Why libertarianism isn't conservatism

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by aCultureWarrior, Sep 19, 2021.

  1. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which does nothing to counter my point. There are libertarians who support marijuana use and others who do not. Supporting the freedom to do something does not automatically mean supporting the action itself.

    Which does nothing to show that allowing these things to exist and be chosen is the same as promoting it. Promoting something is going out there and saying, "you should do this". It's what many Christians do after all. Allowing it is saying "if you want to do it, that's up to you." They are two very different positions.

    All very nice and well, but there is a difference between making a law that says, "thou shalt", and not having a law that says "thou shalt not". A law removes choice, whether it's a "thou shalt" law or a "thou shalt not" law. A lack of a law gives choice.

    Which is exactly the same as what I put out. The libertarian (regardless of LP policy) idea is to give people choice and not say whether they should or should not, as far as the law goes. Individuals will always have different stances even when they hold the same legal stance.

    That still doesn't remove the ability to choose. Christians follow the example of the Christ, right? Show me one example of Jesus saying anything along the lines of "go forth and force others to do the will of my Father."
     
  2. aCultureWarrior

    aCultureWarrior Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    aCultureWarrior said:
    I hear that con from libertarians frequently, yet they go silent when I point out that the legalization of marijuana has lead to "promoting" marijuana shops
    [​IMG]

    I just made my point: Marijuana shops wouldn't be around if laws didn't allow them to exist. Therefore laws that make recreational drug use legal, are promoting the sale and use of marijuana.

    BTW, those who don't support the so-called "freedom" to engage in recreational drug use aren't real libertarians then, because it goes against the core tenet of libertarianism:

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

    aCultureWarrior wrote:
    The legalization of pornography has lead to widespread use of pornographic websites and book/video stores, and that the legalization of homosexuality has lead to things like homosexual so-called 'marriage' and other things that wouldn't have happened if homosexuality were not legal.

    I'm not sure where you come up with the idea that in order to promote immoral behavior that it has to be said "you should engage in...", but a lack of those laws most definitely say "You can engage in (homosexuality, recreational drug use, abortion, pornography, prostitution, etc.) without the threat of being punished."

    Why would you be for things that are as destructive as recreational drug use, homosexuality, abortion, pornography and prostitution if you're not 'promoting' the so-called "freedom" to engage in it without government interference (i.e. the punishment that comes with breaking laws)? Lack of the threat of punishment promotes immoral behavior, hence tent cities because there are no laws against vagrancy.
    [​IMG]

    aCultureWarrior
    "All law commands human action; it seeks either to restrain or to urge particular actions. It necessarily says either "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not,"

    Yes, the lack of a law gives someone the choice as to whether or not they want to engage immoral and destructive behavior. That leads to anarchy and chaos.

    aCultureWarrior wrote:
    God gave man free will, but nowhere will you see in Holy Scripture Him telling man to use it against His Word.

    The difference is that libertarians don't believe that those immoral and destructive choices should be punished, Christians via Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:13-15 believe that they should.

    aCultureWarrior wrote:
    In fact, because of that free will that God gave to mankind, He created the 3 institutions for the governance of man (as seen in the above link) : the family, civil government and the Church, to keep that sinful behavior that comes with free will in check.

    The Apostle Paul in Romans 13 and the Apostle Peter in 1 Peter 2: 13-15 (if we need to discuss what an Apostle is again...).
    Ah, but it makes a person think twice before they commit a destructive and immoral act, because the threat of punishment is there. Remember when I used the stop sign analogy when we discussed this at TOL?
    What keeps you from running a stop sign especially when a police officer is sitting in his vehicle nearby?
    The threat of punishment. Without that threat, you're 'promoting' immoral and destructive behavior, anarchy and chaos, which libertarianism is.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2021
  3. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You still have it backwards. There are no laws that makes marijuana legal. Everything that has passed in the various states has been to remove laws making marijuana illegal. A lack of law is not the promotion of something. As noted, allowing is not promoting.

    Supporting the freedom to do something is still not promoting it. The former is passive, the later is active.

    While I happen to agree with this particular part of the party platform, the LP is not the end all be all of libertarians. There is a whole variety of libertarians as there are conservatives and liberals. Some libertarians are more right leaning and others more left leaning. So quoting the LP platform as if it spoke for all libertarians is like using WBC's platform as if it spoke for all Christians.

    Very good. That's allowing not promoting.

