Why libertarianism isn't conservatism

In cutting the quote where you did, you changed the context of the statement, even if it was unintentional. We have all kinds of people promoting for this or that to no longer be illegal, and they are legally allowed to do so. Which is why I had the point of promoting the changing of the laws as part of that statement.

Ah so then the Jim Crow laws, which punished certain behaviors, such as allowing blacks and whites common facilities (lunch counters, restrooms, water fountains, etc), and were meant to be a deterrent to those who engage in those acts and thwart any agenda, then decriminalizing these acts were promoting immoral behavior? That is the logic are presenting, that the laws exist to prevent immoral behavior. But once again, promoting the freedom to do something is not promoting the activity itself.

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.[/QUOTE]

And yet we have them claiming the moral high ground as you are in your claims. They are just more extreme in it. And no I am not claiming any moral high ground. I have made it clear that there are things that are or should be legal, that I find immoral. However, as long as those things do not violate another's rights and freedoms, then it is between them and God (yours or theirs) as to whether they do it, not between them and anyone else.

See, the problem here is that you are trying to impose your specific sense and idea of religious morality. But yours is not the only one out there. Just as you would not want me to impose mine, which has differences from yours, upon you, others do not want yours imposed upon them. That is what freedom of religion is all about. Your morals cover only you, and mine only me. It is only when those interfere with other's rights and freedoms does a limit need to be put upon them.

 

do you think these government programs replaced existing community support? or were the programs enacted because communities and religions were not stepping up? (chicken or egg?)

 

there was barely such a thing as an american liberal in 1886 when santa clara county vs southern pacific declared the railroad to be a person.

the progressives were a republican faction when the income tax was first imagined.

citizens united vs fec, confirming corporate personhood and sanctifying money as speech under the first amendment might be the least liberal decision ever written by justice kennedy.

 

We're trying to "conserve" Judeo-Christian values, also known as "traditional family values/traditional values:"

Here's a glimpse of what traditional values/traditional family values are:

Family Values | Importance of Family Values [Powerful List] - Beliefnet

The status quo being abortion, homosexuality, pornography, recreational drug use, prostitution, things that go against traditional values.

While I'm honored that you think that the conservative worldview is something that they thought up on their own, all credit goes to God. And yes, we want to change things so that they go back in the direction of God's Word (pro life, pro decency, strong families, etc. etc.)

Yet you used the word "worldview", which is a label of one's view towards the world:
"a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world."

Profound (i.e that was heavy man, real heavy). It just so happens that the www allows "proper explanation at length", so go ahead and explain what libertarians believe in (and don't use the out of context words "liberty" and "freedom", as they've been used ad nauseum). as I've already explained in length what conservativism is.

Yes, and that's why so many libertarians crossed Party lines to vote for Donald Trump. That filthy moral degenerate Ron Paul and his spawn Rand both knew that they couldn't get elected on the LIbetarian Party ticket (Ron, aka "Daddy Paul" tried on Presidential runs) so they used the Republican Party to further their Godless agenda.

 

RCW 9A.28.040
Criminal conspiracy.
(1) A person is guilty of criminal conspiracy when, with intent that conduct constituting a crime be performed, he or she agrees with one or more persons to engage in or cause the performance of such conduct, and any one of them takes a substantial step in pursuance of such agreement.
RCW 9A.28.040: Criminal conspiracy. (wa.gov)

Thank you for mentioning the above, as under libertarian "property rights", business owners could not allow people whose skin color doesn't match theirs into their business. Now lets not confuse what Christians bakers, florists and phoographers have done in regards to not helping celebrate a faux homosexual wedding, as homosexuality is immoral and is a changeable behavior, one's skin color isn't immoral nor is it changeable (unless you're Michael Jackson).

That's one thing that you libertarians (or in Maquiscat's case "I am NOT a libertarian! libertarian") can't do: take the moral high ground on issues, as your ideology belongs right down there in the sewer with sewer rats (my apologies to the sewer rats of the world for comparing them to libertarians).

 

Any chance that you could find a libertarian that defends open border policies? For some reason I get a sneakin suspicion that you know a few.

According to your Libertarian Party platform,which is the basis of libertarian ideology,
Platform | Libertarian Party (lp.org)

laws that say that you can't murder an unborn baby, sodomize what's his name, shoot any kind of drug into your veins for recreational purposes and sell your body for sex are "authortarian". Obviously you don't believe that allowing/enabling/promoting those things leads to chaos and anarchy.

 

Could it be that the folks who wrote the libertarian party view on immigration (open borders) also defend it?

