Why libertarianism isn't conservatism

Read the passage again, you missed the core meaning of it.

Again, explain how engaging in sexual perverson of any kind is making people and individuals "free"; how shooting up drugs of any kind is making somone "free"; how killing an unborn child in the womb is making someone "free".
Libertarians pervert the words "liberty" and "freedom", when in actuality they're enslaving others to sin.

Thanks for showing that libertarianism isn't a new concept, as even the Romans engaged in it. Read Romans 13 again (and 1 Peter 2: 13-15 for that matter), as you're missing (I suspect purposely) the core meaning of both.

On a related note: share your theologocial background, including what seminary you attended, what church you currently attend and what commentaries you use that back your understanding of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2: 13-15, or more importantly, the kind of darts that you throw at the Bible that you own.

 

My apologies, PLF here isn't a libertarian, he just speaks for the libertarian movement.

As shown in earlier posts, an open borders policy might allow pedophiles, terrorists and all kinds of degenerates to freely cross the border, and that "goods" like heroin and every recreational drug known to man could come across the border "unrestricted", but it doesn't allow "freedom" for the nation that they're entering once they get here and commit those heinous crimes.

My point about USMCA is that like open borders, it's anti sovereignty and while it might help the people from other nations, it's harmful to America.

The ones that you are defending. (This is where PLF says 'Prove I'm defending libertarian policies!").

First of all, my very bestest friend in the whoooole wide world is a homosexual. His name is Aaron and he's 'married' to the owner of a pro homosexual/libertarian forum that I spent several years in. When they weren't banning me (27 times to be exact...did I mention that libertarians love big government?) they were kind and actually invited me to their wedding reception. The romantic devils were holding the reception in the venue where they originally met. Due to capactiy restrictions, I wasn't able to attend the reception that was held in a public restroom toilet stall.

Spoken like a true God-hating anarchist. In this day and age of limp wristed Christian pastors, you could easily be one, as they spew out the same thing.

Aaron and his 'husband' have a certain disease that is common amongst homosexuals too.

So what happened in your life to cause you to HATE your fellow man so much? I know what it was, how about you share it with others?

 

I have read it many times, which is why I know the core meaning of it, and its exactly what I said earlier. You know who the 'authority' was in Rome when Paul told Christians to obey the authorities? It was Nero, - a monster. Paul says all authorities are God ordained, even Nero. He says obey them, and pay the taxes you owe.

God gave us the free will to make our own choices, and often people choose poorly, and they choose to sin. God does not desire us to sin (He desires all people to come to the knowledge of the truth), but He knows everyone will sin. God NEVER instructed Christians to force others to obey His religions laws. He specifically said it is NOT the duty of the Christians to judge unbelievers. That is His duty, not ours. You can point out the sin in your fellow believers if you want to help them get back on track.

Even during the American revolution people questioned whether or not their actions were in contradiction with Romans 13, given the fact that the king of England was the "God ordained" authority in the Americas

Nero's Rome was a tyrannical dictatorship, the polar opposite of a libertarian society. Libertarians promote religious freedom, while Nero fed Christians to the lions, and used them as torches to bring light to back alleys. Your claims are getting increasingly dishonest and you can't even explain why you rave against libertarians, but it seems its because they don't care what you do in your bedroom, or what you eat, drink and smoke.

I am a Christian and love my Bible. I read it all the time.

What kind of darts do you throw at your Bible? Or are you reading Quran? You sound more like a radical mullah than anything else. They DO write the kinds of laws you are pushing for/

 

I clarify facts about them, since you make a hobby of bearing false witness against them. As long as you make lies about them, I will correct you.

On the second thought, this kind of slander puts an end to it.

I pray that God will remove the venom from your heart, and I thank Him that US is NOT ran by people who share your mindset.

Bu-bue

 

So according to your interpretation of Romans 13, God put Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao in power and wants mankind to obey mass murdering tyrants. Interesting interpretation of Romans 13.

So what you're saying is that God is an anarchist and doesn't believe in government legislately righteous laws (laws based on His Word).

So there should be no laws against rape, armed robbery and other "non consensual" behaviors/acts, or at least Christians should be against laws prohibiting such.

As in "Hey Bill, you really shouldn't sexually molest that 8 year old boy, but hey, who am I to stop you by using the force of goverment to arrest you? Hopefully eventually you'll stop and get back on track".

Correct, there were those that didn't think that the mass murder of colonists by British soldiers justifed a war. I believe they call those people "pacifists".

Because promoting homosexuality, pornography, abortion, prostitution, recreational drug use is really promoting "religious freedom".

I've heard about the Queen James Bible. Can it be bought in a bookstore or do you have to go to one of those special rainbow websites to get it?

The Quran. I've been hanging out with Cat Stevens lately.

 

Libel, not slander.

Be happy that there aren't alot of people these days, even so called "Christians" that share my mindset, i.e. you'll have plenty of company in Hell Aaron.

 

A state strong enough to enforce invented rights like patents and copyrights is powerful enough to take liberty away.

 

God-things don't give people rights.