    You are conflating again. Promoting freedom for an action (i.e. calling for laws against that action to be removed) is not the same as promoting the action itself. Looking at your first example, I am all for allowing a person to engage in recreational drug use (i.e. there is no law to prevent it), but I will also be among the first to tell them that they shouldn't do it. Keep in mind the distinction. I would never stop them, because it needs to be their choice, but I can still promote the abstinence of recreational use while allowing for it to occur. Also keep in mind that allowing for recreations drug use does not automatically mean removing all legal responsibilities. Similar to how one can drink alcohol, but is still held responsible if they cause harm to others under the influence, so too does the principle apply to drugs.

    Slippery slope fallacy. There are always limits because person A's rights does not given him permission to ignore person B's rights. For example, I have the right to do whatever I want on my own property. However, if what I want to do, say dump chemical waste, causes harm to anyone else or their property, that's not allowed because it violates other's rights. I can burn a building on my own property so long as I am not endangering anyone else in doing so.

    God can do His own punishing. He doesn't need man to do it for Him. Beyond that, basically you are calling for your version of a religion to be forced upon others. Something that you don't want done to you. So you are instantly in violation of the "Golden Rule", which I was lead to understand was a basic Christian principle. If you do harm to me, yes you should be punished by mortal authority. If you do harm only to your self, then no, mortal authority should have no say in that. If you and another agree to an action in with either or both are harmed, assuming no coercion or lack of ability to make informed consent, then no mortal authority should not interfere.

    I didn't ask about anyone other than the Christ. Jesus is the example to live up to, not Paul, not Peter, not John, or anyone else.

    TOL? And no I don't recall any such example off the top of my head. I won't say we didn't engage in that conversation, but I suspect you might be confusing me with another you used the example on. That said, the stop sign and the law behind it, as well as many other laws of the road, are about safety and the interactions of people such that failure to follow the law could result in direct harm. Now that is not to say that I am agreeing with all laws. I do support helmet laws for children, because they are not of a maturity to have learned and understand the potential consequences not wearing one could bring. An adult on the other hand has no good reason not to understand such consequences, and if he wants to not wear one, then it be on him or her. It's not like the lack of a helmet will spread disease or otherwise cause harm to another.

    Again, conflating and slippery slope. Not advocating for one way or the other, but allowing the individual to choose is not promoting anything, save maybe freedom. Your false premise is a false premise no matter how many times you try to claim otherwise.
     
  4. aCultureWarrior

    aCultureWarrior Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    aCultureWarrior said:
    I just made my point: Marijuana shops wouldn't be around if laws didn't allow them to exist. Therefore laws that make recreational drug use legal, are promoting the sale and use of marijuana.

    Yes, something that is no longer "illegal" is "legal" (sigh. libertarians and their queen of denial roles).

    Washington State Initiative Initiative 502 defined and legalized small amounts of marijuana-related products for adults 21 and over,
    2012 Washington Initiative 502 - Wikipedia

    So tell me: As a "I am NOT a libertarian libertarian", obviously you're for laws punishing people for committing "non consensual" acts that are destructive such as rape and robbery. If there were no laws against rape and robbery, would that be promoting that behavior, at least amongst those who have a desire to do so, since there is no deterrence through the threat of punishment?

    How about those hundreds of anti abortion threads that you started over at TOL where you wanted abortion to be recriminalized; did Roe v Wade not "promote' the killing of unborn babies by not threatening to punish the doctors who commit those atrocities?

    When the Lawrence v Texas ruling was handed down by SCOTUS, stating that homosexuality is no longer illegal (outside of the libertarian world, they call that being "legal"), did that not "promote" more people to openly engage in homosexuality and proudly partake in their march of the moral degenerates parades?

    [​IMG]



    Oh, He will punish you libertarians for destroying other peoples lives, make no mistake about that, but that doesn't change the fact that God doesn't want anarchy to rule the earth, which it would if there weren't civil government, the family and the Church to control immoral and destructive behaviors.

    On that note: Have a wonderful "I am NOT a libertarian! libertarian" evening.
     
  5. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And in being legal it is not automatically a promotion of what is legal.

    First off if there were to be any accuracy to your statement it would be "I am not a Libertarian libertarian" and would be equivalent to "I am not a Republican conservative" or "I am not a Democrat liberal" One can be part of an ideology without being part of the political party that most people associate with that ideology.

    As to the second part, no that is not a promotion. An allowance is not a promotion. Promoting something is an active encouragement to do something. Simply allowing something is not encouraging that something.

    What is TOL? I can't answer that until I know what you are talking about. I am only on 3 forums total, and none of them have titles that would have the initials TOL.

    No. Promoting is the active encouragement to engage in an activity, not the allowing of that activity.

