drawing along the horizontal axis and pasted it on top of my results from http://www.quiz2d.com/quiz/
If you want to know how to post your results, you will probably need to take a screenshot and crop it down.
http://i.imgur.com/OZ9b54q.png
Christian Liberty
02-25-2016, 04:04 PM
http://www.quiz2d.com/quiz/Right_Libertarian.php?personal=65.1&economic=100
Christian Liberty
02-25-2016, 04:04 PM
You seem like you were pretty close. I took the strictest possible positions against the sex industry and against abortion, was libertarian on everything else.
Ender
02-25-2016, 06:18 PM
I went ahead and reflected my drawing along the horizontal axis and pasted it on top of my results from http://www.quiz2d.com/quiz/
If you want to know how to post your results, you will probably need to take a screenshot and crop it down.
http://i.imgur.com/OZ9b54q.png
I am a Radical Libertarian.
<a href="http://www.quiz2d.com/quiz/Libertarian.php"><img border=0px alt="Libertarian on political map" src="http://www.quiz2d.com/quiz/resultGraph.php?picfile=RadicalLibertarian.png&personal=85.6&economic=100"> </a>
heavenlyboy34
02-25-2016, 06:40 PM
Radical libertarian.
http://www.quiz2d.com/quiz/resultGraph.php?personal=75&economic=100&picfile=RadicalLibertarian.png
GunnyFreedom
02-25-2016, 07:21 PM
I am a Radical Libertarian.
<a href="http://www.quiz2d.com/quiz/Libertarian.php"><img border=0px alt="Libertarian on political map" src="http://www.quiz2d.com/quiz/resultGraph.php?picfile=RadicalLibertarian.png&personal=85.6&economic=100"> </a>
This is what you were going for:
http://i.imgur.com/wsvfxWb.png
Ender
02-25-2016, 07:28 PM
This is what you were going for:
http://i.imgur.com/wsvfxWb.png
Thanks, Gunny!
The link froze and then my computer started having issues.
otherone
02-25-2016, 07:35 PM
my survey results:
http://i1312.photobucket.com/albums/t528/john_smith118/Mobile%20Uploads/old-man-giving-the-finger_zps9cc49edb.jpg
idiom
02-26-2016, 06:14 PM
The United States was founded on liberty. Liberty gave its citizens the working space they needed to make it great. In the U.S. true conservatism works to preserve liberty.
The powers that be keep us divided with labels and keep us fighting over social issues while they grow their authoritarian, robber baron regime. Which of them is going to lift a finger to stop abortion? None of them. Not one.
If we cannot restore government of the people, by the people, and for the people, we might just as well have a circle jerk as fight for 'social issues' like the unborn. We can't keep the doctors from killing the unborn and fight with those who are trying to keep the cops from killing the born too. Either we figure out that the 'conservatives' and the 'liberals' are on the same side, or the 'conservatives' and the 'liberals' continue to fight each other while the doctors and cops continue to kill with impunity.
The trolls keep slapping labels on us and the killing continues, born and unborn alike. But the fact that we're busy fighting over labels and fighting over whether the born or the unborn should be saved first has nothing to do with that. Right?
The United States was founded on 3/5ths of Liberty.
Some people here think letting people who don't own land vote, or letting women vote, or letting black and the Irish roam free decreased liberty.
Embracing individualism and free-markets was an extremely progressive idea and is still a bridge to far even for the United States.
Suzanimal
02-26-2016, 06:21 PM
http://i.imgur.com/ymlrGbq.png
GunnyFreedom
02-26-2016, 06:41 PM
http://i.imgur.com/ymlrGbq.png
Yoo stinkin leftie! :p :D
Suzanimal
02-26-2016, 06:42 PM
Yoo stinkin leftie! :p :D
:toady:
francisco
02-27-2016, 01:21 AM
Holy crap. I didn't get the exact top corner, almost didn't make it into the radical libertarian arc!
Hope this doesn't mean a re-education camp for me :)
Ronin Truth
02-27-2016, 03:22 PM
http://i.imgur.com/ymlrGbq.png
Atta girl, +Rep!
Ditto for me too, on this one. ;) :D
(I wanted to make it my avatar pic, but it's just too darned big.)
A radical libertarian believes in little to no government intervention for both personal and economic matters. A radical libertarian generally believes in one out of these two options: (1) A government that is extremely small and limited to the extent of protecting people's liberty - this view is known as Minarchism (2) No government at all, in which the private sector takes up all legitimate functions that a government would have - this view is known as Anarcho-Capitalism. Radical Libertarians tend to be strongly opposed to war, police powers, victimless crimes, foreign intervention and what they consider to be a welfare state. Radical Libertarians tend to be inspired by the Austrian school of economics, classical liberalism and 19th century individualist anarchism. Libertarian thought is individualist in nature. They try to protect both personal and economic liberty. Examples of Radical Libertarianism would be Murray Rothbard, H.L. Mencken, Ludwig Von Mises and Lysander Spooner.
otherone
02-27-2016, 04:12 PM
Holy crap. I didn't get the exact top corner, almost didn't make it into the radical libertarian arc!
