For those of you who follow my blog you may have been wondering where I have been for the last few weeks/month. I assure you that I am ok. In fact, I am better than ok. I am AWAKE!!
For the first time in a very long time I have been able to take inventory of my beliefs and my life's philisophy and I have arrived at some very different conclusions from where I stood on issues just a few months ago.
For the majority of my life I have been a Republican. I have always been conservative in my views primarily due to my faith background. As a Christian, I have always identified with the GOP and the conservative political philosophy. For the most part that hasn't changd.
I still believe in limited government, conservative fiscal policies and a strong defense. HOWEVER, I have also realized that I was captivated and manipulated by a new form of conservatism: Neo-Conservatism.
The brand of conservatism that has been on the political stage in the last decade is a new form of conservatism that is LIKE traditional conservatism but there are subtle differences and therein lies the problem.
I don't want to get into the whole neo-conservative philiosphy as I'm sure many of you know what that is. What I do want to do is tell you why my beliefs (in some areas) have changed.
I want to go on record and credit Texas Congressman Ron Paul for my conversion before I go any further. I had listened to him before in the past and have even dabbled with libertarianism before as well but it wasn't until I read his new book "Liberty Defined" that I was really awakened to how much I had been duped.
I have been uncomfortable for some time with the direction that our country is heading in and I have said so here on this blog. Most people see it as me being anti-Obama but I assure you it goes deeper than that. Many of the policies that the neo-conservatives put into place under the Bush Administration continue today. As a matter of fact, Obama has actually strengthened some of them.
What I have learned is that there is NO higher authority that rules our land than The Constitution and that ALL other forms of guiding principles must take a back seat to that. I am still a Christian and I believe that The Bible is STILL the MOST important book ever written and I try to live my life by those guiding principles but I have learned to separate the demogoguery from the truth. I still believe what I believe but I am also more willing to let others do the same.
I have learned that if we TRULY want to be free then we need to respect ALL different forms of liberty in whatever shape and form we might find them in. What I mean is LIBERTY is the most important principle that guides us as Americans. Without liberty we are just another country. Freedom means free to do as we please for the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. I'm sure I've read that somewhere before.
As a result of this epiphany I have changed my mind on many subjects as I now embrace liberty and freedom over the Liberal/Conservative paradigm. I have also learned that is very little difference between the two. Sure, in definition they are different. However, in practice they VERY similar on today's world stage.
For instance I think the War on Drugs is a massive failure and should be abolished. If you want to smoke pot or do drugs in your home then fine have at it. As long as you don't break the law by getting behind the wheel and therefore have the chance to affect others I see no harm in it. Drug abuse should be treated as a medical problem...not a legal one. Marijuana and other drugs should be regulated and taxed by THE STATES just like cigarettes and alcohol. After all, more people die from those two combined every year than they do from smoking pot.
We have to get to the point where we stop relying on government to guide our behavior in everything we do. If people what to do stupid things that are dangerous to themselves then they should be allowed to do so. There is a law in this universe of consequences. Good decisions bring good consequences while bad decisions often bring the opposite.
TRUE liberty means that we should be allowed to make mistakes. We should also have to pay for those mistakes. That is what life is all about. Having the government enforce prohibition of ANY kind is tyranny and I'm quite sure we fought a war against that some years ago.
In the coming weeks you will see more blog posts that outline my NEW positions on issues that I may have at one time taken a very different view of. For some of you this may mean that you'll "unfriend" me but I am ok with that.
What I have learned is that the libertarian philosophy is more closely alligned with my faith as a Christian and who I am as a person. It is because if this awakening that I now see the world in a different light and I can tell you that what I see is both exhilarating and frightening all at the same time.
I wish I could say that because of my new found political stance I am more positive about the future of our country. Sadly, the opposite is true.
More to come. Soon...
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
TruePatriot1
Barbara Joanne
UncleChri
Tommy T
rwnutjob
Caroline K
Salon.com
Comments
You may now enjoy a lifetime of advocating an aberrant ideology that a majority of Americans will always reject. While that can be frustrating, it at least keeps you busy, and constantly in a state of defiant angst. That you already exist in that state probably has more to do with deciding you're a libertarian than does the actual belief system, which I'm betting you know little to nothing about.
So, be a libertarian, but argue it honestly for what it is, and don't argue it, as does Ron Paul, as a founding principle. That dishonesty is in competition for the Big Lie of the century.
Libertarian on, DJohn!
We have not crossed paths in the past that I remember, but I read your piece and I’m always willing to listen to someone who “has seen the light” and is willing to make change…especially significant change.