    If He wants punishment here on Earth, then He will do so. And naturally He doesn't want anarchy to rule the Earth, but that will always be the possibility by having free will. Which means He allows anarchy to be an option. Or in your terms, He "promotes" it.
     
    ChiCowboy likes this.
  6. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,624
    Likes Received:
    13,915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I never said I support free / unregulated movement of people and goods aka "open borders"

    I do not consider myself a one, although I agree with many of their views about keeping the government from getting involved in everything. What is happening in Florida and Texas in regards to getting the government involved in dictating how private companies should run themselves is troubling to say the least.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2021
  7. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,758
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well said. It always amazes me how political discussions tend to lack common sense. Libertarianism is really nothing more than a support of personal freedom that doesn't impede the personal freedom of others. I believe everybody believes that if they look past politics. It doesn't support chaos. The issues are how one gets to that kind of freedom and it is where the ugliness of politics enters the fray.
     
    Maquiscat likes this.
  8. aCultureWarrior

    aCultureWarrior Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    aCultureWarrior said:
    I'm interested in your thoughts on how Americans would benefit from an open borders policy

    So you just posted the libertarian stance on open borders (which as I had shown, is insane), but you're really not for that. (I'm surprised that I was able to type that sentence without massive typos, as I was laughing so hard).

    Ah yes, yet another "I am NOT a libertarian! libertarian". Have you not learned grasshopper that government "gets involved in pretty much everthing" because of libertarian failed social policies? Immoral behavior leads to government oversight.

    Don't cha just hate it when government has regulations on how to run a dope or porn shop?

    Sarcasm aside, free enterprise is based on Judeo-Christian doctrine, not libertarian (God/Jesus Christ was around many moons before baby murderer Murray Rothbard was).

    If you want to be be more specific on your last statement, then please do, as I want to discuss libertarian economic policies, i.e. anti zoning laws, private property so-called "rights", etc.
     
  9. aCultureWarrior

    aCultureWarrior Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    aCultureWarrior said:
    Yes, something that is no longer "illegal" is "legal" (sigh. libertarians and their queen of denial roles).

    I want to apologize for not answering all of your previous post, as I was laughing so hard at your statements ('a person can be against murder, rape and robbery, but if he or she doesn't think that government force should be used to punish and hence deter those behaviors. in his mind he can still be against those behaviors; and that the Apostles who wrote the New Testament, weren't students of Jesus Christ).

    Debating you libertarians (or in Maquiscat's case "I am NOT a libertarian! libertarian") is hilarious.

    On that note, let's return to Maqicat's anal retentive world and his problem with the word "promotion".

    As I had shown in earlier posts, by legalizing certain acts (recreational drug use, homosexuality, pornography) and hence "allowing" them to go unpunished, the purveyors of evil (drug pushers, pornographers, homosexuals), "promote" that behavior and lifetstyle in various ways through dope dispensaries, porn websites and retail stores and indoctrination of people to accept homosexuality as a normal way of life.

    My apologies. I had you confused with another blogger who along with his 'husband' run a libertarian website. On a related note: the founder of the website, who was a Chritian pastor yet "allows" homosexuals to run it, passed away from COVID19 recently, yet was a devout anti vaxxer/COVID19 denier.

    After all of the misery that he has caused, not only through him "allowing" and hence "promoting" homosexuality through his forum and being negligent towards himself and others on health issues such as COVID19, I shudder to think about the conversaton he had with God at the pearly gates.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2021
  10. aCultureWarrior

    aCultureWarrior Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    So the drug addict that robs people so that he can get his next fix "doesn't impede the personal freedom of others"? (This is where libertarians spew "If heroin were legal, they wouldn't need to rob to support their habit!").

    How about the homosexuals that sue Christian bakers, photographers and florists because they don't like the idea that those Christians won't sell out God by supporting their faux marriage, is that "impeding the personal freedom of others"?

    Libertarianism isn't just an ideology, it's a well organized political movement. Your ideology is "ugly" as is the political movement that "promotes" that ideology.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2021
  11. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,624
    Likes Received:
    13,915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, your posts revealed did not know their view on immigration, so I posted their view. You are welcome.

    Ancient Jewish economy was fairly authoritarian, where their government imposed heavy taxes and fees on their citizens and mandated religious rituals. Christianity is not an economic model either. Libertarian economic view is to have minimal government involvement.

    Capitalism = an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.

    I said what I said, and it had nothing to do with dope and porn.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2021
  12. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well, no, because prior to 22-24 weeks, the fetus does not have a functioning brain.

    At around 22-24 weeks, the brain is wired and the fetus becomes sentient, meaning it is conscious and aware of its own existence and its surroundings, although it would not be able to communicate that to anyone, even a god-thing.