Hope this doesn't mean a re-education camp for me :)
Libertarian re-education camp:
https://wilderness150.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/neota.jpg
Ronin Truth
02-28-2016, 11:37 AM
Two is a number, name two.
H. E. Panqui
02-29-2016, 12:38 PM
:(
...it's sad to hear people bickering about 'political issues'...'liberals'/democrats vs. 'conservatives'/republicans vs. 'socialists' vs. 'fascists' vs. 'centrists' vs. 'independents' vs. etc. republicrat fools ad goddamned nauseam...
...but when it comes to the bankster$ getting government bond$, etc. ad nauseam, for free...well, there's apparently no difference of opinion here...it's all ok...move along....nothing to talk about here...not EVER a stinking peep from the republicrat monetary ignoramu$ bickerers... ;)
...many of the abortion prohibitionist 'conservatives' are among the worst imo...frequently working their foaming gobs about 'big bad government' :rolleyes: as they screech like gd fools for some new 'dept. of abortion prohibition'...and---of course---endless wars/warmongering galore..:rolleyes:
..?apparently these authoritarian republicrat peckerheads presume some jurisdiction over another's womb?...despite the pathetic rhetoric about [individual] 'liberty' :rolleyes: frequently emanating from their hot dog chutes... :mad:
Ronin Truth
02-29-2016, 04:08 PM
:(
...it's sad to hear people bickering about 'political issues'...'liberals'/democrats vs. 'conservatives'/republicans vs. 'socialists' vs. 'fascists' vs. 'centrists' vs. 'independents' vs. etc. republicrat fools ad goddamned nauseam...
...but when it comes to the bankster$ getting government bond$, etc. ad nauseam, for free...well, there's apparently no difference of opinion here...it's all ok...move along....nothing to talk about here...not EVER a stinking peep from the republicrat monetary ignoramu$ bickerers... ;)
...many of the abortion prohibitionist 'conservatives' are among the worst imo...frequently working their foaming gobs about 'big bad government' :rolleyes: as they screech like gd fools for some new 'dept. of abortion prohibition'...and---of course---endless wars/warmongering galore..:rolleyes:
..?apparently these authoritarian republicrat peckerheads presume some jurisdiction over another's womb?...despite the pathetic rhetoric about [individual] 'liberty' :rolleyes: frequently emanating from their hot dog chutes... :mad:
The unborn are individuals deserving of life and liberty too. PREVENT unwanted pregnancies.
In one sentence, libertarianism, "Other people are not your property."
navy-vet
02-29-2016, 04:15 PM
When I was a kid, my father explained that all a conservative is, is someone who wants to preserve the status quo. And even liberals turn into conservatives once they get what they want.
I'm the exact opposite of conservative. There is literally nothing about the current system I think is worth saving.
Is there or has there ever been a system that you would like to live in? If so, what and when?
MelissaCato
02-29-2016, 04:24 PM
I prefer being called a Ron Pauler. lol
Son_of_Liberty90
02-29-2016, 08:50 PM
Libertarian re-education camp:
https://wilderness150.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/neota.jpg
I want to be re-educated! :D
navy-vet
02-29-2016, 09:19 PM
Is there or has there ever been a system that you would like to live in? If so, what and when?
crickets.....
Kind of expected that.
Ronin Truth
03-01-2016, 11:00 AM
Is there or has there ever been a system that you would like to live in? If so, what and when?
No, they pretty much all suck. :p
Satanic rule and control does tend to do that. <shrug>
Ronin Truth
03-01-2016, 11:02 AM
Only applies to a sliver of a minority of the cognitive dissonants.
navy-vet
03-01-2016, 07:20 PM
The story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, from the scriptures, for me, is a parable about humanities desire to experience life in a dynamic and challenging realm. Instead, of a protected, predictable, mundane one. To live free and challenged, verses complacent and static.
I see humanity as excelling and progressing under stress, while festering and becoming stagnant and unsustainable in times of plenty.
It's just how we are wired.
DamianTV
03-01-2016, 08:47 PM
Labels dont matter. How we treat each other is really what matters.
