Civil government and Social acceptance of Same Sex relationships

[Izdaari]

Bou,

Libertarians do not define individual rights the way you said. As we see it, so long as we don't initiate force (defined as physical force or the threat of physical force) against others, we have the right as individuals to do whatever we want. Regardless of what the voters say.

Agreed however that's not the political reality we live in. And agreed that our only protection is the Constitution, which I believe in interpreting in a very fundamentalist way: If the Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to do something, it may not do it.

Of course, we're a long way from that today. If we followed my constitutional theory, the vast majority of government activities would have to be shut down, just as Libertarian Party candidates advocate. And I think, in the real world we live in, judges will overturn the NC amendment, regardless of whether you or I think they should.

And in that real world, my state, WA, has passed a SSM law and it's been signed into law. Of course it will be challenged, but current polling indicates if it goes to WA voters, they will sustain it. So our political reality is very different from NCs.

 

[AresMan]

50%+1 of the people is NOT "the will of the people." It is the will of 50%+1 against the will of 50%-1 of the people.

Many of the founders despised democracy, calling it "mob-ocracy." The idea that there are "inalienable rights from the Creator" flies in the face of the idea of democracy. In democracy, any law is game as long as 50%+1 wants it to the detriment of 50%-1 who could have their will rejected every time. The idea of a constitutional republic (such as that envisioned by the founders through the Constitution) is that there are certain individual rights that should NEVER be taken away--not by a king, an oligarchy, or 99% of the people. "Congress shall make no law...," "...shall not be infringed...," and so on. It should not matter if a majority of the people have direct access to legislature or if they elect representatives who write laws; there are supposed to be things that they CANNOT do. Period.

The problem today is that so many people have been indoctrinated in an unconstitutional public education system to believe that we are supposed to be a democracy (not a republic) so that "we" (50%+1) can vote officials with unbridled permission to do our bidding. All the tyrannical laws, socialistic garbage, "hate crimes" stupidity, and other things that are downright immoral happen because of the same "democracy" garbage that even Christians have bought into.

If Christians would accept the natural limitations on the spread of immorality that individual rights protected by a constitutional republic would enforce, we would be better off. It is not our job to overthrow the wisdom of the founders and set up a "Christian kingdom" on earth; it is our job to use our freedom as "ambassadors for Christ" to win hearts and minds with the unadulterated gospel.

 

[AresMan]

And agreed that our only protection is the Constitution, which I believe in interpreting in a very fundamentalist way: If the Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to do something, it may not do it.

You mean we should obey the supreme law of the land?

Sounds like a plan.

 

[Izdaari]

AresMan,

I totally agree!  ;D

 

[Bou]

Bou,

Libertarians do not define individual rights the way you said. As we see it, so long as we don't initiate force (defined as physical force or the threat of physical force) against others, we have the right as individuals to do whatever we want. Regardless of what the voters say.

We're not talking about individual actions.  We're talking about society deciding on and writing civil code, which is outside the scope of individual actions. 

Agreed however that's not the political reality we live in. And agreed that our only protection is the Constitution, which I believe in interpreting in a very fundamentalist way: If the Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to do something, it may not do it.

That interpretation of the "Necessary and Proper Clause" been debunked by people from our founding generation.  See McCulloch v. Maryland.

Of course, we're a long way from that today. If we followed my constitutional theory, the vast majority of government activities would have to be shut down, just as Libertarian Party candidates advocate. And I think, in the real world we live in, judges will overturn the NC amendment, regardless of whether you or I think they should.

They may overturn it, but, unless its makeup changes, SCOTUS won't.

 

[Bou]

50%+1 of the people is NOT "the will of the people." It is the will of 50%+1 against the will of 50%-1 of the people.

Many of the founders despised democracy, calling it "mob-ocracy." The idea that there are "inalienable rights from the Creator" flies in the face of the idea of democracy. In democracy, any law is game as long as 50%+1 wants it to the detriment of 50%-1 who could have their will rejected every time. The idea of a constitutional republic (such as that envisioned by the founders through the Constitution) is that there are certain individual rights that should NEVER be taken away--not by a king, an oligarchy, or 99% of the people. "Congress shall make no law...," "...shall not be infringed...," and so on. It should not matter if a majority of the people have direct access to legislature or if they elect representatives who write laws; there are supposed to be things that they CANNOT do. Period.