    But, keep dreaming. Your fantasies are interesting.
     
  13. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why thank you. If you are reduced to ad hom, then it means that you realize that your arguments are failing.

    Of course individuals can and will promote such things and do so even when illegal, at the very least in the form of trying to change laws. However this is a far cry from your initial assertion that all libertarians are promoting those things that are allowed. My only point is and has been that allowing for someone to do something is not a promotion of that activity, nor is even in support of that activity.

    This alone puts you above many on these sites, who would have doubled down and claimed that it was actually me. Hell one time I found that guy who it was claimed I was, and had him point out we were not the same person, and the accuser then claimed I made sock puppet accounts. I certainly don't have time to run that kind of site. My husband and I and our wives are too busy doing board game demos to get into that kind of foolishness.

    I shudder at the conversations with God of people claiming to be Christians and acting like WBC, claiming that others' version of Christianity are wrong. Pretty sure they will be having similar conversations. Them and abortion clinic bombers and those who beat up trans and gays in the name of God.
     
  14. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,915
    Likes Received:
    2,152
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Anyone making that claim is an idiot. People rob to feed habits that are legal as well, so legality is irrelevant to how individuals will act. But the disruptive actions of the relatively few does not warrant the removal of the freedom of others.

    I and many other libertarians do feel that such is a violation, not of the business owner's freedom of religion, but of their private property rights and freedom of association. I have long argued that private businesses have the right to discriminate and that calling them a "public accommodation" is a legal fiction that violates rights.

    Granted that the label can be applied to both the ideology as well as the political movement. Your posts seem to conflate the two, or at the very least does nothing to indicate that you are addressing one and not the other.
     
  15. Object227

    Object227 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,950
    Likes Received:
    147
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The drug addict isn't violating my rights by being an addict but if he robs me to pay for his fix, then he's violating my property rights. That was easy.
     
    ChiCowboy and TedintheShed like this.
  16. fmw

    fmw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2009
    Messages:
    37,758
    Likes Received:
    14,563
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course he does. Also robbing is against the law for good reason.

    I don't think so. Refusing to do business with someone is an exercise in freedom. The person refused isn't harmed or robbed of freedom. He can go elsewhere to do business.

    I understand that freedom seems ugly to the left.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2021
  17. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's Progressive with a capital P. I make the distinction because they're not interested in actual progress.

    As for how I define them ... traditionally Right Wing capitalists, of a type vacuously attracted to fashion and/or street cred and can afford to indulge that impulse. If the cool kids are shouting "GET WOKE", then that's what these poseurs will do. It's underpinned by their natural conservatism - evident in their almost Victorian level moralising, and in their deep resistance to change when it springs from 'the other', or is alien in some way.
     
  18. TedintheShed

    TedintheShed Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    5,301
    Likes Received:
    1,983
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's why I asked. I define them as a person that advocates using government not just for protecting rights, but as a tool to advance government attempting to better the lives the lives of it's citizens.

    The problem with this philosophy is that governments ALWAYS has a net negative effect on people. Basically they are moralizing busy-bodies.
     
  19. crank

    crank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2013
    Messages:
    54,812
    Likes Received:
    18,482
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) Only because they think it won't impact their own comfort and freedoms.

    2) I'm for Big Govt myself .. but not the kind that Progressives favour. My preferred model is a Big Govt with no interest in First World Problems (aka ideologies), and which is strictly limited to the management of public infrastructure (healthcare, education, national security, etc).
     
  20. aCultureWarrior

    aCultureWarrior Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28

    In order to expose evil, one has to know all about it. It's no secret that libertarians are anarchists as well when it comes to protecting America from invaders (i.e. illegal aliens). How come you don't want to defend open borders, surely there are some benefits to it?

    The gold standard and the free enterprise system amongst other marvelous things, comes from Judeo-Christian doctrine.

    It's already been shown (numerous times) how libertarian social values that allow/enable/promote immoral and destructive behaviors, skyrockets the size of government. Now lets talk about other things that libertarians believe that government shouldn't be involved in, i.e. "property rights".

    Libertarians are against zoning laws, they believe because it's their property, they should be able to open up a porn or dope shop near an elementary school, or a night club in a residential neighborhood. Heath and safety codes? Libertarians don't need to stinkin health and safety codes: buyer beware! If the food in a libertarian owned restaurant makes people sick because it was tainted with rat poison, the word will get out and the business will eventually shut down because no one will go to it (never mind the sicknesses and deaths that result from it).

    "But but but, the victims' families can sue!"
    A lot of good that does after the fact, plus that means more government.

