in - u - end - oOriginally Posted by phill4paul
I've had lots of them. I had a weak stomach when I was a kid and my mom would always request suppositories when I needed medicine because I would throw up easily.
The Keagle balls don't go in your $#@!.o_O
Well that certainly clears some things up.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Damnit. Need to re-calibrate.
You know what I love? 6 votes and 34 replies! Perfect!
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
People are so unsure about themselves nowadays.
"None of the above" was not an option.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
I'm not a libertarian. That said:
I'd say I'm the *closest* to being a libertarian on foreign policy. I wouldn't necessarily hold to the idealistic version of "no non strictly defensive wars ever" but I'm extremely close. In the hypothetical event where a tyrant could be overthrown, replaced with godly leadership, and pretty much nothing bad would happen, yeah, I'd support it. But that's pretty much never gonna be the case. I'd also support a godly, covenanted nation defending another godly and covenanted nation if they were attacked, and that's more realistic, though even then, I'd only support war tactics that leave civilians out of it by anyone involved. In *practice* I'd usually agree with libertarians on foreign policy. I definitely wouldn't defend any war the US has participated in since WWII, and even with WWII, its iffy, and even if it were justified, our tactics certainly weren't.
On fiscal policy, I'm also somewhat close, but not quite the same. I believe the Bible supports minimal taxation, and so I am more of a minarchist when it comes to such issues than an "anarcho-capitalist." I also believe in some economic regulations, but not really the ones you'd expect. The main thing that would seem to fall under pure economics would be the sabbath day. I believe everything non-essential should be shut down on sundays. And yes, the government should participate in that as needed. Exodus 20
Civil liberties is really vague. I pretty much completely agree with the libertarians if you're only dealing with CIVIL stuff. Stuff like civil-asset forfeiture, no-knock/warrantless searches, wiretapping, stopping and frisking, etc. I'm completely in line with libertarians. I also think if the government can rightly own a weapon, the populace can too (I'd be OK with like, a ban of ICBMs, but the government shouldn't have those either.) On the other hand, some people use civil liberties to alos include social stuff. Some of that I'd agree with libertarians on (for instance, the "War on Drugs" or legalizing gambling) but most of it I wouldn't, especially when it relates to sexual immorality or "freedom of religion."
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Is this the Saturday night drinking thread??
"Nobody wins in a Dairy Challenge" ~ Kenny Rogers, RIP
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease to be honest." ~ anonymous
“The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools” ~ King Crimson
Why not????Is this the Saturday night drinking thread??
Well after reading all the posts I thought I walked in the wrong room.... A little sake tonight.
Oh, and I voted not a libertarian, not sure what one is anymore ...
"Nobody wins in a Dairy Challenge" ~ Kenny Rogers, RIP
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease to be honest." ~ anonymous
“The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools” ~ King Crimson
Drinking it chilled
"Nobody wins in a Dairy Challenge" ~ Kenny Rogers, RIP
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease to be honest." ~ anonymous
“The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools” ~ King Crimson
Well, I'm a theonomist/establishmentarian who occasionally hangs around here for some reason so I'm *definitely* in the wrong room.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Deleted picture
Apologies, I just realized I hijacked this thread
"Nobody wins in a Dairy Challenge" ~ Kenny Rogers, RIP
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken, or cease to be honest." ~ anonymous
“The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools” ~ King Crimson
I would have voted if I could have voted for more than one .
Do something Danke
Free markets. If you don't have free markets nothing else really matters. I look at it in the context of where I would want to live if I could only choose one.
Cuba might have a non-interventionist foreign policy, but I would certainly rather live in a country ruled by neocons than Cuba. Singapore has a very poor record on civil liberties but I would much rather live in an economically free country like Singapore than a country like Spain with a better record on civil liberties.
That people think of themselves as such things is one of the most troubling aspects of the common perceptual landscape. It is precisely this sort of thinking that contributes so highly to the greater body of humanity's disastrous problems.
"Libertarian" is a compound concept that lives at a significant conceptual distance from the postulates of life. What this means is that the farther away from postulates one's mind wanders, the more individualized the associated thoughts become. Think of a tree-structure, as is common in computer science. To wit:
If the root node represents a fundamental postulate or the set of such postulates, the "child" nodes are perforce less fundamental because they are composites of those postulates and other nodes. The number of nodes between a given node and the root is commonly referred to as the "level" of the node. The further "down" the tree levels one goes, the more complex is the concept represented by that node, and in a sense the "farther away" it is from the root.
The farther away from the basics, the more unique and individual the conceptual structure and the less common with other nodes.
The point here is that people choose very complex conceptual nodes to which to attach their belief. In this sense, "libertarian" is very much like "communism", and when you get to concepts of such complexity, the terms themselves end up meaning comparatively little. What that means is that "libertarian" denotes one thing for one man and something significantly different for another. Indeed, "libertarian" can mean more than one thing for one man. It ought not, but in point of reality it does, thereby rendering the term virtually devoid of any real utility. It is not unlike using "dog" to denote a dog, a couch, sink, clothing, typical weeds found in the garden, etc. Once this is done, the value of the word as a communicative and cogitative device is lost. And this is precisely what humans do on a daily basis. Consider, to wit, "awesome" - a word I now refuse to employ for the semantic destruction it has endured. Ignorant young people have allowed themselves to be lured into the grossly incorrect and effectively meaningless and wholly invalid use of "awesome" such that its meaning has been mangled into nothing. Those same dullards are now mostly functionally incapable of reading works of a decidedly older vintage that use "awesome" with a sufficient understanding of the meaning it casts.
