lumigan tramadol tadalafil

Libertarian Family Values

2006-12-21
By

I seem to have struck a chord with The Great Libertarian Majority. There were many thoughtful responses. A few were simply mean-spirited taunts but even these hinted at a valid question. What do Libertarians believe and what does American look like in this type of society?

Let me start with a disclaimer before I touch on a couple of Libertarian values as I see them. I do not represent the Libertarian Party, nor do I necessarily represent all Libertarians. In fact, for most of my adult life, I have identified myself as a conservative. Morally, I remain so.

The Libertarian philosophy is one that most closely follows the original meaning and implementation of the United States Constitution. The founding fathers held an intense distrust of government and its natural appetite for tyranny. The primary purpose of the Constitution was to limit the power of the Federal government, granting only those powers essential to carry out its few, well defined responsibilities. A primary goal of Libertarians is to pare the Federal government back until it again fits within the confines of the Constitution.

“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now.”
- South Carolina v. United States (1905)

There are those who put forth the idea that times have changed, people have changed, technology has changed. The architects of the Constitution could not have foreseen these changes and therefore government’s role must evolve to meet these new challenges. These folks espouse the idea of a “living Constitution.” I would like to extend this idea to speed limits. If I am late for work, the living speed limit would increase allowing me to drive faster. To be perfectly blunt, this is nonsense. Its only practical application is to allow the Federal government to assume powers denied it in the Constitution.

The founders understood government and society all too well and attempted to design a government that specifically would not evolve easily. In fact, the Constitution was written in plain, clear English so that any citizen might read and understand it. The law set in the Constitution is subject to little interpretation. Evolution comes in the form of Constitutional amendment only. To believe otherwise is to demonstrate an ignorance of our history.

“By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” -James Madison, in Federalist paper No. 10

The founders were just as concerned with the tyranny of factionalism as they were governmental power. Essentially, rights are not subject to either legislation or popular vote. This is one reason they developed a representative republic rather than a more direct form of democracy. The rights of the people should not be subject to the ever changing ebb and flow of public opinion. Libertarians believe that rights are sacrosanct and not limited to those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. When Patrick Henry said “Give me liberty or give me death”, the liberty he demanded was the free exercise of these natural rights.

On a personal level, I do not feel I have the right to control a person’s actions unless those actions directly interfere with the rights of another. My approval or consent is not required. This demands a level of tolerance that our American society seems to have lost.

Discuss smaller government, lower taxes and personal freedom at a path less traveled.

28 views
Didn't make Oprah's Book Club. And Ronnie doesn't care. Man up. Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.


  • grizzlieantagonist

    *****
    Oh and Grizzlie, you want to call me cowardly?
    *****

    Yes, I do. You’ve been asked a number of times what your positions are on legalized prostitution and drug abuse.

    Every time, your answer is to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

    I call that cowardly!

    *****
    Hey, I’m not the one hiding my identity.
    *****

    I’m surprised to hear that. Politicians are normally so reserved and self-effacing.

    *****
    Come on down, buddy.
    *****

    I am not your “buddy”. And you better watch yourself around kids. Especially young boys. A young boy can lose his virginity by becoming a “buddy” to a male libertarian.

    *****
    On January 11th I’ll be standing outside the Shawnee County courthouse (in Topeka, KS), handing out the flyers below.
    *****

    Don’t be ridiculous. I am sure that you are the last one in the world who would invade my privacy.

    I am also sure that you are the last one in the world who would resort to violence. Dope-smoking hippies are inevitably members of one or another movement for “non violence”.

    Whoever heard of a crypto-fascist libertarian hippie throwing aside his ideological beliefs to settle a personal grudge? Why, that would be hypocritical!

  • grizzlieantagonist

    *****
    Oh and Grizzlie, you want to call me cowardly?
    *****

    Yes, I do. You’ve been asked a number of times what your positions are on legalized prostitution and drug abuse.

    Every time, your answer is to recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

    I call that cowardly!

    *****
    Hey, I’m not the one hiding my identity.
    *****

    I’m surprised to hear that. Politicians are normally so reserved and self-effacing.

