Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

What is "too" libertarian

Expand Messages
  • Daniel J. Halloran, Esq.
    It was scribed thus: The action called for here was to only recruit Republicans who were Liberty leaning, but not too Libertarian. I would ask for some type of
    Message 1 of 21 , Aug 19 12:42 PM
      Republican Liberty Caucus Activism

       

      It was scribed thus:

       

      The action called for here was to only recruit Republicans who were Liberty
      leaning, but not too Libertarian. I would ask for some type of
      clarification on what is too Libertarian…

       

      The long and short of all this thread and those that preceeded it seems to be that Republican Party is still a mainstream big tent; accordingly to work within it the Liberty Caucas must be measured, responsible, and reasonable.  We cannot be either extreme in what has traditionally passed as Libertarianism- neither anarchists nor extreme isolationists -in toto.  We cannot engage in discussions of wild conspiracy theories and radical anti-social agendas.


      What we CAN do, and I would say, MUST do, is put forward a platform that embraces Liberty Thinking and which will appeal to a braod spectrum of voters- ideas that are due for their political vetting-out.  It must be done in an organized and rational way, with as much “homework” behind it as possible.

       

      What I mean by homework is the facts- if you want to talk limited drug legalization- do it ala Bill Buckley- talk of the costs of intradiction, clean up and taxation- providing better regulation (as alcohol is), police and military collateral expenses/dangers, impact of “drug war” on econmics macro and micro (including foreign policy) as well as the fundamental liberty angle- and have answers to the big questions (DWAI consequences, treatment programs, regulatory applications). 

       

      If you want to talk flat tax- talk beurocratic balooning, overhead costs, American revolutionary principles (tea tax anyone?), congressional minutes from original income tax act (limited short term economic stimulus) and social engineering and corporate dis-incentive consequences.

       

      Say Patriot Act- talk about the Scalia opinion in Crawford v. Washington to bolster the “plain meaning” and “founders intent” in the Fourth Amendment- and how the Act undermines it, the proper balance between security and personal liberty……

       

      Liberty herself is an elusive creature at times, and if we are to make inroads in protecting her and courting her- it can only be through appeal to a broad spectrum of people, who at their core still BELIEVE in the founder’s idea of America: America as a republic of limited government, predicated on individual liberty and personal responsibility, and dedicated to ensuring that these ideas are preserved so as to be transmitted to out posterity.

       

      Godspeed!

       

      Dan-O

       

      Daniel J. Halloran, III, Esquire, LLM/D

      Palmieri & Castiglione, LLP

      Trial& Appellate Counsel

      250 Mineola Boulevard

      Mineola, New York 11501

      Phone    516 248-9595

      Fax         516 2487897

      www.pcllp.com

       

      This message is the product of Attorney Work Product in the State of New York, and intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is STRICTLY prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone, and return the original message to us at the above address via the United States postal service.

       

      please take notice that pursuant to article 21 of the cplr, sender does not consent, and hereby rescinds any consent given or implied, to the service of process or papers by Electronic means.



    • David Johnson
      ... I ve always taken libertarian to mean one that wants a minimal role for government in society. Someone who merely wants a smaller rate of *growth* in
      Message 2 of 21 , Aug 19 1:41 PM
        On Tuesday 19 August 2008 12:42:25 pm Daniel J. Halloran, Esq. wrote:
        > The action called for here was to only recruit Republicans who were Liberty
        > leaning, but not too Libertarian. I would ask for some type of
        > clarification on what is too Libertarian.

        I've always taken "libertarian" to mean one that wants a minimal role for
        government in society. Someone who merely wants a smaller rate of *growth* in
        government is not a libertarian. You need to want a government that is
        significantly smaller than it is today.

        Adding "-ism" to the label refers to a philosopy regarding the role of
        gtovernment in society. In most uses (outside of the ACLU) "libertarianism"
        means the political philosophy which limits the proper role of government to
        the protection of life, liberty and property. You don't have to hold to the
        non-aggression principle, but you need to view government as a dangerous
        institution that must be restrained.

