Modern American conservatism and libertarianism

I did not claim that salvation was works based merely that certain deeds we do place us on the path to hell if we cannot repent. Grace is that act whereby God places faith in an unrepentant human heart there by making repentance possible.

Essential liberty as you use the term would be the freedom to do what ever you wish without fear of consequences. By that definition one must be a completely antisocial twit for whom other human beings are but cheap easily broken play toys to experience essential liberty or freedom. By the way you aren't the only one pushing that crap. Libertarians make the mistake of assuming human beings are essentially good and absent the state would get along famously. History and numerous fossil remains on every continent say differently.

 

JUST AN OBSERVATION: The law does restrict liberty in that it, by definition, requires us to do something or prohibits us from doing something that we might or might not otherwise chose to do or choose not to do whether that be jay walking, the side of the road we drive on, how we dispose of refuse, how we maintain our property, etc. etc. etc. Such laws are generally intended to increase safety and/or provide consistent and orderly conditions for the mutual benefit of all.

However, as a conservative/libertarian in all matters of what we might see as morality, I see nothing in the U.S. Constitution that gives the central government any authority in that matter.

The states and/or local communities have, or should have, ALL the power in deciding whether they want to legalize or prohibit:
Prostitution
Gambling
Alcohol or other substance consumption
Various legal components of marriage contracts (age, familial relationships etc.) and that can include same sex marriage
Public prayer or prayer in the public schools, etc.
Public nudity
Public profanity
Lewd or obscene conduct
and so forth. . .

When it comes to social contract, i.e. how the various states and/or local communities choose to organize and manage their various societies, those choices can be based on conservative/libertarian values or modern day progressive/liberal values.

But what we think, believe, profess, confess in our own homes or otherwise in our private life about anything, so long as we do not demand that others agree with us or conform to our personal ideology, is our unalienable right. Conservatives/libertarians believe nobody should be attacked or punished for that ideology no matter how wrong most others think we are.

Agree or disagree.

 

Proud to be a believer in liberty! Once you learn that the problem is not the other, the fellow man, rich or poor, but the government, your whole world view changes, and you cherish liberty and freedom more than ever.

 

Words to live by.

 

What you said is that if someone did certain deeds - they would not get into heaven. This a works based formulation for salvation.

1) you have no clue what you are talking about
2) Essential liberty is not the freedom to do what ever you want. It is the freedom to do what you want - so long as you are not harming someone else. Killing someone is not part of essential liberty.

3) Your use of the term "consequences" is correct = Law. Your claim that essential liberty has nothing to do with law is completely false.

The mind less gibberish above follows from your lack of understanding of essential liberty ... followed by building a strawman (attributing things to me that I did not say nor infer)

 

Yes. The modern American conservative/libertarian (small "L") pretty much universally believe in certain socioeconomic truths:

--you can't make the shallow end of the pool deeper by taking water out of the deep end, even if you pour some or all of that water into the shallow end. And you'll lose some in the transfer just as you will if you cut off one end of the blanket and sew it onto the other end. The blanket won't be longer and will become somewhat shorter every time that is done.

--you cannot improve the status of the poor by making the rich less rich.

--what one person receives without working, another person must work without receiving.

--when there is no consequence for little or productivity and little or no reward for productivity, there will be little or no productivity.

 

Please note I never used the phrase essential liberty that's your invention not mine

 

What on earth did you think we were talking about .. if not essential liberty. You didn't even know what essential liberty was until I corrected you.. but regardless ..liberty and essential liberty are the same with respect to the context of the conversation.

Your claim that liberty has nothing to do with Law is false .. 6 ways to Sunday .. despite your feeble attempt to use semantics to try to deny your error.

 

From the studentnewsdaily.com--not sure what university that would represent there are these definitions. Did they get them right?

http://www.libertywalk.org/equality/what-do-liberals-believe-what-do-conservatives-believe/

“CONSERVATIVES – believe in personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, individual liberty, traditional American values and a strong national defense. Believe the role of government should be to provide people the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.