You wrote one thing I would love to have you comment on a bit more. You wrote:
As a Christian, I have always identified with the GOP and the conservative political philosophy. For the most part that hasn't changd.
I am always astounded when someone claims that a devotion to the teachings of Jesus leads him/her to adopt American conservatism as a political philosophy. In my opinion, the American conservative philosophy is totally incompatible with the teachings of Jesus…and I cannot find a single teaching of Jesus that mixes well with that philosophy.
In fact, it is easier for me to reconsile a love of socialism or communism with the teachings of Jesus.
Could you name some specific teachings of Jesus that you feel identifies more directly with American conservatism…than with socialism? We can discuss it if you are willing.
And of course the only TRUE definition of a term is the one he supplies.
The problem with most Lefties is that they keep asking prosecutorial questions on things like “What is the color of the sky” and then demanding a Yes or No answer.
If you answer “Yes ”to “is the Sky blue? ”, he will then point out to you that it is night.
If you answer “No”, he will snaarkily ask if you assert that the sky is Green?
Fun to watch , but not to be taken too seriously.
With that said, I’m tempted to say “welcome aboard” but then I am not the Captain of the Libertarian philosophy . Get 2 libertarians together and there will be at least 3 opinions expressed about anything. The point is that true Libertarians respect peoples positions and try to understand them, instead of engaging in linguist and semantic flame war, as most lefties on OS are inclined to do.
I look forward to your future posts on your conversions, and I would be delighted if you would comment on my current posting about the Fourth of July.
Respect for everyone's God given Rights is the core of Libertarianism. Funny that it was also the core of the beliefs of our “Liberal” Founding Fathers
Christ is the very center of Individualism and Free Will, which is what most Libertarians assert as a core belief. Your salvation is your individual and personal relationship of love with Christ and his community of thy neighbors, through the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. All else is commentary.
I don't mean to hijack Djohn's post, but if you wish to read my current posting and debate the philosophy of Christ vs, say Lenin- (or even P.T. Skinner or Dickie the Dawk) , I would be delighted to discuss it with you there
I know precisely what I'm talking about. You shouldn't elaborate on your ignorance.
Besides your general ignorance, saying libertarianism was the core of the founder's beliefs is ignorance on an astronomic scale, as the root of libertarian "philosophy" didn't show up until 50 years after the Constitution was written.
I'm sure you have transient fantasies about givin' me a whuppin', but you'll have to do better than crying and pulling suppositions from your arse. Libertarianism is what it is and I know what it is, and you do not. It must suck to be so clueless and yet so prone to advertising it. I hope you have the apathy it takes to avoid intellectual embarrassment.
You can cover up your angst against Ron Paul but you might want to read up on the man and his take on the issues before lambasting him. There is a reason the Paul is always belittled, laughed at and made to look incompetent by the establishment: he speaks the truth that threatens their very comfortable way of life...and they know it.
There was a time that Ron Paul was thought to be crazy, out of the mainstream, etc. Suddenly, he looks more like a prophet with much of what he has been talking about and railing about now coming true. The fact is Ron Paul wants the government out of our lives. he want Americans to be able to live their lives their way. How they choose. Government should be there to protect our rights...not to influence or command our behavior. We are living in an Empire these days that is not unlike the Roman Empire of old. In fact, as of right now we are the MOST powerful empire the world has EVER known and that is saying something.
I would ask that you take the time to read his book before you lash out against his stance on the issues. It was a powerful read and it was a life changing moment for me. It might be for you as well.
I have not abandoned these stances but I am more open to a compromise moving forward. I think gay people should be allowed to have the same right to enter into a union with a person they wish to spend their lives with that a heterosexual couple has. I actually agree with Ron Paul that it is something that we should get the government out of and let the States and churches take care of. It is high time we get the government out of our bedrooms. As I said, I have not abandoned my faith but I have begun to rethink the positions that I take on some of these issues. I think that our faith should be sacred and the government should stay out of it. I also believe that the church should stay out of the governments business as well. If that were to take place we might be better off in this country. What I DON'T like is when the government takes sides. If a church decides that due to its belief system that they will not allow gay individuals to hold positions of leadership then the government should respect that. It should be a church matter. What we often have though is the government overstepping its bounds and demanding that a church do something that clearly goes against its teachings. In that case the government is taking sides and that is wrong.
This is just the start of the new ideas that I have opened up to and I find that free will and personal responsibility are very much a part of the teachings of Jesus. True He commanded people to live in a certain way and He desired that they did. But when they decided to go their own way and do their own thing He let them. That, I believe is the spirit of libertarianism. As the bible says: Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty.