        As a sidenote, I was advised not to use the word "libertarian" for my RLC
        meetup. I disobeyed and have not had a problem with it. We shouldn't hide who
        we are. We are the libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Whenever you
        feel you have to hide who you are, it's a red flag that you're going off in
        the wrong direction.

        > The long and short of all this thread and those that preceeded it seems to
        > be that Republican Party is still a mainstream big tent; accordingly to
        > work within it the Liberty Caucas must be measured, responsible, and
        > reasonable. We cannot be either extreme in what has traditionally passed as
        > Libertarianism- neither anarchists nor extreme isolationists -in toto. We
        > cannot engage in discussions of wild conspiracy theories and radical
        > anti-social agendas.

        I consider myself a "pragmatic minarchist". I can be just as radical in my
        thinking as most LPers, but I have to live in a pragmatic world. Most people
        are not libertarians and never will be. The RLC is a pragmatic approach to
        libertarianism. Don't scare the people off with talk of legalizing heroin,
        let's start with getting legalizing marijuana. Don't scare them off with talk
        of completely open borders, let's start with a generous guest worker program.
        Etc., etc.

        And of course, the conspiracy theories have to go. If you believe in them,
        even the mild ones, keep them to yourself. They are pure poison to the
        movement.

        But that said, I think our philosophical approach must still be pure
        libertarian. "Small government" conservatives have been very selective in
        where they wanted government to be smaller, with the result that government
        grew even faster under the current "conservative" president than under his
        liberal predecessor. We should be above that, and rationally promoting
        smaller government in EVERY sphere.

        --
        David Johnson
      • westmiller@aol.com
        Posted by: David Johnson ... Yes and no. Anyone who reads our Statement of Principles will certainly conclude that we are libertarian. However, that word is
        Message 3 of 21 , Aug 20 12:42 PM
          Posted by: "David Johnson"
          > .. We are the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.
           
              Yes and no. Anyone who reads our Statement of Principles
          will certainly conclude that we are libertarian. However, that
          word is not used in the Statement, nor in the RLC Bylaws.
          Most of our literature describes us as advocates of liberty,
          but it also welcomes "constitutionalists, classical liberals,
          and libertarian-Republicans".
           
              The hazard in using The Word with a GOP audience is
          that you have to explain that we are NOT a division of the
          Libertarian Party, nor do we share the views of some who
          call themselves libertarians (it's pretty obvious that we are
          not anarchists).
           
              My preference is the "triumvirate" in our Purpose: we
          are advocates of "individual rights, limited government, and
          free enterprise". Usually, you can get a majority of GOP
          members to agree with those ideals ... without putting a
          label on them.
           
          Bill




          It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here.
        • gblumel@bellsouth.net
          Well put, Bill. One thing I would add to round out the triumvirate is to add in with individual rights, individual responsibility. -Geo. ... Posted by:
          Message 4 of 21 , Aug 20 12:58 PM
            Well put, Bill.  One thing I would add to round out the triumvirate is to add in with individual rights, individual responsibility.  -Geo.
            -------------- Original message from westmiller@...: --------------

            Posted by: "David Johnson"
            > .. We are the libertarian wing of the Republican Party.
             
                Yes and no. Anyone who reads our Statement of Principles
            will certainly conclude that we are libertarian. However, that
            word is not used in the Statement, nor in the RLC Bylaws.
            Most of our literature describes us as advocates of liberty,
            but it also welcomes "constitutionalists , classical liberals,
            and libertarian- Republicans" .
             
                The hazard in using The Word with a GOP audience is
            that you have to explain that we are NOT a division of the
            Libertarian Party, nor do we share the views of some who
            call themselves libertarians (it's pretty obvious that we are
            not anarchists).
             
                My preference is the "triumvirate" in our Purpose: we
            are advocates of "individual rights, limited government, and
            free enterprise". Usually, you can get a majority of GOP
            members to agree with those ideals ... without putting a
            label on them.
             
            Bill




            It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel deal here.