The problem today is that so many people have been indoctrinated in an unconstitutional public education system to believe that we are supposed to be a democracy (not a republic) so that "we" (50%+1) can vote officials with unbridled permission to do our bidding. All the tyrannical laws, socialistic garbage, "hate crimes" stupidity, and other things that are downright immoral happen because of the same "democracy" garbage that even Christians have bought into.

If Christians would accept the natural limitations on the spread of immorality that individual rights protected by a constitutional republic would enforce, we would be better off. It is not our job to overthrow the wisdom of the founders and set up a "Christian kingdom" on earth; it is our job to use our freedom as "ambassadors for Christ" to win hearts and minds with the unadulterated gospel.

So, since Thomas Jefferson is a libertarian's BFF, let's start there.

Sounds like you've been reading false quotes from Thomas Jefferson like this: (http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/democracy-nothing-more-mob-rule).

Here's one that's not:

After all, it is my principle that the will of the majority should always prevail. If they approve the proposed Convention in all it's parts, I shall concur in it chearfully, in hopes that they will amend it whenever they shall find it work wrong. I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe. Above all things I hope the education of the common people will be attended to; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty.

  (http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl66.htm).

Here's Jefferson talking about your beloved buzzword "republic" defining it very democratically.

Indeed, it must be acknowledged, that the term republic is of very vague application in every language.  Witness the self-styled republics of Holland, Switzerland, Genoa, Venice, Poland .Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea, I would say, purely and simply, it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally, according to rules established by the majority; and that every government is more or less republican, in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of the direct action if its citizens.  Such a government is evidently restrained to very narrow limits of space and population.  I doubt it if it would be practicable beyond the extent of a New England township.  The first shade from this pure element, which, like that of pure vital air, cannot sustain life of itself, would be where the powers of government, being divided, should be exercised each by representatives chosen pro hac vice, or for such short terms as should render secure the duty of expressing the will of their constituents.

(http://www.yamaguchy.com/library/jefferson/jefftaylor.html).

Again, defining "republic" democratically:

The further the departure from direct and constant control by the citizens, the less has the government of the ingredient of republicanism...

(http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl245.htm).

And further in that same letter, he calls any distance between the majority and their elected representatives a result of a fear of the masses.  He then calls those ideas "heresies."

If, then, the control of the people over the organs of their government be the measure of its republicanism, and I confess I know no other measure, it must be agreed that our governments have much less of republicanism than ought to have been expected; in other words, that the people have less regular control over their agents, than their rights and their interests require. And this I ascribe, not to any want of republican dispositions in those who formed these constitutions, but to a submission of true principle to European authorities, to speculators on government, whose fears of the people have been inspired by the populace of their own great cities, and were unjustly entertained against the independent, the happy, and therefore orderly citizens of the United States. Much I apprehend that the golden moment is past for reforming these heresies.

  (www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl245.htm).

And he also talks about the inconvenience of having a direct democracy:

The whole body of the nation is the sovereign legislative, judiciary and executive power for itself. The inconvenience of meeting to exercise these powers in person, and their inaptitude to exercise them, induce them to appoint special organs to declare their legislative will, to judge & to execute it. It is the will of the nation which makes the law obligatory; it is their will which creates or annihilates the organ which is to declare & announce it.

(www.let.rug.nl/usa/P/tj3/writings/brf/jefl128.htm).

Now, you could probably quote me other founders who wanted more aristocratic type of power reserved for a few elite.  Remember, after all, that Adams wanted to be king, not president.  Hamilton was power hungry.  And Jefferson won over Madison eventually.

You could accept the view you wrote, but that view is contra Jeffersonian ideals and is at odds with the libertarianism you claim.

We the people, brother.  We the people.

 

[Izdaari]

Not quite, Bou.  :

It's kind of cute watching a non-libertarian tell libertarians what they believe. It's like an atheist telling Christians what they believe: sometimes amusing, but presumptuous and rarely accurate. 

Far from being at odds with libertarianism, the view of government that AresMan expressed IS libertarianism as understood by myself and by the Libertarian Party (which I know something about, since I've been an active member since it was first on the ballot in 1972, have met and discussed philosophy and issues with some of its candidates, and have served on its platform committee at conventions). Not the whole enchilada, mind you (there's a lot more to it), but a good chunk of orthodox libertarianism (to the extent that there is such a thing).

And while libertarians are generally fond of Jefferson, and are grateful to him in particular for writing the Declaration of Independence, he was wrong about some things, and is not our ultimate authority. If there is one, it would be between F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, a pair of eminent Austrian School economists. Some more radical types (tending toward anarcho-capitalism) like Murray Rothbard, another Austrian School economist. And some more pragmatic, utilitarian types (such as myself) have a spot in our hearts for Milton Friedman as well.