As for your assertion that “Christ is the very center of Individualism and Free Will”…I would prefer that you actually quote what Christ said that you are addressing rather than characterizing it. As you know, people can characterize whatever they want whatever way they want.
Bring specific citations…we’ll discuss them.
Djohn,
Thank you for your greeting.
Anyway, the reason I cannot reconcile the teachings of Jesus with communism or socialism is because in both respects they tend to lead to a godless society and the welfare of the state is more important.
Well…communism and socialism CAN lead to a godless society…but that is not a necessity or a priority of either, just as capitalism can lead to hypocrisy and inhumanity …but that is not a necessity or a priority of capitalism.
Obviously as a Christian, I believe that Jesus Christ is God incarnate just as He said He was. There are other political issues that lend themselves more to Christianity and to the Republican platform than others. The gay marriage issue is another issue. Jesus Himself proclaimed that marriage was between a man and a woman. In fact He actually quoted the verse in Genesis where God first mentioned what marriage would look like.
Some citations, please. So that we can discuss what the Bible tells us Jesus said…rather than your characterizations of what he said. Here, you are simply asserting that what Jesus taught comports more with the positions of Republicans and conservatives than with Democrats and liberals.
I doubt that is the case...but I am willing to learn. Let's have some specific citations.
I have not abandoned these stances but I am more open to a compromise moving forward. I think gay people should be allowed to have the same right to enter into a union with a person they wish to spend their lives with that a heterosexual couple has. I actually agree with Ron Paul that it is something that we should get the government out of and let the States and churches take care of. It is high time we get the government out of our bedrooms. As I said, I have not abandoned my faith but I have begun to rethink the positions that I take on some of these issues. I think that our faith should be sacred and the government should stay out of it. I also believe that the church should stay out of the governments business as well. If that were to take place we might be better off in this country. What I DON'T like is when the government takes sides. If a church decides that due to its belief system that they will not allow gay individuals to hold positions of leadership then the government should respect that. It should be a church matter. What we often have though is the government overstepping its bounds and demanding that a church do something that clearly goes against its teachings. In that case the government is taking sides and that is wrong.
But didn’t Jesus say that we should give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…and to GOD what is GOD’s?
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” Mark 12:17
Obviously the GOD Jesus worshipped…the GOD of Abraham thought homosexuals were such an abomination, they ought to be killed rather than tolerated and be allowed the same rights as others. How does government policy which says you must ignore what your GOD says on the matter possibly fall in line with your contention that you want to honor the teachings of Jesus? Why would you possibly assert that a political philosophy that causes you to ignore some of the teachings of Jesus is so worthy of a Christians loyalty?
“If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.” Leviticus 20-13 (This is what the GOD Jesus worshipped had to say about homosexuals)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come, not to abolish them, but to fulfill them. Of this much I assure you; UNTIL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, not the smallest letter of the law, not the smallest part of a letter shall be done away with until it all comes true." Matthew 5:17ff (This is what Jesus said about that passage…and all the other passages of the law.)
Let’s start with that and then move on to some more difficult topics.
Sure, the Founders believed in liberty. What constitutes liberty, though, is the point. Our foundational idea of liberty is not libertarian, nor were the founders, nor are the Declaration and Constitution. Totally different animals, totally different concepts of liberty.
Besides, if you actually knew something about founding America, you'd quickly realize the people -- "founders" included -- accepted and encouraged far more government involvement than libertarianism allows. In fact, you would consider it a socialist haven compared to the ridiculous 'coercion" dogma of the libertarians.
Ron Paul makes some good points, but his revisionist idea of what the Constitution means is pure bunk. At the end of the day he's still a libertarian, willing to sell America to whoever has the funds to buy us so we can live under unaccountable, privatized corporate rule in the Libertarian serf state.
Stick with the Founder's version of liberty. it might not be perfect, but it allows reason where libertarianism replaces that with rules. However, you don't seem to want to invest the time it takes to understand liberty theory, and because libertarianism only has one rule, maybe it's the right aberrant ideology for you.
But don't blame the liberty-robbing libertarian ideology on the Founders. They deserve better than that.
Thank you for stopping by my blog, I truly appreciate your comment. I don’t mean to pirate your posting, but if you don’t mind I’ll try to move PJ’s and my “discussion” somewhere else
@PJ
Thank you for stopping in and demonstrating the point I was making about using the “definition of terms” as a way of avoiding a serious discussion. Keep it up and always remember. “ We all have mittens, too!”*
*I’ll elaborate on what this means in a post, sometime Tuesday or Wednesday, I’m pressed for time over the weekend.