          • David Johnson
            ... That s like avoiding the word democracy because we aren t Democrats. Reagan called himself a libertarian. Buckley called himself a libertarian. Why are
            Message 5 of 21 , Aug 20 3:24 PM
              On Wednesday 20 August 2008 12:42:12 pm westmiller@... wrote:
              >
              > The hazard in using The Word with a GOP audience is
              > that you have to explain that we are NOT a division of the
              > Libertarian Party.

              That's like avoiding the word "democracy" because we aren't Democrats.

              Reagan called himself a libertarian. Buckley called himself a libertarian. Why
              are we afraid to use the word that defines us? We don't have to tattoo it on
              our foreheads, but neither should we tear it out of our dictionaries.

              --
              David Johnson
            • Dave Nalle
              ... That s like avoiding the word democracy because we aren t Democrats.
              Message 6 of 21 , Aug 20 5:08 PM
                >>
                That's like avoiding the word "democracy" because we aren't Democrats.<<

                Actually, I avoid the word 'democracy' because it's tyranny of the mob.

                >>Reagan called himself a libertarian. Buckley called himself a
                libertarian. Why
                are we afraid to use the word that defines us? We don't have to tattoo
                it on
                our foreheads, but neither should we tear it out of our dictionaries.<<

                Words get redefined and they gain associations we may not want to take on if
                we take on the word. That is WHY the word 'libertarian' exists in the
                first place.
                Libertarians are just liberals, but they had to become libertarians
                because the word
                'liberal' got associated with the socialists left and in the minds of
                many the meaning
                got redefined, so some clever fellows who also wanted to distance
                themselves from
                the more positive humane values of liberalism made up the word
                'libertarian' and
                it has stuck.

                If 'libertarian' becomes tainted in the minds of the mainstream because
                of associations
                with the lunatic fringe and the militia movement and other
                self-proclaimed libertarian
                groups, then we may want to be cautious in using it, just as we had to
                stop calling
                ourselves 'liberal'.

                Dave
              • David Johnson
                ... I don t think libertarian has reached that state. I agree that for marketing purposes it shouldn t be the first word out of our mouths, but neither
                Message 7 of 21 , Aug 20 6:01 PM
                  On Wednesday 20 August 2008 05:08:46 pm Dave Nalle wrote:
                  > If 'libertarian' becomes tainted in the minds of the mainstream because
                  > of associations with the lunatic fringe and the militia movement and other
                  > self-proclaimed libertarian groups, then we may want to be cautious in using
                  > it, just as we had to stop calling ourselves 'liberal'.

                  I don't think "libertarian" has reached that state.

                  I agree that for marketing purposes it shouldn't be the first word out of our
                  mouths, but neither should we have to go out of our way to avoid uttering it.

                  --
                  David Johnson
                • DGHarrison
                  I am reminded that the Democrats are now attempting to avoid being called liberals, preferring instead to be called progressives. The Democrats say that
                  Message 8 of 21 , Aug 20 7:53 PM
                    I am reminded that the Democrats are now attempting to avoid being called "liberals," preferring instead to be called "progressives." The Democrats say that conservatives are responsible for turning the word "liberal" into a pejorative. The question we need to answer is who is attempting to turn the word "libertarian" into a pejorative. Once you know that, you know what you're up against. You can't win a battle if you don't know who your opponent is.

                    Doug Harrison
                    Minnesota

                    On Wednesday 20 August 2008 05:08:46 pm Dave Nalle wrote:
                      
                    If 'libertarian' becomes tainted in the minds of the mainstream because
                    of associations with the lunatic fringe and the militia movement and other
                    self-proclaimed libertarian groups, then we may want to be cautious in using
                    it, just as we had to stop calling ourselves 'liberal'.
                        
                    I don't think "libertarian" has reached that state.
                    
                    I agree that for marketing purposes it shouldn't be the first word out of our 
                    mouths, but neither should we have to go out of our way to avoid uttering it.
                    