 

[rsc2a]

Not quite, Bou.  :

It's kind of cute watching a non-libertarian tell libertarians what they believe. It's like an atheist telling Christians what they believe: sometimes amusing, but presumptuous and rarely accurate. 

Far from being at odds with libertarianism, the view of government that AresMan expressed IS libertarianism as understood by myself and by the Libertarian Party (which I know something about, since I've been an active member since it was first on the ballot in 1972, have met and discussed philosophy and issues with some of its candidates, and have served on its platform committee at conventions). Not the whole enchilada, mind you (there's a lot more to it), but a good chunk of orthodox libertarianism (to the extent that there is such a thing).

And while libertarians are generally fond of Jefferson, and are grateful to him in particular for writing the Declaration of Independence, he was wrong about some things, and is not our ultimate authority. If there is one, it would be between F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, a pair of eminent Austrian School economists. Some more radical types (tending toward anarcho-capitalism) like Murray Rothbard, another Austrian School economist. And some more pragmatic, utilitarian types (such as myself) have a spot in our hearts for Milton Friedman as well.

Get back in that box we've shoved you in! 

 

[Bou]

Not quite, Bou.  :

It's kind of cute watching a non-libertarian tell libertarians what they believe. It's like an atheist telling Christians what they believe: sometimes amusing, but presumptuous and rarely accurate. 

Far from being at odds with libertarianism, the view of government that AresMan expressed IS libertarianism as understood by myself and by the Libertarian Party (which I know something about, since I've been an active member since it was first on the ballot in 1972, have met and discussed philosophy and issues with some of its candidates, and have served on its platform committee at conventions). Not the whole enchilada, mind you (there's a lot more to it), but a good chunk of orthodox libertarianism (to the extent that there is such a thing).

And while libertarians are generally fond of Jefferson, and are grateful to him in particular for writing the Declaration of Independence, he was wrong about some things, and is not our ultimate authority. If there is one, it would be between F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises, a pair of eminent Austrian School economists. Some more radical types (tending toward anarcho-capitalism) like Murray Rothbard, another Austrian School economist. And some more pragmatic, utilitarian types (such as myself) have a spot in our hearts for Milton Friedman as well.

First, my response was to AresMan's contention that the founders hated the idea of democracy.

Second: lol.  Jefferson's ideas form the basis for the libertarian party.  Don't act like that's not true.  It's disingenuous.

Jefferson believed that limited government is best limited by the people, expressing their will through the political process.  This restrains government and diffuses power. 

 

[Bou]

The most famous libertarian (don't act like he's not), Ron Paul, and Thomas Jefferson.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2012/02/13/the-empire-of-liberty-thomas-jefferson-ron-paul-and-the-sacred-fire-of-freedom/

 

[rsc2a]

The most famous libertarian (don't act like he's not), Ron Paul, and Thomas Jefferson.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2012/02/13/the-empire-of-liberty-thomas-jefferson-ron-paul-and-the-sacred-fire-of-freedom/

You do realize there are differing philosophies under the umbrella of "libertarian", right?

In fact, the basis for some are quite incompatible even though they might look the same from a distance. (e.g. "Ayn Rand" libertarianism vs. Christian libertarianism)

 

[Bou]

The most famous libertarian (don't act like he's not), Ron Paul, and Thomas Jefferson.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2012/02/13/the-empire-of-liberty-thomas-jefferson-ron-paul-and-the-sacred-fire-of-freedom/

You do realize there are differing philosophies under the umbrella of "libertarian", right?

In fact, the basis for some are quite incompatible even though they might look the same from a distance. (e.g. "Ayn Rand" libertarianism vs. Christian libertarianism)

You do realize that they share basic principles, right?

 

[christundivided]

If Christians would accept the natural limitations on the spread of immorality that individual rights protected by a constitutional republic would enforce, we would be better off. It is not our job to overthrow the wisdom of the founders and set up a "Christian kingdom" on earth; it is our job to use our freedom as "ambassadors for Christ" to win hearts and minds with the unadulterated gospel.

Would you say such a "Natural limitation" to the spread of "immorality".... would be overwhelming rejection of same sex partnerships? The ONLY reason same sex couples are being accepted more than ever is the false assumption they have the "right" to governmental acceptance. They have no such "civil liberty".

I'm not looking to create a Christian Kingdom. I know the dangers of such left in the hands of mortal men. Only Christ can lead such a Kingdom. I wait for His eternal leadership in such....