@Frank
Once again I don’t mean to pirate Djohns’s post, but PJ has reminded me of the fun and wisdom that may be gained in discussing Euclidean vs Non Euclidean Geometry with a Pitt Bull. And events beyond the scope of these blogs have forcibly reminded me that I only have so much time left. So, a good first step would be if you would read and comment upon my current 4th of July post, and then we can take it from there. Thank you for your consideration.
4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,
5 "and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?
6 "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
The whole homosexual thing has been blown way out of proportion by people who know a little bit of scripture to be dangerous. What they fail to talk about is how God sees ALL sin. There is no hierarchy when it comes to sin...it's all the same to God. Look who God says are deserving of everlasting torment:
Revelation 21:8 says - But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.
So if we are going to hang a sing upon homosexuals and condemn them then what shall we do to the liars? The fact is this shows up in Leviticus because it was a specific moment in time when God was purifying His people as they wandered in the desert. He wanted them to be the example to the world as to what a holy people looked like. Therefore He tolerated very little.
It is important to realize that while MOST of the Bible is for use for us today it must also be understood that much of the beginning books were about history. The history of the Jewish race. While Jesus never contradicted the Old Testament, He also gave us new commands that He set forth in what we now call the New Testament.
I agree with the passage about giving Caesar his due since we still have to live in this world but He also says to give unto God that which is God's which means out first loyalty is to Him.
“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787
“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson
n 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794
“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison
But let’s get back to the point I made in my first post.
Cite some things that Jesus said that caused you to think the GOP more closely represents the teachings of Jesus than, let’s say, the Democrats. Or cite some things Jesus said that caused you to think American conservatism more closely represents the teachings of Jesus than American liberalism. Or cite some things Jesus said that cause you now to think American libertarianism more closely represents the teachings of Jesus than either of those two.
Cite specific passages…several of them if possible. (Frankly, I do not think it IS possible, because I do not see American conservatism or liberalism to mesh with the teachings of Jesus at all.)
Go to a Bible with the words of Jesus in red…and choose some red printing that actually bolsters your case…so we can discuss them.
I would love to do that.
...done. Over in your post.
f.
You are in no condition to teach anyone history. But it is kind of funny watching somebody who can think he's found the Rosetta Stone of reality several times a year. A Conservative in January, a Tea Partier in April and a Libertarian in July. You don't know what to think, obviously, so you seek templates for how to think.
None of those quotes describes a libertarian meaning of liberty. Further, founding America was full of strict regulations on corporations (sometimes to the point where they dictated how much profit could be made), town and state taxes to support the ill and disabled through public charity (you know that as "socialism"), and even that 1798 federal single payer healthcare law (more "socialism").
Jefferson was instrumental in making laws to force estate owners to divide their property among all heirs, not will it to the firstborn son. He wanted to keep the wealthy from accumulating too much wealth because he, unlike the delusional libertarian posers of today, knew wealth wields unaccountable power. Jefferson believed that if there were uncultivated lands and unemployed people the Right of Property needed re-examination. Imagine that! Redistributing property to achieve distributive justice. That ol' commie! Jefferson and Madison were also not fans of corporate power, Jefferson in particular seeing its ability to undo the work the founders had done. Any one of those truths would disqualify those men as "libertarian."
I could enlighten you on those various quotes on "general welfare," and put them in the true context, which would disappoint you. For example, Jefferson tied, correctly, the power to TAX to general welfare -- not the other enumerated powers that followed.
The 1791 quote was in his argument against the First Bank of the United States -- an argument he and Madison lost, and Hamilton and Washington's opinion prevailed. You should read the full quote from which you showed a snippet -- it would change what you think his thoughts were.
What's funny about your cut-paste "history" lesson...besides you thinking it's really a history lesson...is that you assume that a belief in "liberty" means a belief in libertarianism. As I tried to explain, there are differing theories of what constitutes liberty, and the Founders liberalism isn't the same--by a longshot--as the libertarian concept of liberty. If it had been, there wouldn't have been the hyper-strict laws governing for profit corporations. Jefferson would have been considered an enemy of liberty the moment he suggested there are situations justifying redistributing property. He would have been vilified for ensuring wealth didn't accumulate beyond a certain point in order to limit its power.
And YOU, DJohn, would have been leading the charge to tar and feather Mr Jefferson for his transgressions against liberty. Ya ol' Tory!