                      


                    --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! ---

                  • westmiller@aol.com
                    Posted by: David Johnson ... I m not saying that we should avoid The Word, only that it isn t necessary. You can say I m an advocate of liberty and
                    Message 9 of 21 , Aug 21 12:29 PM
                      Posted by: "David Johnson"
                      > ... Why are we afraid to use the word that defines us?

                      I'm not saying that we should avoid The Word, only that
                      it isn't necessary. You can say "I'm an advocate of liberty"
                      and almost everyone will understand ... and agree.

                      But, there's no harm in recognizing that labels will "ring
                      different bells" for different people, depending on their own
                      exposure and knowledge. I'm just suggesting caution and
                      clarity in using any label.

                      As an example, my stomach instinctively rolls over
                      whenever I hear the label "conservative", because I have
                      long associated it with - to put it bluntly - theocrats ...
                      those who want to coerce people to live "good" lives,
                      by their own standards. Nevertheless, I'm sure there are
                      many people who would call me a "conservative", as a
                      compliment.

                      Bill




                      **************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
                      deal here.
                      (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
                    • Louis William Rose
                      I would consider myself a conservative. I hold that liberty is a gift from God, evidence that we are created in God s image by being given the ability to do
                      Message 10 of 21 , Aug 22 12:52 PM
                        I would consider myself a conservative. I hold that liberty is a gift
                        from God, evidence that we are created in God's image by being given
                        the ability to do what we want, when we want, without interference,
                        in order that some good may be accomplished. Freedom to do good and
                        not evil, freedom to do evil being defined as license and never
                        permissible under God's law, or the natural law, which is that part
                        of God's law readily discernable by all. I desire to see good
                        accomplished and maintained and evil utterly destroyed, not merely
                        restrained. But because I am an imperfect judge of that which is
                        good and evil, I find it prudent to practice tolerance, seeking the
                        counsel of my neighbors, and those who love liberty.

                        It is because I see the need to be tolerant, and seek that consel,
                        that I of a mind to discuss things with those who call themselves
                        Libertarian.

                        Louis William Rose
                        http://www.louisrose.com


                        6753 Orkney Road
                        Jacksonville, FL 32211


                        904 744 6846 (Home)

                        --- In RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com, westmiller@... wrote:
                        >
                        > Posted by: "David Johnson"
                        > > ... Why are we afraid to use the word that defines us?
                        >
                        > I'm not saying that we should avoid The Word, only that
                        > it isn't necessary. You can say "I'm an advocate of liberty"
                        > and almost everyone will understand ... and agree.
                        >
                        > But, there's no harm in recognizing that labels will "ring
                        > different bells" for different people, depending on their own
                        > exposure and knowledge. I'm just suggesting caution and
                        > clarity in using any label.
                        >
                        > As an example, my stomach instinctively rolls over
                        > whenever I hear the label "conservative", because I have
                        > long associated it with - to put it bluntly - theocrats ...
                        > those who want to coerce people to live "good" lives,
                        > by their own standards. Nevertheless, I'm sure there are
                        > many people who would call me a "conservative", as a
                        > compliment.
                        >
                        > Bill
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > **************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find
                        your travel
                        > deal here.
                        > (http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)
                        >
                      • Guy McLendon
                        Ref: Strategy & tactics relevant to usage of certain terms Bill, A great example of the negative buzz word usage is the phrase state s rights . Every time
                        Message 11 of 21 , Aug 23 9:29 AM

                          Ref:  Strategy & tactics relevant to usage of certain terms

                           

                          Bill,

                           

                          A great example of the negative “buzz word” usage is the phrase “state’s rights”.  Every time I hear one of our members use that phrase, I pull them aside and give them the drill: 

                          1) States don’t have rights, they have only privileges …

                          2) That phrase arouses very negative reactions in a large % of the populace … smacking of racism

                          3) One can discuss federalism & the checks & balance of power between the fed & the states without usage of that term

                           

