Libertarians & Conservatives

[Ætheling]

You are entitled to your opinion as well.

The official party platform for the Libertarian party disagrees with you on some things however.

Specifically dictating personal morals on people.

Just sayin, not trying to be disrespectful

The libertarian party is a political party created by left leaning libertarians. It is in no way the source of libertarian philosophies. I would argue that the majority of self described libertarians are not members of the libertarian party.

Also not being disrespectful. No idea why the other thread was deleted and this one hasn't been unless someone other than us two lost their mind on a rant and it was deleted before we saw it.

[flywise]

So many liberal leaning "libertarians" that are all about government not interfering in private citizens business only now that that the government already did and made things the way they like them. As long as the status quo is liberal they are all about zero interference.

Yes sir

[Landrover]

These are a few of the points that stood out for me also, but I was familiar with these statements since I was a kid. It is obvious that a few of the original framers were not die in the wool Christians but I wont ever submit that they did not believe in a HIGHER power. What is disappointing is that many Americans truly believe that all the framers walked on water and were devout Christians in the strictest sense...........NOT EVEN CLOSE! We were at the Jefferson Memorial last week and some of the documents on display were quite eye opening even for a man I would consider brilliant on soooo many levels, but he was a MAN!

Indeed.

Frazer: Yeah; and, by the way, let me just say, one of the things that’s critical to note here as well is that I don’t make any claims concerning the founding fathers in general. I don’t think you can make any claims about what the founding fathers believed or the religion of the founding fathers in general because they were, just like people today, they were individuals who disagreed in a lot of ways. They didn’t share all the same beliefs; they held a diverse set of beliefs in various areas, so what I focus on is eight key individuals who I refer to as the key founders. That is, those who are most responsible for the two founding documents: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. And John Adams is, of course, a key figure here because he was one of the three most responsible for the Declaration of Independence and, obviously, the second president of the United States, and also in other positions: vice president, ambassador to Europe and so forth. John Adams, I argue, is sort of the quintessential theistic rationalist. That is, he wrote the most about theology of any of the key founders and studied the most. He read any and all theology that he could find around the world and he wrote the most about it and revealed his own views the most, and it’s really quite shocking what he came up with. He fundamentally denied basically all the fundamental tenants of the faith. He was raised in a Calvinist community; although, and again this is where denominational affiliations can get you in trouble, his church was listed as Congregationalist and they kept that name, but the church turned Unitarian when he was a young man, and so just the label Congregationalist can get you sort of off-track. But he denied the deity of Christ; he denied the Trinity; he denied the atonement. He actually said what I think is the most striking statement of all the things that I’ve found in all of my study, which was in his explaining his opposition to the Trinity, he actually said that if he were standing on Mount Sinai with Moses, where God gives revelation, and God Himself told him that the Trinity was true, he said he wouldn’t believe it.

Mohler: You look at a statement like that and you think Thomas Payne; you don’t think John Adams.

Frazer: Right. He referred to the deity of Christ and the atonement as absurdities, talked about the fabrication of the Christian Trinity. He talked about the incarnation and said it has been the source of almost all the corruptions of Christianity—the belief in an eternal self-existent, omnipresent, omniscient Author of this stupendous universe suffering on a cross—says that that’s the source of most of the problems in Christianity. Speaking of the Bible, he said that philosophy is the original revelation of the Creator to His creature, and no subsequent revelation supported by prophecies or miracles can supersede it, so philosophy trumps the Bible.

[flywise]

IMO, abortion is a personal choice between a woman, her doctor and her God.

The choice does not belong with any other people, including the govt.

You left out....her baby daddy
The sperm doners should absolutely have a say in the decision.
Its half his, but at the moment he is not givin the benefit of his opinion.
Its her body not his the liberal minded will say but in reality she gave up full decision making about her body when she gave consent and got naked .
There are few exceptions to this as 99% of all abortions are a choice of convince.

[Ætheling]

Yes sir

A good indicator of how left leaning the Libertarian political party is the top leadership of the presidential campaign for the libertarian party endorsed Hilary Clinton for President of the US when interviewed as to who should get the nod.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/gary-johnsons-vp-im-not-sure-anyones-more-qualified-than-clinton-to-be-president/

[XBowHunter]

The libertarian party is a political party created by left leaning libertarians. It is in no way the source of libertarian philosophies. I would argue that the majority of self described libertarians are not members of the libertarian party.