No, DJohn, the Founders were not like you, nor were they libertarians, nor can one understand their thinking from a few selective quotes. If you're too lazy to learn the history, don't try to compensate by faking it.
I don't define libertarianism, as it defines itself. I merely affirm what it self-describes. I take it you like philosophy, which is fine. I don't study it in general because its function is limited to navel-gazing well beyond the practical. But I have a pretty good grasp of political philosophy, and in that, what libertarian philosophy prescribes. I *yawn* look forward to your opinion on the subject, and have no doubt in my ability debate the realities involved. If I wished to avoid an intelligent discussion on the subject, discussing it with you would accomplish exactly that. But, whatever...
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
From Ron Paul's book "Liberty Defined" in the Introduction:
"Liberty means to exercise human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the exercise of the rights of others. This means, above all else, keeping government out of our lives. Only this path leads to the unleashing of human energies that build civilizations, provide security, generate wealth, and protect people from systematic rights violations."
He states further: "To believe in liberty is not to believe in any particular social and economic outcome. It is to trust in the spontaneous order that emerges when the state does not intervene in human volition and human cooperation. It permits people to work out their problems for themselves, build lives for themselves, take risks and accept responsibility for the results, and make their own decisions. (In other words...complete freedom).
And i found this to be especially enlightening: "Neither party is truly dedicated to the classical, fundamental ideals that gave rise to the American Revolution."
Now you can get all creative with who said what and when they said it but if you can't get behind that philosophy then we are worlds apart. You see what you'll learn when you begin to delve deeper into the political situation in this country is that there really is NO difference in what party you put into power because many of the KEY positions in government never change and their power base is never threatened. The "blame game" is just a very large diversion to keep us from having what we have been promised in our founding documents: TRUE FREEDOM.
As soon as you wake up and "SEE" what is going on the sooner you can join our chorus of voices calling for this to change. I would also suggest you read "Reckless Endangerment How Outsized Ambition, Greed, And Corruption Led To Economic Armageddon" by NYT Correspondent Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner. But be warned, it's not what you think it is. The players in this drama/tragedy might surprise you and shake up your comfortable idea that "it's all the Bush Administrations fault" for the economic mess we are in. Apparently the facts prove otherwise.
One of the first issues that the GOP USED to be for (until the neocons hijacked the party) was The Just War Theory:
As set forth by the teachings of the Catholic Church:
1. The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. there must be serious prospects of success;
4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
This also would align well with the Libertarian Party Platform as well: 3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression.
The United States should both avoid entangling alliances and abandon its attempts to act as
policeman for the world. We oppose any form of compulsory national service. (I agree with all but the last statement as I think that military service can also be a great way for young men and woman to get direction in their lives that will aid them in becoming great citizens).
Abortion would be the next issue: The GOP has for the most part always been on the side of Pro-Life legislation and I don't think I need to convince you that Jesus was also do I? The problem is getting the government involved in the abortion issue is what makes it wrong in my opinion. It's big business and it targets the inner-city populations and the poor. The good news is it appears that Americans as a whole are turning away from abortion. In a recent Gallup poll from May of this year they found the following:
PRINCETON, NJ -- A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" on the issue of abortion and 42% "pro-choice." This is the first time a majority of U.S. adults have identified themselves as pro-life since Gallup began asking this question in 1995.
The problem with trying to equate Jesus' teaching with a particular political philosophy are quite difficult as Jesus rarely spoke about politics. However, he clearly taught that the community (the church) should take care of themselves and their own and not rely on the government to do so. I think the fact that the GOP has always been for limited government power is one of the reasons I was attracted to them. The Democrats have always wanted to increase the government and its influence and power over the citizenry and that is just contradictory to what I believe. Jesus told us to take care of the poor and the less fortunate and there was a time when we did that. Some of it goes on today. However, stealing from one segment of society to give to another is just plain wrong. The government should not be in the business of legislating behavior. Morality is not the governments responsibility.
The reason I have embraced the Libertarian Party is because of statements like this from their website:
We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.
That is more in line with my beliefs in Christianity than any other political party at present and that is why I am here now.
You don't have to ask what living in a libertarian economy looks like, as you're living in one now.
Notice the Libertarian Party has few members, but tons of financing from the wealthiest right-wingers. That's because the LP prescription for America is a corporate nanny state, where "government" -- the people -- is trashed in favor of "power" to rule.
Libertarianism is a fraud, and exactly what the founders--and anyone with a rational mind--would want to avoid. How's it working so far?