                          In Texas , I’ve also heard some Ron Paul activists desire to steer clear of the term “libertarian” … since that word was frequently used by the mainstream media to smear the good doctor Paul.  However, considering the depth into our nation’s psyche the Nolan Chart has become … first “discovered” by the founder of the Lib. Party David Nolan … the term “libertarian” is difficult to run from.  Nolan was once listed by some group in the world’s top 1000 intellectuals … largely for his idea as popularized by the Nolan Chart.  Even the RLC finds it difficult to run from the word in your derivative of the Nolan Chart:

                          http://www.rlc.org/liberty-index/

                           

                          Of course, the non-profit Advocates for Self Government use their derivative of Nolan Chart, and the word “libertarian” is the preferred quadrant:

                          http://www.theadvocates.org/index.html

                           

                          A person who I understand is no longer active in RLC, co-founder Eric Dondero Rittberg, goes out of his way to redefine the word “libertarian” in the minds of the general populace.  For some reason, even the deceased mainstream media person Tim Russert during Ron Paul’s interview on “Meet the Press” bolstered Eric’s reputation.  Eric is working to alter the Webster’s definition of “libertarian” to include George Bush’s philosophy of pre-emptive warfare.  Hence, when Eric “borrowed” the Texas LP’s marketing tagline “Fiscally Conservative – Socially Tolerant” … he appended it with the phrase “Pro-Defense”.  Recall Eric lives in Texas .

                           

                          So, I agree that some words should be avoided due to the negative connotation associated with them.  On the other hand, when political opponents are attempting to redefine a term listed in the dictionary, perhaps that’s an indication the integrity of that word is worth fighting for.  It’s similar to judo … you can sometimes use the enemies own thrust to defeat him.  Ron Paul did the LP a great service during the recent election by helping to reframe the meaning of that word “libertarian” in the minds of the voting populace.  Now is the time to regain some intellectual ground … and, not back away from our strength.  If the mainstream media spends a gazillion dollars to smear the philosophy using that one term, and suddenly voting populace decides they like the philosophy … the mainstream media will have just “shot themselves in the foot”, and will have helped to do our work for us.

                           

                          Sincerely,

                          Guy McLendon

                          2007-2008 Ron Paul Activist in Texas

                          Houston, Texas

                           

                          PS:  I share your angst regarding the word “conservative”.  To one who has read the Nolan Chart, it’s clear a true “conservative” is no more liberty oriented than a true “liberal”.  It’s funny that Ron Paul goes out of his way to redefine the term “conservative” … attempting to equate it to “libertarian”.  Perhaps we should just be done with it, and ask David Nolan & Sharon Harris if they could simply swap the two words on the official chart.  [Joke]

                           

                           

                          Posted by: "westmiller@..." westmiller@...   rlc_westmiller

                          Thu Aug 21, 2008 12:29 pm (PDT)

                          Posted by: "David Johnson"

                          > ... Why are we afraid to use the word that defines us?

                          I'm not saying that we should avoid The Word, only that
                          it isn't necessary. You can say "I'm an advocate of liberty"
                          and almost everyone will understand ... and agree.

                          But, there's no harm in recognizing that labels will "ring
                          different bells" for different people, depending on their own
                          exposure and knowledge. I'm just suggesting caution and
                          clarity in using any label.

                          As an example, my stomach instinctively rolls over
                          whenever I hear the label "conservative" , because I have
                          long associated it with - to put it bluntly - theocrats ...
                          those who want to coerce people to live "good" lives,
                          by their own standards. Nevertheless, I'm sure there are
                          many people who would call me a "conservative" , as a
                          compliment.

                          Bill

                           

                        • Dave Nalle
                          On the other hand, when political opponents are attempting to redefine a term listed in the dictionary, perhaps that’s an indication the integrity of that
                          Message 12 of 21 , Aug 24 1:00 PM
                            <i>On the other hand, when political opponents are attempting to
                            redefine a term listed in the dictionary, perhaps that’s an indication
                            the integrity of that word is worth fighting for.</i>

                            I question the characterization of Eric Dondero as a political opponent.
                            He's irritating and badly behaved, but politically he's not that far
                            from the mainstream of the RLC.