You make a lot of baseless assumptions.

I've heard the name Ayn Rand, and I know she or he wrote a book, but nothing more.

However, I am objective.

I don't know what s/he did.

A hunk of meat unaware of its own existence is not a child in spite of your protestations.

I don't know anything him/her, but objectively, I did note you were totally unable to refute any of the facts I presented.

Your unconditional surrender is accepted.

 

How would a libertarian explain doctors and nurses taking care of covid patients when they had inadequate PPE early in the pandemic, a cop running toward an armed perp to protect the public, or a soldier jumping on a grenade to save his comrades?

Libertarians will never sell their ideas to people who struggle economically.

 

The situation you described destroyed the Republicans from 1930-32 when private charities were overwhelmed by the economic crisis.

 

You criticize me for something I didn't say. You folks who do this need to get your act together. Feel free to criticize what I say but you need to stop doing this.

 

I assume your question is rhetorical.

 

Demonstrating clearly the need for the gov to fill the void. FDR wasn't perfect, but he done us good.

 

Looking after yourself is an important part of citizenship. A conservative typically holds one should look after himself to the extent possible.

Welfare that keeps kids' stomachs full is not "enabling and denigrating." This principle, as important as it may be, is too often used to cover up denying help where it's needed.

Exactly why, I believe, we don't see a lot of Christians involved with a faith group espousing libertarian values.

In teaching school, I ran across a lot of parents who saw themselves as liberals who shared your values about having personal plans, getting a good education, supporting oneself and being a responsible citizen. These are important, universal values shared across the political spectrum students should consider adopting.

If you're saying conservatives are poor managers, I agree. Democrats are often worse.

Consider the current push for affordable daycare. Yes, we should make sure parents have the means to pay for it so they can earn a living. But how?

My niece is a stay-at-home mom, her husband took over the family business, an appliance dealer and repair service. They live in a nice home on the corner of five acres, sub-dividable now into city lots. So, stay-at-home niece doesn't want childcare, but she might like to hand in a childcare voucher for a tax credit.

We must find a way to alter this four-decade trend...



How we enable parenthood and family life--alter the above income distribution--should not be focused on a single choice for a good chunk of how government helps, that choice being affordable childcare.

Of course, our choices will be different in twenty years when many jobs will disappear. Maybe childcare won't be needed as parents might be given more time to look after their children.

I figure libertarians should become do-gooders. How about pushing to end the "war on drugs?"

 

He may have been part of saving the capitalist system in America.

 

Well, well, well - what do we have here?

The so-called "Christian" who rejected the "selfish and destructive "axiom" of self ownership" is now recognizing what Christianity recognized 800 years ago?

LOL!! Isn't it amazing what you can learn from the things you pretend to be knowledgable in?

And where exactly did a pretend theologian such as yourself think the real theologians, jurists, rights theorists and officials of the Medieval Church derived the concept/principle of self-ownership from, hmm?

Of course, they derived it from Scripture, Captain Obvious, and being the most brilliant and educated men in their fields they were actually qualified to discuss and debate this incredibly complicated subject that touched on a multitude of various scriptural, theological and doctrinal matters, and guess what the man you just found out about two days ago - Henry of Ghent - and his colleagues discovered?

The reason why they were called to discuss and debate this matter in the first place - issues concerning Scripture that were in conflict with one another, most specifically conflicts between elements within the Book of Genesis and elements in the books of Exodus/Deuteronomy. Ultimately, the question was two-fold: 1) where did a man's rights begin and 2) where did his rights end? Henry of Ghent laid all of this out, including the right to self-ownership, in the Quaestio, written in the late 13th Century. Some matters were resolved at that time, such as the rights of the poor in extremis and the right and duty of the Church to act not only on behalf of the poor but on behalf of God in accordance with His Word and Will. Other debates that seemed to be resolved resurfaced later during the Franciscan Poverty Controversy in the 14th Century that pitted William of Ockham, Michael of Cesena and the Order of Friars Minor against Pope John XXII and his inquisitors who declared the belief in the “absolute poverty” (non-existence of property ownership) of Jesus and the Apostles, aka "apostolic poverty", heretical, which resulted in numerous Franciscan Spiritualists being excommunicated and burnt at the stake. Other matters, such as the rights of prisoners condemned to death, remain unresolved to this day.

Oh, and what of the story of Jesus and the adulteress he refused to stone, along with his admonition to the Pharisees, scribes and elders who wanted to execute her in accordance with Mosaic Law?

"Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

Was Jesus wrong not to punish her?

Was Jesus promoting and defending adultery by refusing to punish her?

One of the Great Church Fathers, Augustine of Hippo, didn't think so:

"Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin."

You've got a lot to learn, rock chucker. To hear you accuse others of using "evil tricks" to promote a "Godless agenda" is both ironic and laughable. In fact, I'm beginning to think you're not who you claim to be. You speak and act like an atheistic Leftist troll who is trying to drive a wedge between libertarians and conservatives. It won't work. Libertarians, conservatives and conservatarians can agree to disagree without your unchristian hatefulness and divisiveness.