Read the entire LP platform. Open borders, no trade restrictions, no controls on monopolies. It's not a working idea of liberty, which, besides that built-in dysfunction, was not at all what we were founded upon. Liberalism is a working liberty, libertarianism is a theory of liberty for the sake of theories of liberty. It's not designed to work, and meets all its design requirements.
If the Founders had libertarian ideas, we'd be ruled by the British East India Company. If you want to be a libertarian, fine. Just don't slander the founders or trash their ideas and the framework they created by calling it libertarian. They weren't stupid men, or youngsters easily influenced by crap ideologies.
A libertarian world is a world of free and voluntary associations, a world based on private property rights and the non-aggression doctrine, a world where Paul J. O'Rourke has no automatic access to his neighbor's back pocket. Maybe that's why he detests libertarianism so much.
Thanks for the reply.
However, I asked for specific citations of what JESUS SAID…that cause you to think the GOP more closely represents the teachings of Jesus than the Democrats…or that caused you to think American conservatism more closely represents the teachings of Jesus than American liberalism or that cause you now to think American libertarianism more closely represents the teachings of Jesus than either of those two.
You have not cited a single passage…NOT A ONE!
How can we discuss what Jesus said that leads you to where you are if you will not cite some of these things.
I do understand your problem. As I mentioned, I have read the words of Jesus very, very carefully…and I do not think it possible to cite anything Jesus ever said that leads to the GOP, to American conservatism, to libertarianism…rather than communism, socialism, and liberalism. But I never cease to be surprised…and you may come up with lots that I have missed. Please do some citations!
One comment on something you did write: Abortion would be the next issue: The GOP has for the most part always been on the side of Pro-Life legislation and I don't think I need to convince you that Jesus was also do I?
I absolutely defy you to cite even one word that Jesus ever said about the abortion issue> There are none. Anything you say about how Jesus would feel about it, is pure guesswork on your part. In fact, a decent, logical case can be made that Jesus did not see anything wrong with it, because he certainly did not condemn it.
So…YES…you would have to do a lot of convincing to get me to agree with you on this issue.
C’mon. Some citations are needed. Then we can discuss them in context.
No, I detest libertarianism because I value liberty. Libertarianism fails, even on a philosophical level, to deliver liberty. When libertarianism met the well known and well established-through-history power of wealth, libertarianism rolled over, presented its belly, and is stroked by those powers.
Another way of saying that is those Powers That Have Always Existed are using the aspect of libertarianism that enables their unaccountable rule over our economic lives, and throwing out the distasteful ideas about civil liberties that are the only part of libertarianism that resemble sanity.
The libertarians, so overcome with actually having their fringe ideas considered, joyously surrender, in effect if not literally, those civil liberty ideas and wallow in the cash the plutocrats pump into Cato, et.al. The civil aspects become vestigial in the real world, and will soon become non-existent as they will rely on the ridiculous idea of plutocratic altruism to be effective.
Yes, libertarianism is about liberty. The liberty for the grapes to roll around with the watermelons. The liberty to sell your country to foreign capital. The liberty to impoverish the many to benefit the few. Wait a minute! Could it be true? Yes, it is. Libertarianism is privatized communism.
Hell of a theory ya have there, Larry.
I'm not any longer going to use DJohn's blog as a venue for our conversation. See you on my blog,if you feel it's necessary to your freedom of expression. Otherwise, as I've said before, Thank you, but we all have got mittens, too.
Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God Mark 10:14
Mark 10:16 - And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.
Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 18:10
Here we see an Old Testament verse that indicates that there was life before there was life and a purpose for every life:
4The word of the Lord came to me, saying,5“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Jeremiah 1: 4-5
The testimony of the Apostle Peter also describes Jesus: You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. Acts 3:15 (Would the author of LIFE be in favor of the murder of innocent life?)
The Apostle Paul also spoke of how to live:
Warning Against Idleness
6In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teachinga you received from us. 7For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, 8nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. 9We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. 10For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” 2 Thessalonians 3: 6-10 (That sure doesn't sound like welfare.)
You wrote: Frank - On abortion "In fact, a decent, logical case can be made that Jesus did not see anything wrong with it, because he certainly did not condemn it." I honestly don't even know what to say to that. We are at a point where if I say the water is blue you'll most likely tell me that it is dark black.
I will never do that, DJohn. I will speak only the truth…and back up what I speak with evidence. I am not being hard-headed, pedantic, or unduly insistent.
You then went on to quote three passages of what Jesus said about various things…and not one word about abortion.
Where is the quote from Jesus about abortion…about his feelings regarding it…any indication whatsoever that he saw anything immoral or scandalous about it? (You won’t find it…there are no such quotes!)