Your about homosexuals etc come across authoritarian.

 

Which is not relevant.

Libertarians couldn't shine my shoes because they're not even smart enough to figure out how to open a can of shoe polish, and I'm an Ultra-Conservative.

There is no "Heaven."

When you grow up, you can read Codex Leningradis or Codex Aleppo.

Those are the Hebrew texts. Since you don't read Hebrew, you'll probably wanna read the Stuttgart Bible, which is the authorized version of Codex Leningradis.

In the hope that you are capable of critical thinking, you will notice a few things.

Initially, the Yahweh-thing punishes -- or rewards -- people right now. This second. He punishes them by murder, inflicting them with boils and other ailments, or killing their camels and goats or sending them to the poor house. Or, he rewards them with riches, or lots of camels and goats, or longevity or something else.

Why do you suppose he does that?

It's because there is no Heaven or Hell. They don't exist.

If the Yahweh-thing doesn't punish somebody right now, this second, then they escape punishment forever once they die, because once they die, there's nothing the Yahweh-thing can do about it.

Likewise, the Yahweh-thing must reward people now, right now, because if they die, there's nothing he can do for them. He cannot reward people after they're dead, because there is no Heaven.

Heaven and Hell were concepts invented by the Greeks, just like the Greeks invented the concept of a "soul."

You see, the Greeks had no idea what a biological cell was and it would 2,000 years (the year 1607) before anyone ever saw one.

So, the Greeks could not have known that the brain was made up of 100s of Millions of highly specialized biological cells functioning with chemical interactions, which is what gives rise to consciousness.

In trying to figure out why people are conscious and why some tell funny jokes and others yell at people, the Greeks -- using their empirical nonsense fantasy -- invented the soul as a way to explain something they couldn't possibly understand.

Likewise, it was because of their empirical nonsense fantasy that they invented the flat Earth and Earth is the center of the Universe and all their other nonsense, which was all wrong.

On the other hand, earlier civilizations were much more intelligent than the Greeks. The Sumerians knew the Earth was a sphere and that it orbited the Sun. They invented the Sexigesimal or Base 60 number system, so Earth is 360° and the equator is at 180° and then divided Earth into the Way of Enlil -- 0°N to 30°N -- and the Way of An -- 30°N to 30°S -- and the Way of Enki -- 30°S to 0°S.

Sumerian texts say their kings sent ships to Nergal's domain to get Gold and describe it as a wild flowing river out of the mountains. There's only one place in Africa that fits that description and that is the Zambezi River coming out of the mountains and emptying into the Indian Ocean in southern Africa where there is lots of Gold.

The Sumerians also said: Domain [of] Nergal is down-under.

To the Sumerians, "down-under" meant under the equator like Australia the "land down under" because it is south of the Equator.

To the Greeks and their flat Earth nonsense, "down-under" meant under the flat Earth, hence "underworld" or Hell. Greeks didn't even know there was a sub-Saharan Africa because their empirical nonsense fantasy said there couldn't be.

Greeks were world renown as government administrators and the Greeks worked in the Persian, Median, Assyrian, what morons call "Babylonian", Egyptian and other governments and that was way before Philip of Macedonia and his son Alexander the Great conquered most everything.

Why do you think there's a Septuagint?

It's because few Hebrews could speak Hebrew. They all spoke Greek because the language of government, commerce and trade in the Levant was Greek.

Since Greek culture permeated everything for centuries, well, the Hebrews bought into Greek culture, because that's what happens.

B-b-b-b-b-but shoal means Hell!

No, wrong. That's an anachronism.

In Classical Biblical Hebrew, the "im" suffix indicates plurality, like melachim (messengers but erroneously translated as "angels" and nefilim and elohim.

Yeah, "gods" plural. That elohim is taken to be a singular god-thing today is anachronistic.

Wouldn't it be nice if you prepared yourself for the day when either the E texts or J texts are discovered?

Because your whole world will come crashing down.

You want me to accept a man that worshiped dictators, thought slavery was the coolest thing since debasing women and who faked his death and ran off to India as a "savior?"

No thanks.

 

I advise you to go back and read my post slowly. I don't think you did that the first time.

 

At no point is an attempt to get the law changed, which is what I said, ever criminal conspiracy. Unless you think you can provide a case where it was?

Either you have this bass akward, or you just poorly worded this. Under Jim Crow laws, a business owner could not allow POC into a business for whites, or vice versa, even if they wanted to. Today's civil rights laws are the same in the opposite direction; a business owner could not prohibit a given protected demographic, even if they wanted to. Under the generalized libertarian ideology (some left leaning libertarians might not agree with this), the business owner choses who they will or will not do business with, even if the basis is on race, religion, sex, gender, whatever. You know, the exact same right that the customer has.