Also not being disrespectful. No idea why the other thread was deleted and this one hasn't been unless someone other than us two lost their mind on a rant and it was deleted before we saw it.

I would argue that the majority of self described libertarians are not that familiar with the Libertarian party platform then.

You keep referring to liberal libertarians. I consider myself a "get your hands out of my life" libertarian. I believe most libertarians agree with that. Because that gets applied to same-sex marriage and abortion, I am viewed as liberal. I personally am not in favor of same-sex marriage or abortion, but I also don't believe it's my right to dictate those things to other people. That is a libertarian.

Libertarians are for individual freedoms.

Conservatives tend to be that way too, unless it gets into a couple of touchy areas for them. Areas that have a religious basis for them.

Libertarians leave choice up to the individual, as did God.

[XBowHunter]

You left out....her baby daddy

The sperm doners should absolutely have a say in the decision.

Its half his, but at the moment he is not givin the benefit of his opinion.

Its her body not his the liberal minded will say but in reality she gave up full decision making about her body when she gave consent and got naked .

There are few exceptions to this as 99% of all abortions are a choice of convince.

When he decided not to wrap Jimmy up, he gave up his rights to the abortion decision IMO. He had a way to prevent it right from the beginning.

It's her body, it's her soul, it's her God & her decision.

[flywise]

When he decided not to wrap Jimmy up, he gave up his rights to the abortion decision IMO. He had a way to prevent it right from the beginning.

It's her body, it's her soul, it's her God & her decision.

She had the obligation to require It but chose not to. He body her rules.
She can kill a living human fetus with out his imput but he has to pay child support for a kids d he may not have even known existed.

On another note, you claim you want gov out
Of everyones life as a libertarian, yet the other day you argued that a restaurant owner had no right to operate his business as he wanted to.
So speak out of both sides of your mouth. And typically, reguardless what you say you are you lean a long way to the left side of every debate.

[Ætheling]

I would argue that the majority of self described libertarians are not that familiar with the Libertarian party platform then.

You keep referring to liberal libertarians. I consider myself a "get your hands out of my life" libertarian. I believe most libertarians agree with that. Because that gets applied to same-sex marriage and abortion, I am viewed as liberal. I personally am not in favor of same-sex marriage or abortion, but I also don't believe it's my right to dictate those things to other people. That is a libertarian.

Libertarians are for individual freedoms.

Conservatives tend to be that way too, unless it gets into a couple of touchy areas for them. Areas that have a religious basis for them.

Libertarians leave choice up to the individual, as did God.

Again, you are failing to understand that Libertarianism is a political philosophy and that conservatism is a social philosophy. They are not mutually exclusive. I am a conservative libertarian.

You are also conflating same sex marriage which is a civil rights issue and I agree with you on with abortion a "non aggression" issue which I do not agree with you on.

As a libertarian I believe the govt should protect my rights, one of those is against aggression. I should not be murdered by another person, nor should anyone. I believe that abortion on demand for the purpose of birth control as an oops moment is the unjustified killing of a human being. I get to this conclusion through the libertarian philosophy of non aggression. You and the libertarian party do not have to agree with me but you most certainly cannot tell me I am not a libertarian when I come to my conclusion strictly through libertarian philosophy.


Your default argument keeps going to "well that's what we libertarians believe, that's libertarianism". Two different people can apply the same principles to the same case and come up with different conclusions.

[Ætheling]

Xbow, non aggression is at the cornerstone of libertarian beliefs. Do you agree or disagree?

"Libertarianism is based on a single ideal, the non-aggression principle, so libertarian rhetoric tends to be remarkably consistent. Libertarians oppose the initiation of force to achieve social or political goals. They reject “first-strike” force, fraud or theft against others; they only use force in self-defense. Those who violate this “non-aggression principle” are expected to make their victims whole as much as possible."

https://www.theadvocates.org/aggression/

[jerp]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

These words seem to be pretty simple but if you Google "original meaning of the establishment clause" you will get page after page of scholarly commentary and the opinions are all over the place. This is mostly because of the tension between "no establishment" and the "free exercise" clause. Which is most important? What exactly constitutes establishment and what is merely free exercise? It is a very blurry line.

We must remember that at the founding, 6 of the original states had established churches. (eg: Anglican ministers were paid from state coffers in Virginia.) The founders wanted to make it clear there would be no nationally established religion and the constitution would forbid government preference among religions. I don't know anyone who would disagree with that, and prefer a theocracy.