BUT, we can not ignore our role as the "salt" of the earth. It is our role to "season" this fool flavored existence we call "life". It is our duty and pleasure to seek what is best for our fellow man. Its not in the best interest of our fellow man to PROMOTE the civil governments acceptance acceptance of same sex partnerships. There may come a day when it will happen regardless of "role". BUT we should not be promoting such an end.

 

[Izdaari]

The most famous libertarian (don't act like he's not), Ron Paul, and Thomas Jefferson.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2012/02/13/the-empire-of-liberty-thomas-jefferson-ron-paul-and-the-sacred-fire-of-freedom/

Ron Paul is a for real libertarian, however he is a paleo-conservative type libertarian.

Jefferson is certainly important to the history of the US and to the development of libertarian thought. But many libertarians are going to disagree with him on some things, and especially on his view of democracy.

 

[Izdaari]

The most famous libertarian (don't act like he's not), Ron Paul, and Thomas Jefferson.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2012/02/13/the-empire-of-liberty-thomas-jefferson-ron-paul-and-the-sacred-fire-of-freedom/

You do realize there are differing philosophies under the umbrella of "libertarian", right?

In fact, the basis for some are quite incompatible even though they might look the same from a distance. (e.g. "Ayn Rand" libertarianism vs. Christian libertarianism)

Like many libertarians of my generation, Rand was a big influence on my thinking. But I wasn't a Christian at that time. I discovered Rand when I was 17, and converted (back) to Christianity at 21. As a Christian libertarian, I still find little to disagree with Ayn Rand WRT politics. Of course, I do not agree with her ethics of rational self-interest or her militant atheism.

 

[rsc2a]

The most famous libertarian (don't act like he's not), Ron Paul, and Thomas Jefferson.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2012/02/13/the-empire-of-liberty-thomas-jefferson-ron-paul-and-the-sacred-fire-of-freedom/

You do realize there are differing philosophies under the umbrella of "libertarian", right?

In fact, the basis for some are quite incompatible even though they might look the same from a distance. (e.g. "Ayn Rand" libertarianism vs. Christian libertarianism)

You do realize that they share basic principles, right?

In some areas, sure. There is always overlap, at least in some minimal regards, in all political/social/economic/religious systems, if one doesn't want to look too closely.

You do realize that Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity share some basic principles, right? Would you put them under the same umbrella?

 

[Eliz553]

@ christundivided,
(Not sure why I am bothering).
You win the prize - for arrogance, rudeness, and crudeness.

Unbelievable.

 

[christundivided]

The most famous libertarian (don't act like he's not), Ron Paul, and Thomas Jefferson.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2012/02/13/the-empire-of-liberty-thomas-jefferson-ron-paul-and-the-sacred-fire-of-freedom/

You do realize there are differing philosophies under the umbrella of "libertarian", right?

In fact, the basis for some are quite incompatible even though they might look the same from a distance. (e.g. "Ayn Rand" libertarianism vs. Christian libertarianism)

You do realize that they share basic principles, right?

In some areas, sure. There is always overlap, at least in some minimal regards, in all political/social/economic/religious systems, if one doesn't want to look too closely.

You do realize that Hinduism, Buddhism and Christianity share some basic principles, right? Would you put them under the same umbrella?

Overlapping libertarians views can't be rationally compared in like manner with Christianity, Buddhism....etc. There is a much greater degree of overlap among libertarian beliefs than the latter. Its like the homosexuals attempt to compare a rectum to the female sex organ. Yes, they are similar in one aspect but they are also worlds apart....

 

[rsc2a]

@ christundivided,
(Not sure why I am bothering).
You win the prize - for arrogance, rudeness, and crudeness.

Unbelievable.

Thus the reason I've stopped replying to any of their posts. I've even typed several replies out only to delete them before submitting.

 

[christundivided]

@ christundivided,
(Not sure why I am bothering).
You win the prize - for arrogance, rudeness, and crudeness.

Unbelievable.

I don't why you would be upset. What I said was the truth. If know the homosexual agenda would love for people to ignore what they are actually practicing. You should remember the 80's when their actions were way over the top. They were grinding in the streets during protests and simulated sex acts whenever anyone had a camera on them.....

NOW they what to come across as respectable? As someone who has their act together?

All they want is for us to legitimize their grotesque appetite for unnatural sex. You do realize that don't you?

Their actions are grotesque. They are appalling. I haven't even cracked the surface of their deviant actions. You should be appalled at such actions. Not my descriptions.