In todays society, we live under the great lie of Government. Government itself is the great lie by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else. Values are shifted and morals are distorted by forcing others to bear the burden of responsibility for the bad behaviors of others. By doing this, each individual sees bad behaviors as a threat to their own well being, and thus draw a conclusion that the indirectly affected individual has a "Right" to tell another individual how to live their lives. That concept continues to escalate until total ownership of another human being is necessary. People are now treated as if they are the property of the state, and any attempts to refuse the demands of the state are perceived as a threat to other individuals that support state ownership of people. The final consequence of this is that if your neighbor does not brush their teeth every day, every other individual perceives the non toothbrusher as an intolerable member of society, and demand that government be created or enforce violence against the non toothbrusher because the burden of paying for the non toothbrushers dental work costs everyone else. That is a shift of responsibility from the individual to the society, where the needs of the society always outweigh the needs of the individual. Unfortunately, this same concept applies to abortion as well. If one member of society has a pregnancy that is unwanted, the rest of society immediately decries the behaviors of that individual and believes they have a right to justify violence against the person that had the unwanted pregnancy as a measure of self defense. It is just as sad to see one human being murder a grown adult of any nationality as it is to know an abortion has taken place, but like the murder of an adult, it is well beyond the scope of authority of the other members of the society to enact violence directly, thus, we let government do it for us. This results in a pattern of absolving government, and people who act under the pretense of being a part of the government of all responsibility for the violence visited upon that individual. Justice can still be served, but needs to be done so in a court of law. Was the murder an act of self defense? Was it authorized by the military? Was it for greed or lust? There are a ton of reasons on both sides of guilt and innocence that will determine the fate of the individual, however, in the case of abortion, I think that is between the parents, their doctor, and God. Other people need to quit hiding behind the pretense that they have any legitimate say so in the decisions made by those that would choose to have that abortion when they are not directly involved, IE, not either parent or the doctor or god, and I dont think God himself actually posts on our forums, or any other. We are always faced with a choice between what is right and what is easy. It is easy to try to control the behaviors of others. I believe it is right to allow others to make those decisions for themselves, but it is also very hard to not want to get involved. It is even hard for me to bite my own tongue when I see people make a decision about abortion, so if you disagree with me, first, I disagree with myself, because that is the hardest thing that can be done, but I believe also the right thing. I also think that not offering a welfare structure forces people to make individually responsible choices. I cant provide for this baby, thus, I wont go out and get myself knocked up. Just as Open Borders and Welfare cause immigration, Open Legs and Welfare contributes to overpopulation. I know one thing, I cant decide for other people what the right thing to do is. I'll support and offer suggestions, but I do my best to not cross the line and dictate how other people must behave, unless it is a direct and obvious threat to myself, on par with pointing a gun at someone, but something like not brushing ones teeth or not paying taxes, thats beyond the scope of my own authority. Thus, one question to ask yourselves in regards to abortion, if it doesnt affect you, do you think it within the scope of your authority, or beyond the scope of your individual authority? You dont have to post an answer, just food for thought.
Similar to the abortion debate, it is easy to demand that government hand out welfare and do nothing in return. It is right to provide for ones self, but the right thing to do is also the hard choice. It should be obvious that many many people choose what is easy over what is right. Such as bankers who do not produce a damn thing, yet, reap the rewards of the labors of the people. Those types of people will not choose the hard path and to actually put in an honest days worth of work producing anything that society needs. Instead, they put in as much effort as possible to deprive others of what they have produced in order to benefit themselves.
Just thinking out loud...
H. E. Panqui
03-02-2016, 01:42 AM
The unborn are individuals deserving of life and liberty too. PREVENT unwanted pregnancies.
In one sentence, libertarianism, "Other people are not your property."
:cool:
...i applaud your using persuasion to try to achieve your goal...my problem is with the gd fool republicrat abortion prohibitionists who would use coercion to achieve their/your goal...
...i can't ever get an honest answer from these abortion prohibitionists:...WHAT LAWS DO THEY FAVOR AND WHAT PENALTY/PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF THEIR STINKING LAWS... :confused:
...simple question, but the gd fool womb-police can't/won't give an honest answer...conservative 'teabag' radio-republicans are the worst of the gd fools ime... :mad:
dntrpltt
03-02-2016, 06:21 AM
http://www.quiz2d.com/quiz/resultGraph.php?picfile=RadicalLibertarian.png&personal=96.1&economic=100
Occam's Banana
03-02-2016, 06:47 AM
When I was a kid, my father explained that all a conservative is, is someone who wants to preserve the status quo. And even liberals turn into conservatives once they get what they want.
I'm the exact opposite of conservative. There is literally nothing about the current system I think is worth saving.
Is there or has there ever been a system that you would like to live in? If so, what and when?
crickets.....
Kind of expected that.
Is the answer (whatever it is) supposed to be dispositive of something?
Ronin Truth
03-02-2016, 08:41 AM
:cool:
...i applaud your using persuasion to try to achieve your goal...my problem is with the gd fool republicrat abortion prohibitionists who would use coercion to achieve their/your goal...
...i can't ever get an honest answer from these abortion prohibitionists:...WHAT LAWS DO THEY FAVOR AND WHAT PENALTY/PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF THEIR STINKING LAWS... :confused:
...simple question, but the gd fool womb-police can't/won't give an honest answer...conservative 'teabag' radio-republicans are the worst of the gd fools ime... :mad:
"The problem with American conservatism is that it hates the left more than the state, loves the past more than liberty, feels a greater attachment to nationalism than to the idea of self-determination, believes brute force is the answer to all social problems, and thinks it is better to impose truth rather than risk losing one soul to heresy. It has never understood the idea of freedom as a self-ordering principle of society. It has never seen the state as the enemy of what conservatives purport to favor. It has always looked to presidential power as the saving grace of what is right and true about America." -- Lew Rockwell //
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.