You then quote from the Old Testament…which, of course, does not have a single word from Jesus contained in it.
You then quoted from the Apostles Peter and Paul…neither of whom is Jesus.
None of those quotes actually reflect on abortion, by the way.
Are there any words from Jesus regarding the subject? (Answer: No!)
After leaving the abortion issue without a single citation from Jesus on it, you then went on to quote from Paul regarding eating, labor, and toil…but not one word from Jesus on any of those subjects. Where are the teachings of Jesus on these issues?
Did Jesus, on the Mount, say, “Teach them to fish so they will eat for the rest of their lives”…or did he say, “Give them fish to eat?”
Djohn…no more slogans…no more from the Old Testament…no more from Peter and Paul (especially not from Paul who pretty much contradicted Jesus). Show me the teachings of Jesus that you see as more in line with conservative or libertarian policy…than with liberal.
If you can’t…simply acknowledge that you cannot. No shame there. Nobody can…not you or anyone else, because it simply does not exist.
You were a conservative…and you are now a libertarian not because of what Jesus taught…but for some other reasons. No need to explain or even offer those reasons. We each have our reasons for why we do things…and I am not asking you for yours. I accept that you are honorable in why you were a conservative and are now a libertarian…but I will not accept that either of those conditions flowed or resulted from what Jesus taught.
Delete the words "not being" and You have said something true for once.
frank: "Djohn…no more slogans . . "
The master sloganeer (eating their young, give him time, etc.) suggests slogans are inappropriate.
A walking, talking hot-air machine!
I will agree with you that Jesus never actually spoke about abortion. Then again, I don't believe that abortion was something present in His time upon the Earth anyway. You MUST agree thought that when Jesus speak He most often speaks of life and living." "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. John 14:6. Therefore it is logical to assume that someone who claims to be LIFE would then advocate for death or murder. Maybe you can't see that but I can.
I think what you need to know though is the reason I no longer a Republican and not a Democrat is that I've realized that the two parties are two sides of the same coin. Has Obama done anything all that different than Bush? We are still at war and expanding into new ones. Gitmo is still open. The Patriot Act has been strengthened along with the TSA. Can you see what is happening? The police state is growing and tyrrany is inevitable. The media wants you to be caught up in Red/Blue, Liberal/Conservative, etc/etc. This is so that you'll be distracted by what is really going on. The Fed and the central bankers are systematically looting our country and enslaving the American People. I am a Libertarian because I hold no allegiance to either party and will fight to right this ship. WE The People need to demand our country back before it is too late.
I'm currently reading "Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon" by NYT Investigative Reporter Gretchen Morgenson. If you want to know how deep the corruption goes and how long this plan has been in the works you should read this book. You'll find that there is plenty of blame to go around.
Thanks for your response.
Once again, I respect your right to be a conservative or libertarian…or anything else you want to use as a political label. Truly I do. But I reject the notion that you are doing it because conservatism or libertarianism is closer to the teachings of Jesus than socialism, communism, or liberalism. That is what we are discussing here.
I’ve asked you for some quotes from Jesus that would back up your contention…and you have not furnished one. Furnish even one quote from Jesus that would lead a person more toward conservatism or libertarianism than liberalism. Just one…so that we can at least start the real discussion.
It is my contention that the vast bulk of what Jesus taught…leads one AWAY FROM American conservatism…not toward it.
As for the abortion issue, you wrote:
I will agree with you that Jesus never actually spoke about abortion. Then again, I don't believe that abortion was something present in His time upon the Earth anyway.
You are wrong here…totally wrong. “Abortionist” probably is the world’s second oldest profession, occasioned by oldest!
Hippocrates, in his famous Hippocratic Oath, wrote: “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.”
Hippocrates, who lived in approximately the same area as Jesus a couple of centuries earlier than Jesus, knew about abortion; had considerations about it that caused him to include this item in his oath; and mentioned it by name.
It WAS around when Jesus lived…and if it bothered Jesus, he would have mentioned it.
He didn’t.
For you to raise this issue as something Jesus indicated as wrong, thus leading you toward conservatism (earlier) makes no sense. It is not recorded that Jesus even mentioned the issue…let alone took a position on it.
Once again, I ask you to cite one passage that quotes Jesus saying something that would lead you at one time to adopt American conservatism…or to presently adopt libertarianism.
If you cannot, simply acknowledge that you cannot…that you consider yourself one or both of those things for reasons unrelated to anything Jesus taught. That is your right…and the way an ethical Christian would handle something like this.