Conservative policies generally emphasize empowerment of the individual to solve problems.

LIBERALS – believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that it is the duty of the State to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Believe that people are basically good.

Liberal policies generally emphasize the need for the government to solve people’s problems.”​

 

I'm not American, so I'm not sure how I know about this but you don't: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_unions_in_the_United_States#Civil_unions

 

You sound like someone who once didn't believe in liberty.

 

You know that map you showed only listed six States with civil union there are 50 states in the country so that's 12% of the states that had civil unions. I live in Texas they never had that.

I don't know about domestic law in Illinois because I'm a thousand miles away from there.

 

Not Civil Unions specifically then, but I see that Texas has had quite an up and down history with same-sex unions in general. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Texas

 

I was talking essentially and strictly about liberty. To be at liberty, as I believe I've already stated, is to be a slave to no one or no thing. The addict is a slave to whatever behavior he is addicted to.

 

No, they were pretty solid on it until 2015.

 

Well I mean up and down with the attempts at same sex unions of some sort.

 

Well you did say "everyone." So who else other than business people? In regards to business people, even if they agree to provide a service to a same sex wedding, this isn't them necessarily accepting same sex marriage, is it? They may totally disagree with it.

Why not?

What's the "pool?"

 

It matters not whether we use the term liberty or essential liberty - your claim that the term "liberty" has nothing to do with the law was false.

Since we are talking about Homosexuality - this falls under the category of essential liberty.

The idea that the founders used some definition of Liberty - a definition which included the right to do what ever one wanted without limits - is simply false.

The whole point of the DOI is to define the limits to Gov't power - and define where the authority of Gov't comes from.

1) Essential liberty was put up "Above" the legitimate authority of Gov't NOT Liberty as you define it. The legitimate authority of Gov't is protection from direct harm - one person on another (murder, rape, theft and so on).

The one thing you got correct was the guiding principle of Classical Liberalism/Republicanism - "No man wants to be ruled over by another"

The point of this was to limit the power of Gov't. It is recognized that some authority must be given power to punish offenders for violations of codes of conduct - it does not good to have such codes of conduct if people can violate these codes on a whim - without punishment.

however because "no man wants to be ruled over by another" that power was to be limited ONLY to actions which were directly injurious to others - one person on another (murder, rape, theft and so on)

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82

This is how liberty/essential liberty is defined = does not include actions of direct harm to others.

Regardless - if you are for liberty (using either the proper definition or your made up definition) - then why are you railing against homosexuals - as if Gov't authority should be used to curb that activity ?

 

I've lived here for most of my life there was never a time when it changed outside of 2015. So I don't know what ups and downs you're talking about.

 

The ATTEMPTS outlined here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Texas

 

What difference does that make?

 

What difference does it make to what?

 

Well, did you have a ceremony? And was it before Obergefel or after?

Well my point is that they COULD have gotten married prior, just like you did! But yes, if for some strange reason they wanted to celebrate getting married under the law, then yes, they couldn't do it prior to Obergefel.

I don't see why it's a dumb question. I can't see how there was ANYTHING that was stopping them from calling it a "marriage ceremony" even if they couldn't be married under the law.

Well exactly. That's why I don't have a problem with my state recognising same-sex marriage, because I didn't have a problem with my state recognising same sex Civil Unions. Perhaps you have been under the impression that I am against same sex marriage.

Surely you know that a civil union gives legal recognition to couple's.

 

If you are compelled to participate in an activity or be driven out of business you have been rendered a slave.

If you are driven by impulse you are a slave to it.

A typo should have been point.

 

Correct, but what does this have to do with "compulsory acceptance" of same sex marriage?

Actually I agree with that. I thought that you were saying that the man who always acts on impulse never has liberty or freedom from the government!

The word "do" isn't in the above. Why not?