                            <i>Ron Paul did the LP a great service during the recent election by
                            helping to reframe the meaning of that word “libertarian” in the minds
                            of the voting populace. </i>

                            Not sure how it helps the LP to have 'libertarian' redefined as racist,
                            religious, reactionary and conspiracy obsessed.

                            Dave
                          • David Johnson
                            ... Stop listening to Dondero. Ron Paul is none of the above. Yes, I know that there is a virulent strain of Ron Paul hatred in the RLC, but that does not
                            Message 13 of 21 , Aug 24 2:02 PM
                              On Sunday 24 August 2008 01:00:53 pm Dave Nalle wrote:
                              > <i>Ron Paul did the LP a great service during the recent election by
                              > helping to reframe the meaning of that word “libertarian” in the minds
                              > of the voting populace. </i>
                              >
                              > Not sure how it helps the LP to have 'libertarian' redefined as racist,
                              > religious, reactionary and conspiracy obsessed.

                              Stop listening to Dondero. Ron Paul is none of the above. Yes, I know that
                              there is a virulent strain of Ron Paul hatred in the RLC, but that does not
                              excuse this childish slandering.

                              Racist: The newsletters were ghostwritten and he has repudiated them
                              repeatedly. If there is fault here it is the fault of not throwing his friend
                              Lew under the bus.

                              Religious: Guilty as charged. But so what? Not once did he thump a Bible
                              during the campaign. Ron Paul has not advocated any policies mixing his
                              religion into law. Yeah, he might be a pro-lifer, but he argues it on
                              libertarian philosophical grounds.

                              Reactionary: A stupid word that has long since lost its meaning. I'm somewhat
                              surpised that you stooped to using it, since only radical Marxists use it
                              anymore.

                              Conspiracy obsessed: Nonsense. Ron Paul has repeatedly stated he is not a
                              Truther. Neither is not a member of JBS. The only "conspiracy" he admits to
                              is a mild form of NAUism, but definitely not to the point of obsession. It's
                              a mild disappointment to me that he's not perfect in this regard, but I've
                              long since learned not to expect perfection from human beings.

                              --
                              David Johnson
                            • David Johnson
                              ... I notice at the top of the front page of the RLC site there is Ron Paul Republican image. I seem to recall that Ron Paul helped found the RLC and was a
                              Message 14 of 21 , Aug 24 3:58 PM
                                On Sunday 24 August 2008 02:58:51 pm DJ Entropy wrote:
                                > Ron "Treason" Paul is ALL of the above, and many more disgusting things.

                                I notice at the top of the front page of the RLC site there is" Ron Paul
                                Republican" image. I seem to recall that Ron Paul helped found the RLC and
                                was a past national chair. I also get the impression that a significant
                                number of people in the RLC support Ron Paul. Perhaps you've wondered into
                                the wrong group by mistake?

                                If consider Ron Paul to have committed treason, please state your objective
                                and legal evidence for that statement. Otherwise your statement is not
                                opinion but puerile slander. Insulting people on a political *action* mailing
                                list is unwarranted, and without such evidence you reveal yourself as a
                                impotent troll, and I ask the list moderators to remove you as such.

                                I do not understand this irrational hatred many RLC members have for Ron Paul.
                                If someone can explain this to me objectively, I would be appreciative.

                                --
                                David Johnson
                              • Sandy Harmon
                                A good philosophy for some to live by, Bill. So long as you keep in mind that your God may be different from the God or Goddess of others. Too many
                                Message 15 of 21 , Aug 24 4:11 PM
                                  A good philosophy for some to live by, Bill.  So long as you keep in mind that your God may be different from the God or Goddess of others.  Too many 'conservatives' consider their to be the only diety and would disparage the rights of others who follow a different path.
                                    Personally, I feel that liberty is an option given us by diety, that it is up to us to take advantage of it, promote it and defend it, with our lives if necessary.  Diety also gives us the options of autocracy, plutocracy, despotism and theocracy.  Those who would not work to bring liberty to their lives deserve what they get.  Diety does not "give" anything, other than opportunity, ability and will.
                                  Sandy Harmon
                                   