With all due respect, Djohn, this goes to a much larger issue:
ALL people who profess to be followers of the teachings of Jesus who claim also to be American conservatives…are being hypocritical. Either that, or they do not understand the teachings of Jesus…or the essence of American conservatism…or both.
I actually have outlined several issues that align conservatism with the teachings of Jesus and Christianity as a whole but you continue to look past them like they were never mentioned: marriage between a man and a woman and idleness as a sin (accepting welfare when you clearly CAN work for your wages) are just two of them. You keep saying but "Jesus never said that" like that should matter. You do understand that Jesus is only the personage that God used to communicate with man in our space/time continuum correct? The Bible clearly states that a "Jesus like" figure was around and revealed Himself to man BEFORE the actualy MAN Jesus was even born. There are many Christophonies in the Old Testament that reveal this truth. So if Jesus is God incarnate as a man and God in many areas of The Bible confirms these other truths then technically The Bible in its entirety can be deemed the teachings of Jesus. If he had been a holy man such as Ghandi or Buddha or another teacher that the world holds up as a Great Man then your argument would hold weight. However, since Jesus never actually claimed to be a "great teacher" but to be God Himself that sets Him apart.
There are other issues as well that would lead one towards conservatism which would be the alignment of the GOP and the conservatism with the Christian Right. You are more apt to hear about the teaching of Creation there than in liberal circles or in the Democrat Party. You are more apt to hear about prayer in schools being abolished in liberal circles and the Democrat Party than in the GOP and among conservatives. This is all about the nature of community and where people find themselves. In a faith-based community you are going to find many more conservatives and Republicans that you will Democrats and liberals. That is just a fact.
Let's see. We have an economy with a central bank, the sugar daddy and "lender of last resort" of all big banks; legal tender laws; the FDIC; minimum wage laws; rent control laws; "price gouging" laws; Freddie and Fannie; the FHA; the Wagner Act and NLRB; farm subsidies; auto bailouts; bank bailouts; barber shop license laws; organ selling laws; the HEA of 1965; etc., etc. . .I could type all day.
Hmmm. Last time I checked, these things were not aspects of a "libertarian economy." Nice try.
Transference is a syndrome where how one behaves and is ascribed to another, which is precisely what frank has done, here.
We have here a man trying to reason with a child. Djohn is a man who believes in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. frank believes in nothing but his misfiring neurons.
DJohn is enough of a man to re-evaluate his premises, while frank hasn't evaluated anything, nor responded to any substantive issues.
frank demands that DJohn cites some specifics, when frank NEVER cites specifics. frank even has the hubris and arrogance to come on DJohn's blog and define what the subject matter is.
I can reason or debate with Djohn - trying to do so with frank is akin to trying to talk to an ostrich whose head is buried in the sand.
-R-
Djohn…
…c’mon. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that anyone back in the day of Jesus would suppose that abortion is the killing of any unborn child in the womb. That is a fairly recent argument used by abortion opponents. Even Hippocrates didn’t prohibt the use of a pessary to induce an abortion because of concerns with any supposed child. The pessary caused problems for the woman. Hippocrates, it can be argued, was advocating women’s health safety with his prohibition. In any case, he did not prohibit other methods of abortion.
Look…you went from saying there was no abortion back then…to this other line of reasoning when I proved you wrong. Obviously, you are not capable of simply saying what I suggested—I was a conservative and am now a libertarian for a variety of reasons…not because I really think these political agendas really advocate in the direction Jesus taught.
This is all about the nature of community and where people find themselves. In a faith-based community you are going to find many more conservatives and Republicans that you will Democrats and liberals. That is just a fact.
Yup. Look up the word “hypocrisy” in the dictionary. That has been my point all along. Christian tradition is much more in line with the liberals, socialists, and communists than with American conservatives and Republicans. That hypocrisy is at the core of my remarks.
I thought you might be able to engage intellectually in this exercise and perhaps even gain an appreciation for the incongurity, but it appears you are wedded to what I see as rationalizations. That is par for the course for Christian conservatives. I’ll leave you be in this thread, although I suspect we may bang heads in other ones. Thanks for the conversation.
I have tended to support You in this thread, but the word "reasonable" and frank should never be used in the same sentence.
"Therefore a reasonable person using logic would agree that since the Old Testament clearly defines murder as a sin and to kill and unborn child in the womb would qualify as murder then you can say with little argument that Jesus would have been against abortion. "
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
— Theodore Roosevelt
"Logic," also is a word beyond frank's pitiful comprehension.