If you want to understand why some Christian Libertarians might not vote for Paul, read...

[acptulsa]

Did you not read the parenthesis?
Logically applied, Ron Paul's argument on May 5 leads to the conclusion that, since it is a matter of personal liberty, we should not take action against those who do it, especially in light of Paul's overarching libertarianism that seems to be becoming more consistent.

Did you not read my post? The logical conclusion for anyone with a clue is Dr. Paul doesn't think the Federal Crooks should address the issue at all because they'll screw it up as usual.

Now, if you live in the U.S., you live in a state or you live in a territory. Either way, you get a legislature to represent you and, with President Paul in the White House, you'd have to do a much, much more serious job of limiting personal liberty than saying 'no heroin' to get Federal Troops down on your ass.

For God's sake, the man's not going to pander. Period. When he talks to God, he'll be in his room with the door closed just as Jesus advised.

As for Don't Ask Don't Tell, well, all I can say is it would be a whole lot easier to deal with the issue if we weren't in three freaking wars at once. A lot easier.

 

[steph3n]

Lets not get tripped up on semantics here. I've seen this for years and years. "Christian libertarian". Just read that as "the religious right" and see if any of you find yourselves giving a shit.

Clearly we'd(Christian libertarian) be in a small minority, but your attitude is a bit wrong on the matter, in fact it is quite collectivist is it not?

 

[acptulsa]

Clearly we'd(Christian libertarian) be in a small minority, but your attitude is a bit wrong on the matter, in fact it is quite collectivist is it not?

Of course, the flip side of the matter is that the OP does not speak for me. Not that this makes it any less collectivist...

 

[SethBass83]

I am a Christian and I think Ron Paul is the perfect choice for Christians. So many people use the word Christian so very loosely to suit their situation. As the Bible says, "Not Everyone Who Says "Lord, Lord" Will Enter the Kingdom."

 

[rockandrollsouls]

It's not my goal to waste a significant amount of energy persuading your small, stubborn group. I'd rather spend 1/4 of that energy on the average American and get 10 times the votes, if not more.

 

[georgiaboy]

welcome, SB83! I agree, Ron is the perfect choice.

 

[jmdrake]

what i think he is saying in general is the christian right(the bush jesus freaks) are the ones that deter folks from joining the gop or even voting for a republican!! I was one of those! I think the christian right in the gop is to blame for much of the warmongering policies and have tarnished many folks from wanting to be called a republican or related to them! After the last 20-30 yrs in the gop! people have a right not to trust the christian right!!

Okay. You can interpret it that way. But all he said was if he went more Jesus I wouldn't be interested in supporting him. There is a difference between "going more Jesus" and advocating Bush's warmongering policies. Don't forget that Pastor Chuck Baldwin endorsed Ron Paul, and Ron Paul turned around and endorsed Chuck Baldwin. I don't know of anyone more "pro Jesus" and more anti war than Pastor Chuck.

 

[acptulsa]

It's not my goal to waste a significant amount of energy persuading your small, stubborn group. I'd rather spend 1/4 of that energy on the average American and get 10 times the votes, if not more.

But it doesn't take as much as it seems to take. Throw Matthew Six and Amendment Ten on them and walk away. They'll never, ever, ever, ever admit you're right while you stand there arguing. But a significant number of them will get gnawed by your statement after you leave.

 

[jmdrake]

I agree with this. The Moral Majority, aka the Compassionate Conservatives, are the faction that support socialism, and have no qualms about using our military to "do God's will."

Pastor Chuck Baldwin was president of the moral majority for awhile and I've not seen anything to suggest that he supported socialism or preemptive war.

 

[georgiaboy]

But it doesn't take as much as it seems to take. Throw Matthew Six and Amendment Ten on them and walk away. They'll never, ever, ever, ever admit you're right while you stand there arguing. But a significant number of them will get gnawed by your statement after you leave.

Yep, and similarly ask if they support the rule of law, then ask if the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then ask where in the US Constitution the federal government is authorized to even be involved in such matters.

 

[steph3n]

Pastor Chuck Baldwin was president of the moral majority for awhile and I've not seen anything to suggest that he supported socialism or preemptive war.

I think he's seen the light and changed a bit on political nature of liberty through choice, and not by force laws that repress other and end up causing more trouble for those pushing the laws in the long term, when the tables get turned.

 

[rockandrollsouls]

I have to disagree with you guys. Showing someone they could possibly be wrong NEVER works.

Yep, and similarly ask if they support the rule of law, then ask if the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then ask where in the US Constitution the federal government is authorized to even be involved in such matters.