As I said, under libertarian ideals, that is perfectly fine

Not faux. There is no one definition of marriage or wedding. While any given wedding/marriage may be invalid under one aspect (a religion, a government, a social group, etc) it is still valid under others. For example, your marriage before God in a church is not valid under the aspect of the US government for the purposes of the US government. Unless you get that government piece of paper, your religious marriage doesn't count for the governement. The reverse is also true. Many religions and sects/denominations don't recognize the legal marriage as valid. Your marriage is only valid if you have been married under their religion, and in some cases, their specific version of that religion.

Depends upon the religion/denomination/sect. Not a universal truth.

Still clinging to this lie?

I don't think that one will ever get old.

Given that rats are extremely intelligent, highly versatile, adapt readily to most situations, and have a high survivability rate, your attempted insult fall woefully short. And yes we easily take the moral high ground, especially given the subjective nature of morals. The big difference is that we don't seek to impose our individual morals upon anyone else, as long as one person doesn't try to violate the rights and freedoms of another.

 

Backwards. Libertarian ideology proceeded the Party of the same name.

 

aCultureWarrior said: ↑
Any chance that you could find a libertarian that defends open border policies? For some reason I get a sneakin suspicion that you know a few.

Correct, hence the reason I have shown time after time that the Libertarian Party represents libertarian ideology and promotes that ideology through political action, in this case open borders:

3.4 Free Trade and Migration

We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.
Platform | Libertarian Party (lp.org)

I'd ask you if you have any favorable comments on that, but been there, done that, so nevermind.

For the anarchist, which libertarians are in many cases (again, they believe in laws that fit their own agenda), laws against murdereing an unborn baby; laws against having sex with someone of their own sex, an animal, a close relative; laws against putting mind altering and damaging recreational drugs in your body are "authoritarian", but that's the idea of righteous laws: to deter immoral and destructive behavior through the threat of force, and if that threat isn't a deterrance, to follow up with necessary force to incarcerate the criminal.

 

Good. You are learning.

So, your earlier comment about libertarians supporting Trump's immigration policies stemmed out of ignorance.

Right, I told you (twice) that I do not support unrestricted movement of people and goods aka open borders.

I never heard they approve people having the right to have sex with animals (who are unable to give consent). But yes, criminalizing homosexuality, drugs etc are authoritarian. Libertarians believe you should have the right to damage your own body with cigarettes, alcohol, unhealthy foods and/or drugs.

 

aCultureWarrior said: ↑
An unborn baby's heartbeat starts around 16 days after conception,...

It is to those who believe that the recent Texas law and SCOTUS backed decision prohibitting abortion after 28 days robs human beings younger that that of their God-given constitutional rights.
87(R) SB 8 - House Committee Report version (texas.gov)

Let me guess, you're an Ayn Rand Objectivist? Do you admire chlld murderers like Ayn Rand did?
Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman | Michael Prescott (freeservers.com)

Your fellow God-hater Ayn Rand didn't think so either. Make your case for how you and Rand are/were actually conservatives, or in your case "ultra conservative".

 

What causes you to confuse religion and politics. They have almost nothing to do with each other.

 

aCultureWarrior said: ↑
Correct, hence the reason I have shown time after time that the Libertarian Party represents libertarian ideology and promotes that ideology through political action, in this case open borders

How about we team up and work together to show how insane libertarian ideology is, including their open borders policies, as it appears that few people know about it?

Were the anti US sovereign so-called "free trade agreements" that Donald Trump supported not supported by libertarians? From a libertarian perspecitve, go ahead and tell the readers of this thread why the United States-Mexico-Canada Agrrement should or shouldn't be supported by libertarians.
USMCA (trade.gov)

Aren't those libertarians insane for promoting such policies? Let's review why there shouldn't be open borders, you go first:

Now you have:
Malcolm Brenner Chronicles His Sexual Relationship With Dolphin In 'Wet Goddess' | HuffPost

Then there's homosexual activist Frank Kameny who stated "I see nothing wrong with having sex with animals, as long as the animal doesn't mind, and it rarely does"

As well as damanging your body with gonorrhea, syphillis, HIV AIDS, things that don't come from having a 2nd trip to the desert buffet but do come with homosexuality.