                                   
                                  NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection, Benjamin Franklin was right.
                                • Sakshale eQuorian
                                  Sandy; As someone who has a solid, Roman Catholic background, I have to agree 100% with what you are saying. Christian theology says we are placed on this
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Aug 24 9:30 PM
                                    Sandy;

                                    As someone who has a solid, Roman Catholic background, I have to agree 100%
                                    with what you are saying.  Christian theology says we are placed on this planet to
                                    make critical decisions based on our free will.  Theocratic states deprive people
                                    of their free will, attempting to prevent them from having the opportunity to freely
                                    make that choice. 

                                    As a believing Christian and citizen of the United States, I must defend every one's
                                    right to freely choose how they will respond to that "internal" call the spiritual world. 

                                    I try very hard to not offend those that believe differently than I do.  Sometimes,
                                    it is very difficult to find a way to express what you believe without offending
                                    some people, but we must try.

                                    To paraphrase an old statement; I may not believe in some one's faith, but I will
                                    defend their right to follow that faith.  The only caveat being that they may not
                                    use their faith as a justification to prevent someone else from following a different
                                    faith.

                                    The main thing that bothers me in the political arena today is that "freedom of religion"
                                    has been redefined in many areas as "freedom from religion"... where any indication of
                                    support for a religious belief is attacked as forbidden by policy, or in some cases, law.

                                    Sakshale
                                  • DGHarrison
                                    Sakshale, I agree with you. But it is not just a theocracy that will thwart free will. Our free will is also thwarted by advocates of the post-modern, secular
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Aug 24 10:30 PM
                                      Sakshale,

                                      I agree with you. But it is not just a theocracy that will thwart free will.

                                      Our free will is also thwarted by advocates of the post-modern, secular welfare state, who want to confiscate the fruits of our labor to pay for other people's blunders. The Left wants to make government into a nanny, passing laws "for our own good" and "for the children." Where there is need in the world, we all (not just Christians) are to use our free will to give willingly, with a glad and cheerful heart, as moved by the Spirit. No one has a glad and cheerful heart on April 15.

                                      Forcefully taking extra taxes from the people for social programs not only thwarts free will, but it also gives some people an excuse to not give personally. They figure it's the government's responsibility, and they figure, "I gave at the office." Worse, very often the money taken from taxpayers is used for things the Spirit would not approve, making us complicate in such moral failures as abortion. Interestingly, progressives give notably less to charity, an affirmation of their belief that government is the almighty benefactor.

                                      Abortion is an issue that some libertarians view as affecting the rights of the mother, yet other libertarians view it as affecting the rights of the unborn and nearly-born. I obviously subscribe to the latter view. If McCain does not select a veep with strong pro-life credentials, he will certainly lose a very large chunk of much needed support from conservative Christians.

                                      Doug Harrison
                                      Minnesota



                                      --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! ---

                                    • Dave Nalle
                                      ... Ron Paul. If someone can explain this to me objectively, I would be appreciative.
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Aug 24 11:46 PM
                                        >> I do not understand this irrational hatred many RLC members have for
                                        Ron Paul.
                                        If someone can explain this to me objectively, I would be appreciative.<<

                                        I can't speak for anyone else, only for myself. And I don't have an
                                        irrational hatred.
                                        I just think that Paul's views and actions do not represent the liberty
                                        agenda very well
                                        and that association with him and his movement is more of a liability
                                        than it once was.
                                        This is made particularly troublesome because so many hold him up as THE
                                        symbol
                                        of the liberty movement and IMO his views are not typical of most
                                        rational liberty
                                        oriented people and certainly not representative of those of us who want
                                        to move the
                                        idea of liberty more into the mainstream.