 

[acptulsa]

I have to disagree with you guys. Showing someone they could possibly be wrong NEVER works.

Not that you know of. I agree don't waste time, because prolonging the argument in hopes of an admission will just piss them off and make them more entrenched. But please don't underestimate the ability of a reasoned and logical argument to gnaw at a person after you're gone from their sight. Seriously.

Would we be where we are now if we hadn't been shouting (to an impenetrable wall of ridicule) four years ago that Obama was as big a warmonger as Dubya? I think not.

In many arguments, and most especially religious arguments, you can do more with five seconds of 'you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink' resignation than two hours of debate. Raise both your hands, say 'whatever', show them the confidence they don't feel (or else they wouldn't be so ready to fight) and leave it to sink in.

 

[Maestro232]

interesting...

Perhaps, but those are NOT Christian libertarians. They would be the Christian Authoritarians. ( I think they are confused)

Interesting distinction, but I think you should go back and read Wilson again now that you've had some coffee.

 

[JoelYrick]

I'm sorry, but I thought the same thing Chris Wallace came back with, and it was the opinion of almost every Republican watching the debate outside of Paul and Johnson's tiny little libertarian faction: So, shooting heroin is a matter of personal liberty? It isn't. And you can't argue that it is and expect to win GOP votes that way. What you can argue is that the government shouldn't be involved in wielding the sword against those who get themselves high, a position I'd agree with. I don't like being called an authoritarian nanny-stater because I happen to think we should take action (albeit, non-state action) against the use of crack and heroin in our society.

I think you are missing a distinction that's crucial here. Paul is advocating that people have the liberty- before men- to use heroin or do anything that is consensual. The government doesn't have the right to stop people from doing these things by coercion. He isn't saying that one has the liberty to use heroin before God. I'd doubt that he denies that God has the right to stop someone by some type of coercion. I don't know why he'd begin talking about what an individual's duties are before God when he was asked a question about what the government's duties regarding these drugs are. It almost sounds like you wanted him to dodge the question instead specifically treating the question asked.

All in all, I think he did a very good job in what limited time he had to think of something. Wallace was trying to smear Paul as can be seen by the fact that he said that those cheering Paul's answer were cheering for heroin, not liberty.

 

[Maestro232]

We shouldn't even be worrying about this demographic. Do you realize how insignificant the portion of Libertarian-Christian voters is to the voting block we should be trying to acquire? This is why we never win....you guys always try to go for the most insignificant and most difficult to convert target.

The average voter is much more easily swayed than this group...

Wrong. I said "libertarian-leaning" ... and it's a huge bloc.

 

[steph3n]

Wrong. I said "libertarian-leaning" ... and it's a huge bloc.

Honestly it isn't from all I've seen, I've worked for 4 years to convert about 20 so-cons to liberty minded. There are many magnitudes more that want nothing less than prohibition, all out legislation of morality.

they talk a great small govt talk but then when it comes to legislating morality, they jump all up on that.

 

[Maestro232]

Lets not get tripped up on semantics here. I've seen this for years and years. "Christian libertarian". Just read that as "the religious right" and see if any of you find yourselves giving a shit.

You are soooo wrong. Christian libertarian or libertarian-leaning is distinct from "Christian neo-con" and Dobson types who want to legislate morality at the federal level.

 

[Maestro232]

It's not my goal to waste a significant amount of energy persuading your small, stubborn group. I'd rather spend 1/4 of that energy on the average American and get 10 times the votes, if not more.

So anyway, it's a real shame you guys don't get it. Oh well, I hope Paul doesn't share your view, because I really think he has a shot at it this time.

 

[pcosmar]

Interesting distinction, but I think you should go back and read Wilson again now that you've had some coffee.

I did, and he actually touches on that.

I grant that there is such an excess, but this "rule over others" car generally veers toward the oppressive ditch when you let go of the wheel, not the laissez faire ditch. If we go into the business of aligning front ends, we need to learn at a minimum which direction the alignment usually requires.

I tend to use a real world example from my own neighborhood.
There was an Adult Book Store in a town near me. There was no law against it.
It closed, went out of business, all on it's own because there was no (or not enough) support for it.

The same applies to Drugs or Prostitution, Some may chose them, but if people have no use for them they will not support them even if legal.

Ron Paul understands this. Those that wish to impose social controls generally do not.

He gets into the "bottom line", the cost of these laws. Ron Paul approaches from Principal rather than a cost benefit analysis.
Same argument, same results, but on Principles rather than cost.