Reason: Huckabee Knocks "Libertarian faux-cons" in his new Book

[LibertyEagle]

I would say the USA needs some morality crammed down their throats at this point ...this is BABYLON...and it will kill what's left of the country. tones

So now you're back to believing that it's ok to use big government force, as long as it's used to force what YOU like? You already know that this is unconstitutional, but yet you don't care?

Make your mind up, Tones. You are flip-flopping all over the place.

 

[SnappleLlama]

So now you're back to believing that it's ok to use big government force, as long as it's used to force what YOU like? You already know that this is unconstitutional, but yet you don't care?

Make your mind up, Tones. You are flip-flopping all over the place.

Maybe she should run for office?

 

[LibertyEagle]

I guess you haven't been paying attention to any of the quotes from Ronald Reagan, Barry Goldwater? Taft?

Do you realize the Libertarian Party was only established in 1971, as a direct result of Nixon's abandoning the gold standard?

Where do you think Libertarians were before 1971? They were primarily in the Republican Party.

As far as continuing to protest versus compromise and find common ground, that is not what anyone here is proposing. The election finished 2 weeks ago. Now is the time for the GOP, of which most of us are members, to assess what we need to do going forward. Most of the talk and writings I've seen state that the party needs to move to the right - great. We all agree with this. Huckabee, though, right out of the gate, writes this book and badmouths libertarians and the Ron Paul supporters. HE THREW THE FIRST PUNCH. And we will rightly stand in defense of libertarian principles, which whether you like it or not, are the real conservative principles upon which the Republican party gained its electoral majorities in recent history. Failing to uphold these principles is what cost them the last two election cycles, and will continue to cost them, if they don't return to them.

Huckabee, in his analysis of what to do about Ron Paul Republicans and libertarians is wrong, just plainly and simply wrong.

Well said!

 

[LibertyEagle]

There is a difference between social conservatives and the
religious right. Social Conservatives are part of the religious right but they are the crusader branch.

Good point. I need to remember that. Thanks.

 

[MikeStanart]

Tones,

You've been talking about morality for quite some time, and let me just say:

There is a real paradox behind the idea of forcing morality. Sure, you can force someone to conform to certain rules or social norms in conduct; but that does not make someone moral.

Prisoners are forced to follow a certain code of rules in prison, so does that make them moral? No.

In order to have true morality, people must CHOOSE that way of life.

And before you question my beliefs, let me be clear that I am a Christian, and I truly believe that if we are to follow the teachings of Jesus, we should

NEVER force our values onto others.

/THREAD

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well...there is plenty of circular logic on this thread. I maintain that there must be a moral society in order to have limited government. For every "sin" we get another dang law. if people would monitor themselves...we could have limited government..doens't seem like they can though does it? Has crime increased since 1950? lets just look at drunk driving. why do people drive while intoxicated? If people would NOT drive while intoxicated, there would be no drunk driving accidents...but people DO drive while intoxicated. I remember when it was legal to drink beer driving down the road. Due to so many traffic deaths from drinking...more and more laws have come about. has it helped? yes it has. IT has deterred drinking and driving..not completely...but it has helped. tones

 

[JK/SEA]

Just curious, how do you propose to get that 'moral society'?

 

[HenryKnoxFineBooks]

Police in the 50's did not pursue drink drivers. So Drunk driving incresed in the 80's as citations were actually handed out. Then the legal limits were lowered, to again keep DD % p.o

 

[steph3n]

Good point. I need to remember that. Thanks.

It is true there is room for devout christian libertarian mindset. You have spoken to me and know a bit about me. I am a practicing Christian and I love it, but I am also libertarian and believe using the gov to force morals on people is no better than using the gov to kill people (roman empire like, etc)

 

[steph3n]

Police in the 50's did not pursue drink drivers. So Drunk driving incresed in the 80's as citations were actually handed out. Then the legal limits were lowered, to again keep DD % p.o

You know, this I am not opposed to, if you are drinking or using drugs you should NOT be driving you are impaired and putting others at risk.

I am ok with decriminalization, but I'd also be fine if FINE for putting others at risk by driving yet up. If you are going to use you must be responsible, getting behind the wheel is NOT RESPONSIBLE.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well...it is a good question..how do we get back to a moral society..we used to have a moral society...we do not now. People have been brainwashed through the education system and the media...that things that were not considered "mainstream" are now mainstream. The demoralization of our country was a psychological agenda...and it has worked. please go research the hegelian dialectic, communism, communitarianism. Didn't yall watch that documentary someone posted here from G Edward Griffin interviewing that KGB propagandist who defected? he laid the whole agenda out for you. tones

 

[steph3n]

Well...it is a good question..how do we get back to a moral society..we used to have a moral society...we do not now. People have been brainwashed through the education system and the media...that things that were not considered "mainstream" are now mainstream. The demoralization of our country was a psychological agenda...and it has worked. please go research the hegelian dialectic, communism, communitarianism. Didn't yall watch that documentary someone posted here from G Edward Griffin interviewing that KGB propagandist who defected? he laid the whole agenda out for you. tones

We did not have a moral society if you evaluate it properly, you are seeing a twisted history. Look at drunkenness and adultery among our founding fathers for one such example, it is whitewashed and they are glorified with all their good qualities and not their bad, end the end they are a human that makes mistakes.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

If drugs were made legal...what do you think would happen? just curious. tones

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

steph...it was more moral than it is now..that's for sure. you are never going to get a completely moral society because we are human beings ...but it used to be much better than it is today. tones

 

[steph3n]

If drugs were made legal...what do you think would happen? just curious. tones

We'd stop spending billions in south america and enriching drug cartels that are killin 1000's of people, we'd move to an enforcement of driving laws and prevention of harm to others mode instead of a stopping the black markets mode that is far costlier.

 

[steph3n]

steph...it was more moral than it is now..that's for sure. you are never going to get a completely moral society because we are human beings ...but it used to be much better than it is today. tones

One can NOT enforce morals by a federal govt, in a libertarian govt such could have communal societies that do whatever they want as far as moral law, and even financial and employment law. There could be communist cities, even states in the union, there could be churchs that function as their own city or county, whatever.
Those that don't want to participate would be free to leave.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Well, this government was not to be communist...it was set up to be a republic. This is where we are going off track. We have a rule of law...the Constitution...but it's been in limbo for awhile. tones (this is a capitalist country)

 

[steph3n]

Well, this government was not to be communist...it was set up to be a republic. This is where we are going off track. We have a rule of law...the Constitution...but it's been in limbo for awhile. tones (this is a capitalist country)

Yes and in a republic there could be communist segments. As a republic we should go by the constitution, which includes NOT enforcing that moral law on the people.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

circular logic again. tones

 

[steph3n]

circular logic again. tones

You want to live in a biblical tyranny, I don't think even the bible supports that

You can not force morals on people, people have to choose morals.