Huckabee Slams Libertarians

T

therepublic

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2009
Messages
332
On Freedom Watch the Judge asked Huckabee if there was a battle between "the Ron Paul or Sarah Palin Libertarians and the old guard Huckabee social conservatives." Huckabee said something very scary. Just as scary as some of what comes out of the mouth of Soros.

Huckabee: "When people refuse to self govern then those who do self govern must demand that there will be a government who will govern those who refuse to self govern." He used manners and respect as examples.

Does he not realize that is why the Founding Fathers left England, and restricted the government from such powers? Does he not realize that the reason the constitution does not give the government that power is because in the wrong hands (which historically is most of the time) it will abuse that power? Those are scary words coming from a man who might run for president again.

If someone harms another person, he can be prosecuted by law. But if he shows bad manners that harms no one, that is not a power I want the government having.

Before the civil war the government did not govern social issues like marriage. Churches did that social service because people took a ceremony between a couple and God more seriously. But the people in power were afraid of black and white marriages, so they decided no one would be allowed to marry unless they obtained a government issued license. It was designed to control peoples social affairs not crimes (harm to others).

YouTube - Freedom Watch Part 2 - Obscene Intrusion 11/18/2010.
 
I'm willing to wager that he doesn't know a salad fork from a dinner fork and that he slurps his soup.
 
Have not watched yet but he is all but a card carrying authoritarian freak. Screw him!
 
WTH was the huckster doing on freedom watch in the first place?
 
Huck is a joke and stands zero chance of being a political force. Remember Huck's Army... LOL!

Old guard Huckabee social conservatives do not control the GOP anymore.
 
Last edited:
Wow Matt. He is even worse than I thought. This would be excellent stuff to keep in the event he runs for president.
 
amy31416 said:
I'm willing to wager that he doesn't know a salad fork from a dinner fork and that he slurps his soup.
Click to expand...

I say its time we find out. And if you're right, off to Guantanamo with him!

And if he misplaces any apostrophes, waterboard his hick ass!
 
I Agree With Huckabee

I actually understand the heart of the issue, where Huckabee is coming from in his criticisms of libertarianism. I agree that social issues affect economic issues in society, and as he pointed out, when individuals are unable to govern themselves, it justifies the civil authority to act in order to govern them into the right behavior (i.e. for murderers, rapists, child molestors, arsonists, thieves, etc.). The government is justified in punishing non-self-governing individuals in society, for that is the purpose for which it was designed in preserving God-given rights of the innocent.

Also, when people act immorally in society (like having a baby out of marriage, getting dumped, and becoming a single mom), it does bear an economic burden for the rest of us. That is because it gives the single parent an incentive to rely on "free" governmental services to take care of herself and her child (i.e. Medicaid, food stamps, low single-parent housing, etc.). Those have to be funded by tax dollars. Yes, I know that, ideally, we should have none of those services from the government, but in our present condition, they are available and highly relied upon from mainly women who "make mistakes" and need help from the public. Essentially, the government becomes the "husband" of the single mom, and it subsidizes irresponsible behavior.

So, I definitely understand where Huckabee is coming from, although I would disagree with his strategy for easing the economic burdens from the social ills of society. We don't need more government intervention; we need to give private incentives to places like churches in allowing them to take care of those burdens and ministering to the needs of those whose private sins have public effects upon us all.
 
Last edited:
Theocrat said:
...we need to give private incentives to places like churches in allowing them to take care of those burdens and ministering to the needs of those whose private sins have public effects upon us all.
Click to expand...

But what church is there who could possibly clean out and straighten up the Senate in this way?!

And as for the Senate dealing with such issues, well, it has a log in its eye yet wonders why we don't trust it...
 
Theocrat said:
The government is justified in punishing non-self-governing individuals in society, for that is the purpose for which it was designed in preserving God-given rights of the innocent.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call it "punishment" as much as it should be "restitution", or righting a wrong. Or paying back the damage one has caused another. Violent offenders should of course be locked up until such time that they are no longer violent etc.



Theocrat said:
Also, when people act immorally in society (like having a baby out of marriage, getting dumped, and becoming a single mom),
Click to expand...
Who's morality? Who gets to decide what is "moral"? The government? :confused:

Theocrat said:
it does bear an economic burden for the rest of us.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't :rolleyes:

Theocrat said:
That is because it gives the single parent an incentive to rely on "free" governmental services to take care of herself and her child (i.e. Medicaid, food stamps, low single-parent housing, etc.). Those have to be funded by tax dollars. Yes, I know that, ideally, we should have none of those services from the government, but in our present condition, they are available and highly relied upon from mainly women who "make mistakes" and need help from the public. Essentially, the government becomes the "husband" of the single mom, and it subsidizes irresponsible behavior.
Click to expand...
People are going to do whatever is easiest for them. If the government didn't provide those handouts, then people wouldn't be able to take them.

Remember the role of government is to secure individual rights. The government shouldn't be handing out money and privileges. It's the government that is acting unethically. The People who rely on these are just doing what is best for them. Now I agree it is amoral for an individual to take government services after being put in that position due to acting irresponsibly. But the government shouldn't offer that to begin with

Theocrat said:
So, I definitely understand where Huckabee is coming from, although I would disagree with his strategy for easing the economic burdens from the social ills of society. We don't need more government intervention; we need to give private incentives to places like churches in allowing them to take care of those burdens and ministering to the needs of those whose private sins have public effects upon us all.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Al Gore even understands that the family break down is causing great harm to society. However both Huck and Al think that more government is necessary to combat this. Even Ralph Nader falls into the same trap; he hates government-corporate collusion, but his solution is MORE government, not less :rolleyes:
 
What the Huck! Huckster doesn't even understand that government interventionism (welfarism, corporatism) CAUSES societal breakdown.

Whenever someone uses Huckster's argument on you, turn it around and show that government is the force of evil that causes or exacerbates the societal woes.
 
Assigning the corrupt, unethically bastrads in D.C. the social/moral leadership of this country is fool's folly.

Self government or even non-self government is much better than anything a politician can offer us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PAF
The “Libertarians” Who Say the Private Sector Is the Real Threat to Freedom
Replies
1
Views
109
TheTexan
TheTexan
ClaytonB
A proposal: Neo-federalism as a new foundation for the US
Replies
10
Views
134
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
PAF
Conservatives Versus Libertarians on Education and Healthcare
Replies
1
Views
101
Working Poor
Working Poor
PAF
Social Peace through Government Retrenchment
Replies
0
Views
320
PAF
PAF
PAF
Libertarianism vs. Microlibertarianism
Replies
0
Views
323
PAF
PAF
Back
Top