Thank you for showing that libertarians are moral anarchists that hate their fellow man so much that they encourage him to kill himself.
Judeo-Christian doctrine on the other hand loves mankind, hence "authortarian" laws that prohibit your 'culture of death'.

 

Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2: 13-15 says differently. (but wait, there's more!). Exodus 18:21 does as well.

 

You said they were drooling after his immigration policies. Renaming NAFTA to something else changes nothing, and him imposing massive import taxes on imports was NOT supported by libertarian or conservatives, and nor were his handouts to people and industries hurt by those tariffs.

No clue who that person is, but unless you can show libertarians support it, then why even bring it up.

Yes, that too. Libertarian are willing to defend your freedom to live by Biblical rule, but you come across authoritarian when you demand that Biblical laws/rules/recommendations should be imposed on everyone.

Where do you get this angst against libertarians anyway? They are the least likely to interfere with your life in any way, and they are the least likely to ever run the US.

 

You want to use the bible as an appropriate source for political discussion? I don't even have a weekly award for that.

 

Romans 13 says laws of the land need to be obeyed. There is no contradiction. Libertarians simply want less restrictive laws and more personal freedoms. Book of Romans was written to.......Christians in Rome, and it begins with a description of how wild life in Rome was at the time. Orgies and wild drinking parties were the norm (and hard drugs like opium was widely available), and Paul tells Christians to not take part in it. However, the laws which existed had to be obeyed and taxes had to be paid or face the consequences. As the book of Romans explains, - "the authority carries a sword for a reason, - to bring terror to the wrongdoer". It is not an instruction to what kind of laws the government should create, it simply says that Christians should obey existing laws.

Paul told Christians to not partake in the gay orgies, while instructing them to obey Romans laws. Simple.

 

Ironically, the principle of self-ownership is another thing that was developed by Church theorists during the Middle Ages. In this case, Henry of Ghent, who was a master in the esteemed Faculty of Theology at the University of Paris, which was considered to be the preeminent Catholic university at the time. Henry laid the natural right to self-ownership out in the Quaestio, which was written in the late 13th Century.

It's kinda funny listening to the so-called "Christians" who reject a right that was embraced by the Church 800 years ago.

 

Explain how the USMCA isn't similar to open border policies that you libertarians want, as shown in an earlier post, open borders would cause massive taxes in dealing with the criminal element and those that have diseases that are allowed to cross freely into the United States. i.e. taxes aren't important when it comes to dealng with your failed social policies, why would they be in dealing with anti sovereign so-called "free trade agreements"?

As shown with two examples, consent is used in bestiality, and what if it isn't, I didn't have to get the "consent" of the cow for the steak that I ate last night.

Not so, libertarians have overturned laws/are for overturning laws that prohibit and punish those that engage in sexual perversion (homosexuality, pederasty/pedophilia...just lower or abolish the age of sexual consent and it's "consensual", any kind of pornography, including snuff films, incest, prostitution, necrophilia and bestiality), murder (abortion, duels, gang warfare) suicide and any and all kinds of recreaitonal drug use. Those biblical based laws show mankind that they're loved and valued, unlike your libertarian ideology and political movement that is nothing but a 'culture of death'.

Why are you denying that the libertarian movement is full of hate for mankind, that it rules American laws, and that it brings nothing but misery and death to a nation?

 

Libertarians frequently borrow off of the Bible when promoting some of their policies, of course without giving it's Author (aka "the Sky Fairy") credit. If you want to spew out of context Old Testment verses and passages and that Jesus supposedly never spoke out against numerous things in the New Testament, do it in another thread, as it's just a smokescreen to cover up the evil of libertarianism while painting Judeo-Christian doctrine as fanatical.

 

I suspect that you're taking the Church's definition of self ownership out of context, and if not, Christianity is based on what the Bible says, not what "Church theorists" say. God gave mankind free will, but nowhere does He say to misuse that free will, i.e. to go against His Word.
Libertarians use all kinds of evil tricks to promote their Godless agenda, your's is nothing new.

 

Us liberatarians? Why the dishonesty?

Open borders = Unrestricted movement of people and good
USMCA/NAFTA = Does not allow for free movement of people or goods

My policies?

Based on your comments about homosexuals etc, its you who comes across horribly judgmental and hateful. Read your Bible and learn that you are not the judge or a ruler who imposes laws against those you do not like. Leave the judgment to God. Your mindset is the very reason why we must keep religion out of politics.

The Bible also says something about bearing false witness.... oh, yea, now I remember, - God HATES a false witness.

Where do you get this angst against libertarians anyway? They are the least likely to interfere with your life in any way, and they are the least likely to ever run the US.