It is because of this reality regarding the landscapes of perception and cogitation that I remain "close to home". I am by no means a "libertarian", though I have told people that the label is the closest thing that fits me that they would understand. I do so in order to avoid long, drawn out, and endless repetition of points so basic that virtually all men should be expert in them, rather than the clueless dullards they almost invariably prove.
By staying closer to home, I mean that my word is "freedom". Freedom is a postulate-level concept. Again referring to my roots in computer science, it is a "primitive" or "atomic" structure. Cleaving to it leaves my thoughts in a context common to all men, even if most of the people around me are unaware of it. By dwelling in such a place, one is not only able to see more clearly with a better absence of noise, he is also better able to communicate his positions precisely because it is less noisy.
I have to laugh the sardonic laugh of the cynic when I hear self-professed "progressives", "socialists", "communists", etc. spew on about their grave concern for human freedom. They are so lost in the mazes of mangled perception and thought that what they take as "freedom" is actually a savage maiming of the word, pasted on to a non-primitive notion wholly colored and otherwise defiled by the false, invalid, and often tacit assumptions upon which their broader conceptual frameworks (communism etc.) are based. Those people live in a world absent of the primitives so centrally essential to one's ability to lead a life of even the most meager intelligence and, IMO, worth.
I can decide most readily. I am not a libertarian, but a Freeman. Freedom is the only central concern of mine. Undifferentiated freedom with no concern for the effects it may have upon others is not a problem at all, contrary to the wild rantings and cries of "wolf!!" by those who feel the world will collapse without "government"-meted justice. Ubiquitous freedom, even when unregulated by concepts such as the NAP, of which I become increasingly suspicious, has the property of being self-regulating. The absolute proof of this lies in the wild where even though undomesticated creatures live in perfect freedom, chaos is held at bay through the self-regulation that is part and parcel of all systems.If you can't decide, consider which you actually spend the most time thinking, reading, or writing about.
One of the big problems with humans is their current refusal to accept the costs of freedom, wanting naught but the perceived benefits. This, of course, is an impossible condition to maintain, which is one of the reasons we all live in servitude to others. We have architected our circumstances with the aim of enjoying all benefits of freedom without having to bear its burdens. The result has not been freedom, but slavery with a candy-coating plastered upon its face. "Libertarianism" is not fundamentally different in this respect to socialism or any of the other "isms" against which libertarians so bitterly complain.
We're in a deep mess because our thoughts are. I have spent a lifetime sweeping aside the extraneous and harmful noises that pollute the minds of so many, diverting them from deeper truths. It has been something of a mission to point the way to others. I have no idea whether I've enjoyed any success at it whatsoever, but I will keep trying. It's not as if I have a job to which to go.
Nutshell: stick to the most basic and simple concepts in terms of that which you choose to hold as your central truths. For me, it is nothing more or less than freedom. Without that, IMO our lives are barely that, but really more like mere existences as we go from day to day largely at the deign of others. IMO you need to think about that last bit until it twigs brightly to the Inner Self as a central truth of human existence. If you live at the deign of another, you are a slave and nothing else.
Last edited by osan; 02-19-2017 at 07:45 AM.
freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.
It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.
Our words make us the ghosts that we are.
Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.
I'm right there with you, brother. Have to spread some rep around but I'll get ya.
I finally realized that we get a lot of people who like to call themselves libertarian yet act completely opposite. And I make the mistake of calling them anarchists when they're actually globalists. The "Global Citizen" folks. Of course, thats just one thing. I don't really mind true anarchists who have actually thought things through a little bit and understand the pros with the cons of it. I can relate to them. But it's the Global Citizen types that like to blend in and purposefully confuse libertarianism from the perspective of the traditional American philosophy with their globalist philosophy. As if a foreign citizen can just come here as they please and enjoy all of the protected rights that our nation was founded by and that my ancestors spilled their guts for. I really want to call them out by name but I'll pass this morning.
But anyway. Yeah. That's where I'm at, too.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 02-19-2017 at 08:07 AM.
Beer is never bought. It is rented.
End of the day, only worthy men will be free men. And that means something. Far too deep for a thread like this.
Do you agree that a woman who is accused of and convicted of adultry should be stoned to death? That's a yes or no answer.
Depends.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
Libertarianism has caused me to challenge many of my own beliefs, for which I owe a great debt of gratitude. However, I'm going to go with, "I'm not a libertarian." (in hipster-esque fashion, lol)
But seriously, there have also been issues that I have challenged my own beliefs on, and ultimately did not arrive at the 'approved' libertarian stance (depending on who you ask and which day of the week it is). Since I can't claim the title of libertarian without someone picking apart an issue and asserting—rather sanctimoniously—that I'm not a true libertarian, I'll just be upfront and say that I don't really want the title.
However, I've no qualms about working with libertarians to push forward on issues where agreement can be found.
Last edited by nobody's_hero; 02-19-2017 at 10:23 AM.
This is getting silly.T.S. Eliot's The Hollow Men
"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato
We Are Running Out of Time - Mini Me
LOL! Seriously though the Biblical answer is that it depends. Its up to the victim.
This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading
um.. what about the NAP? don't hit people and don't take their stuff
Disclaimer: any post made after midnight and before 8AM is made before the coffee dip stick has come up to optomim level - expect some level of silliness,
The problems we face today exist because the people who work for a living are out numbered by those who vote for a living !!!!!!!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us