The problem is, the definition of establishment has been stretched - now it is commonly believed that if a lawmaker is influenced by his faith when forming an opinions on policy, that is somehow government "establishing a religion." What difference does it make if one's opinions are formed by the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Communist Manifesto or old reruns of "The Love Boat?" Let's say Dave thinks abortion is bad because of the Bible and Larry thinks abortion is bad but he is an atheist and a believer in secular humanism. Is Dave's support of a law against abortion then unconstitutional while Larry's is not? Many seem to think that if a law is even tangentially based on a biblical principle it is automatically unconstitutional. There are plenty of non-believers who are pro-life, pro-traditional marriage and hold other traditionally conservative views - they just came to those beliefs without the help of the Bible.

[flywise]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

These words seem to be pretty simple but if you Google "original meaning of the establishment clause" you will get page after page of scholarly commentary and the opinions are all over the place. This is mostly because of the tension between "no establishment" and the "free exercise" clause. Which is most important? What exactly constitutes establishment and what is merely free exercise? It is a very blurry line.

We must remember that at the founding, 6 of the original states had established churches. (eg: Anglican ministers were paid from state coffers in Virginia.) The founders wanted to make it clear there would be no nationally established religion and the constitution would forbid government preference among religions. I don't know anyone who would disagree with that, and prefer a theocracy.

The problem is, the definition of establishment has been stretched - now it is commonly believed that if a lawmaker is influenced by his faith when forming an opinions on policy, that is somehow government "establishing a religion." What difference does it make if one's opinions are formed by the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Communist Manifesto or old reruns of "The Love Boat" Let's say Dave thinks murder is bad because of the 10 Commandments and Larry thinks murder is bad because of a belief in the philosophy of secular humanism. Is Dave's support of a law against murder then unconstitutional while Larry's is not? Many seem to think that if a law is even tangentially based on a biblical principle it is automatically unconstitutional. There are plenty of non-believers who are pro-life, pro-traditional marriage and hold other traditionally conservative views - they just came to those beliefs without the help of the Bible.

I always respect and appreciate how well you and Shane present opinions.

[Ætheling]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

These words seem to be pretty simple but if you Google "original meaning of the establishment clause" you will get page after page of scholarly commentary and the opinions are all over the place. This is mostly because of the tension between "no establishment" and the "free exercise" clause. Which is most important? What exactly constitutes establishment and what is merely free exercise? It is a very blurry line.

We must remember that at the founding, 6 of the original states had established churches. (eg: Anglican ministers were paid from state coffers in Virginia.) The founders wanted to make it clear there would be no nationally established religion and the constitution would forbid government preference among religions. I don't know anyone who would disagree with that, and prefer a theocracy.

The problem is, the definition of establishment has been stretched - now it is commonly believed that if a lawmaker is influenced by his faith when forming an opinions on policy, that is somehow government "establishing a religion." What difference does it make if one's opinions are formed by the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Communist Manifesto or old reruns of "The Love Boat?" Let's say Dave thinks abortion is bad because of the Bible and Larry thinks abortion is bad but he is an atheist and a believer in secular humanism. Is Dave's support of a law against abortion then unconstitutional while Larry's is not? Many seem to think that if a law is even tangentially based on a biblical principle it is automatically unconstitutional. There are plenty of non-believers who are pro-life, pro-traditional marriage and hold other traditionally conservative views - they just came to those beliefs without the help of the Bible.

Good point Jerp, you will always hear many people state that the constitution specifically mandates a separation of church and state. No where is there such a clause, it is I guess a poor paraphrasing of the establishment clause yet a large segment of our population will argue its existence.

[flywise]

Good point Jerp, you will always hear many people state that the constitution specifically mandates a separation of church and state. No where is there such a clause, it is I guess a poor paraphrasing of the establishment clause yet a large segment of our population will argue its existence.

That misconception is from a letter written by ( I believe) jefferson in response to a letter he recieved from a preacher. Somehow some folks want to use that as a constitutional decree ( for lack of a better word)

[Ætheling]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I submit to you exhibit A. "Libertarians and Conservatives" A political thread on TBH where all members are handling themselves in a proper and most distinguished manner while providing an informative and substantive discussion for all.

Proof that in fact the PACE serves a viable purpose here on TBH.