 

I guess he must be a "NOT Christian Christian"

 

aCultureWarrior said: ↑
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.

Hence in openly atheist countries (China, North Korea, etc.) and secular humanist countries (the United States, the UK, etc.) rights come from man. Hence the so-called "right" of those atheist countries to commit mass murder and those secular humanist countries to pass laws that allow mass murder and other things that God abhors.

Regarding Ayn Rand and Objectivism: While the moral degenerate believed that Objectivism and libertarianism were two diffrerent things, libertarians love Ayn Rand and use her teachings often. Daddy Paul's spawn Rand told people in an interview that he wasn't named after Ayn Rand, but that he's a big fan. Notice how he gives accolades to baby murderer Murray Rothbard. Libertarians are sick and evil.

 

CultureWarrior said: ↑
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.

How about you start off showing how Holy Scripture embraces the libertarian view of self ownership (verses and passages),, i.e. that people are free to engage in homosexuality, incest and bestiality because it's their body and they're free to do with it as they please, and then you can copy and paste some quotes from those Christian theologians from 800 years ago to back up your point?

I'll patiently wait...

I'm amazed that many Chrisian pastors don't know the answer as to why Jesus let the woman accused of adultery walk free. Was Jesus an anarchist and didn't believe in the rule of law, laws that His Father wrote? As Scritpure shows in John 8:1-11, the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus by bringing a woman accused of adultery to Him. Both Jesus and the Pharisees knew that Jewish law required two witnesses to come forward before anyone could be charged with a crime. in this case a capital crime.
Capital punishment in Judaism - Wikipedia

Where was the man that committed the act of adultery? It takes two to commit adultery, and without the name of the man, there was no criminal case against the woman. Many speculate that Jesus wrote the name of the man in the dirt. In any event, Jesus didn't tell the woman "What consenting adults do in private is no one's business, including mine", but He did say "Go and sin no more". Obviously Jesus wasn't a libertarian because He didn't embrace "consensual" acts that were done against God's Word.

I look forward to your reply Aaron.

 

Patiently waiting for Aaron's reply....

 

Evidently not, and I can assure you and him that when Henry of Ghent and his colleagues established the concept/principle/right of self-ownership in the late 13th Century they were promoting a most Christian agenda. In part, the Church used it to safeguard the lives and freedom of desperate, impoverished people who were facing the immediate prospect of starving to death.

 

Aaron, I'm still waiting for you reply (he must be discussing what to write with his....ahem,...roommate).

Based on what you've written in posts about Henry of Ghent, it appears that there were some differences of opinion when it came to charity, i.e. taking care of the poor. Now keep in mind that the poor weren't junkies that today's society call "homeless", but those that were so severely crippled or blind that they couldn't work and relied on charity.

Again Aaron, I look forward to your reply from my earlier post.

 

How about we start with you proving every libertarian supports or tolerates incest and beastiality, much less the notion that an individual's rights extend beyond the rights of others, so you can establish that such support/tolerance actually qualifies as the libertarian view. I know you can't, so we'll move along to the question of homosexuality. As far as that is concerned, I'm not certain you can establish universal libertarian support/tolerance for that, either, but I can't say that I am aware of what Christian libertarians believe. They could be opposed to it for all I know, and since this appears to interest and concern you and not me, you can find that out on your own on the Internet. On the other hand, I think it's safe to say that most libertarians don't think what your ordinary homosexual and heterosexual does in the privacy of their bedrooms is any of their business and the business of the government. Whether they find it morally acceptable or not depends on the individual. Do some libertarians and some conservatives, specifically social conservatives, differ on this? Of course, they do.

As for the source of the concept/principle/right to self-ownership that I was discussing with Ted and Medieval theologians, jurists, rights theorists and Church officials discussed amongst themselves in the 13th Century, I've already pointed out that you can find this in either the Book of Exodus or Deuteronomy. There are other sources of course, but I'll stick with the most obvious one that you should be familiar with, and that's the Ten Commandments. The concept/principle/right of self-ownership is an extension of several other rights, such as one's rights to life, self-preservation and self-defense. All those rights are implicit in and derived from the Commandment forbidding murder. Your right to due process under the law is also an extension of the aforementioned rights.

Now, if you'd like to read more about the discussions and debates on this subject conducted by Henry of Ghent, et al, I suggest you look it up online and/or read one of the books I recommended to you earlier in this thread, The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Church Law, 1150-1625, by Brian Tierney, which you can purchase at Christianbook for $29.50:

https://www.christianbook.com/natur...150-1625/brian-tierney/9780802848543/pd/48542

Better yet, if you can get your hands on a copy of Henry's Quaestio you can go straight to one of the sources, but I presume that would require fluency in Medieval Latin and a doctorate in theology. Good luck!

The man doesn't concern us here - Jesus does, and Jesus did not punish the woman for committing adultery and he did not embrace and promote adultery, which is consistent with how libertarians view and approach this and other matters.

Shocking, I know.

You got it, Beelzebub.