    Morality is an important part of the free enterprise system. A nation that isn't moral isn't free, and it's true with that nation's economics as well.
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2021
  21. aCultureWarrior

    aCultureWarrior Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    aCultureWarrior said:
    So the drug addict that robs people so that he can get his next fix "doesn't impede the personal freedom of others"? (This is where libertarians spew "If heroin were legal, they wouldn't need to rob to support their habit!").

    There are several reasons recreational drugs have been criminalized, and the harm that the drug addict does to society is one of them. Another reason is that in a Judeo-Christian based society the culture and laws actually care about people, and want them to lead a healthy and prosperous life, unlike libertarian ideology that doesn't care if people kill themselves ("hey, it's their body and therefore their right")

    aCultureWarrior wrote:
    How about the homosexuals that sue Christian bakers, photographers and florists because they don't like the idea that those Christians won't sell out God by supporting their faux marriage, is that "impeding the personal freedom of others"?

    So you want those who engage in homosexuality to have "rights", but want to treat them like 2nd class citizens when some bigoted homophobe business owner who says that the Sky Fairy doesn't agree with their 'marriage'?

    aCultureWarrior wrote:
    Libertarianism isn't just an ideology, it's a well organized political movement. Your ideology is "ugly" as is the political movement that "promotes" that ideology.

    I guess I just haven't learned to see the "beauty" in dead unborn babies, from homosexuals withering away from HIV/AIDS, from a drug addict beating his own grandmother to death because she wouldn't give him money for his much needed fix.

    I've seen that ugliness, how can you call that "beauty"?
     
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2021
  22. aCultureWarrior

    aCultureWarrior Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    aCultureWarrior said:
    Let's just say if those 60 million unborn babies murdered in the womb in the name of "choice" here in the US in the past 48 years were able to speak to us from Heaven, they would say "Most definitely!".

    The same could be said about libertarians in any stage of their life (did Mircea not know that he set himself up for that one?).

    An unborn baby's heartbeat starts around 16 days after conception, hence one of the many reasons I'm against the recent Texas law/SCOTUS decision that denies abortion after 6 weeks: What Texas and SCOTUS are saying is that life begins at 6 weeks and that any person younger than that age is not entitled to the Constitutional right to due process guaranteed under the 5th and 14th Amendments.

    Cool story. Did you know that those babies that you libertarians murder in the name of "choice" are all up in Heaven? Wouldn't it be nice if you repented and accepted Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior so that someday you could join them and give them a much deserved apology?

    You're probably aware that some libertarians call themselves "pro life". If you get an honest libertarian (I know, there is no such thing), they'd say that because the baby can't "consent" to be snuffed out in the womb, then it's wrong to murder him or her.
    The Libertarian Party addresses the issue in their typical anarchist way: There should be no laws against abortion, but if you'd are against abortion, just don't have one.

    "
    1.5 Abortion

    Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
     
  23. aCultureWarrior

    aCultureWarrior Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    28
    aCultureWarrior said:
    As I had shown in earlier posts, by legalizing certain acts (recreational drug use, homosexuality, pornography) and hence "allowing" them to go unpunished, the purveyors of evil (drug pushers, pornographers, homosexuals), "promote" that behavior and lifestyle in various ways through dope dispensaries, porn websites and retail stores and indoctrination of people to accept homosexuality as a normal way of life.

    They'd be behind bars for various crimes if they were caught, one of them being criminal conspiracy; who would they promote it to, their fellow prison inmates?

    If laws that punish certain behaviors (homosexuality, recreational drug use, prostitution, pornography) are a deterrent to those who engage in those acts and thwart any agendas that are being created, why would decriminalizing those acts (making them legal), not be promoting them? Look at it this way: decriminalizing those behaviors are "promoting freedom!"

    Beating up a homosexual is morally and legally wrong, just as beating up someone that has sex with his sister or an animal is. Civil government has a legitimate role in society, and all citizens have a right to due process, any Christian should know that.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2021
  24. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The idea that conservatives are "conserving something" is inaccurate. If so they'd be arguing for the status quo. Rather, they have a whole worldview of their own and want to change things in that direction.

    It's important not to get too caught up in labels. They are a rough approximation but no match for a proper explanation at length.

    Trump's actual policy implementation was relatively libertarian, at least compared to the past few, therefore some libertarians jumped on the bandwagon for some actual change at the expense of ideological purity.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2021
  25. Pro_Line_FL

    Pro_Line_FL Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2018
    Messages:
    25,624
    Likes Received:
    13,915
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Issues with reading comprehension?

    This reeks of authoritarian mindset.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2021

Share This Page