                                        Dave
                                      • Dave Nalle
                                        David: What Ron Paul himself is or is not is hardly relevant here. His campaign and his legacy are permanently tainted by the beliefs and associations of his
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Aug 24 11:46 PM
                                          David:

                                          What Ron Paul himself is or is not is hardly relevant here. His
                                          campaign and his
                                          legacy are permanently tainted by the beliefs and associations of his
                                          followers, and
                                          that association with fanaticism, extremist beliefs and bigotry is what
                                          attaches to
                                          anything associated with him, whether deservedly or not.

                                          As for your attempts to defend him personally on these issues, it all
                                          kind of
                                          falls flat given his unwillingness to reign in his followers and
                                          surrogates, and he is
                                          in fact speaking at the JBS convention, so there's no defense on that
                                          front at all.

                                          And you're dead wrong on the religious issue too. It's not just
                                          abortion, it's also
                                          his support for prayer in schools and posting the ten commandments on
                                          government
                                          property - worse offenses IMO.

                                          I understand the desire too support Paul for all the good things he has
                                          done, but
                                          the truth is more complex than that. I suppose we could add the
                                          criticism of
                                          hypocrisy to the list, because that certainly helps explain much. He
                                          can't get away
                                          with hiding his real beliefs behind his twisted view of the constitution
                                          and states
                                          rights when people are actually paying attention.

                                          Dave
                                        • David Johnson
                                          ... I know the anarcho-atheists will hate me for saying so, but I just don t see where anyone s life, liberty or property are being damaged by some child
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Aug 25 1:02 AM
                                            On Sunday 24 August 2008 11:46:36 pm Dave Nalle wrote:
                                            > And you're dead wrong on the religious issue too. It's not just
                                            > abortion, it's also his support for prayer in schools and posting the ten
                                            > commandments on government property - worse offenses IMO.

                                            I know the anarcho-atheists will hate me for saying so, but I just don't see
                                            where anyone's life, liberty or property are being damaged by some child
                                            voluntarily praying in school. Mandatory attendance at teacher directed
                                            prayer is a different matter, but that's not what the liberals are upset
                                            about and it's not what Ron Paul is advocating. The problem isn't separation
                                            of church and state, but the lack of separation of school and state. (I know,
                                            that's so old it's a cliche, but that doesn't diminish its truth).

                                            Posting the ten commandments may be trickier, but if they're posted in a
                                            manner that reflects their historic legal significance rather than in a
                                            religious proselytory way, then I still don't have a problem with it. Absent
                                            direct tax funding, what force is being initiated by it? Who is being
                                            damaged? What property is being violated?

                                            --
                                            David Johnson
                                          • DGHarrison
                                            What Ron Paul himself is or is not is hardly relevant here. His campaign and his legacy are permanently tainted by the beliefs and associations of his
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Aug 25 10:33 PM
                                              What Ron Paul himself is or is not is hardly relevant here. His campaign and his legacy are permanently tainted by the beliefs and associations of his followers, and that association with fanaticism, extremist beliefs and bigotry is what attaches to anything associated with him, whether deservedly or not. -- Dave Nalle

                                              The fanatics are responsible for my tempered support of Ron Paul. I was never able to tell my family more than a few basics, because I had to shield them from the fanatics, especially the conspiracy wing. My family is conservative and likes the same things I do about Paul, but the clamoring conspiracy folks would have driven them away. Knowing this about my own family, I am convinced that the loonies are responsible for turning the mainstream Republican against Paul.

                                              I like a lot of things Paul stands for, but there seems to have been a total disconnect between the man and his followers. The whole campaign was run seemingly without direction or control, and that frustrated me greatly. When asking the Paul campaign for support and direction, we not only got none, but were rebuffed in all attempts to coordinate in any manner with the official campaign headquarters.. It seemed that there were walls built between the insular Paul headquarters and the chaotic individual efforts being conducted on his behalf. I could never understand why every other presidential campaign was coordinating the heck out of its supporters, but we were told not to cross those lines. We were on our own. And as has been observed, getting libertarians to work together is like herding cats, made more frustrating because they take pride in not taking direction from anybody.

                                              Doug Harrison
                                              Minnesota



                                              --- Get FREE High Speed Internet from USFamily.Net! ---

                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.