    *****
    Come on down, buddy.
    *****

    I am not your “buddy”. And you better watch yourself around kids. Especially young boys. A young boy can lose his virginity by becoming a “buddy” to a male libertarian.

    *****
    On January 11th I’ll be standing outside the Shawnee County courthouse (in Topeka, KS), handing out the flyers below.
    *****

    Don’t be ridiculous. I am sure that you are the last one in the world who would invade my privacy.

    I am also sure that you are the last one in the world who would resort to violence. Dope-smoking hippies are inevitably members of one or another movement for “non violence”.

    Whoever heard of a crypto-fascist libertarian hippie throwing aside his ideological beliefs to settle a personal grudge? Why, that would be hypocritical!

  • grizzlieantagonist

    *****
    You see, ladies and gentlemen, the libertarian argument as I see it is not whether we should tolerate homosexuals or the crazy lifestyle of Amsterdam, or even the specific political positions adopted from time to time by an organization called the Libertarian Party.
    *****

    Yes, that’s exactly what it’s about.

    *****
    The argument is that when we allow our government to ignore our Constitutional principles
    *****

    Blah blah blah! Stop waving the flag! Constitutional principles are very important, but they are meaningless if there isn’t a republic worth using them to protect.

    The less that people govern themselves, the more authority has to be impressed upon them from without.

    I have no desire to die for drug addicts and sexual deviates.

  • grizzlieantagonist

    *****
    You see, ladies and gentlemen, the libertarian argument as I see it is not whether we should tolerate homosexuals or the crazy lifestyle of Amsterdam, or even the specific political positions adopted from time to time by an organization called the Libertarian Party.
    *****

    Yes, that’s exactly what it’s about.

    *****
    The argument is that when we allow our government to ignore our Constitutional principles
    *****

    Blah blah blah! Stop waving the flag! Constitutional principles are very important, but they are meaningless if there isn’t a republic worth using them to protect.

    The less that people govern themselves, the more authority has to be impressed upon them from without.

    I have no desire to die for drug addicts and sexual deviates.

  • grizzlieantagonist

    *****
    MillionDadsMarch said,

    Chas said, “If Patrick Henry saw, what you are trying to do, all of you would be in stockades, in the town square.”

    Tell us Chas, what would Patrick Henry do to GW Bush, or how about Folley, or Oliver North, or any of the other traitors that Republicans have ELECTED to power?

    The fact remains, Republicans have had power for over 6 years now.
    *****

    Why not also argue that a woman didn’t die in your car?

    Why not also argue that you didn’t sell military secrets to the Chinese (probably only because you never had the opportunity to do so)?

    For the purpose of this discussion, I’m not interested in what others have done or in what you haven’t done.

    The Republicans and Democrats have their crosses to bear. Why don’t you bear yours?

    Gutless!

  • grizzlieantagonist

    *****
    MillionDadsMarch said,

    Chas said, “If Patrick Henry saw, what you are trying to do, all of you would be in stockades, in the town square.”

    Tell us Chas, what would Patrick Henry do to GW Bush, or how about Folley, or Oliver North, or any of the other traitors that Republicans have ELECTED to power?

    The fact remains, Republicans have had power for over 6 years now.
    *****

    Why not also argue that a woman didn’t die in your car?

    Why not also argue that you didn’t sell military secrets to the Chinese (probably only because you never had the opportunity to do so)?

    For the purpose of this discussion, I’m not interested in what others have done or in what you haven’t done.

    The Republicans and Democrats have their crosses to bear. Why don’t you bear yours?

    Gutless!

  • grizzlieantagonist

    ********
    MillionDadsMarch said,

    Once again, Grizzlie tries making a point by throwing wild allegations and boll$h!t into the discussion.

    We’ve all had enough experience to recognize these … feminist tactics.
    ********

    Either wear the shoe, or explain why it doesn’t fit!

  • grizzlieantagonist

    ********
    MillionDadsMarch said,

    Once again, Grizzlie tries making a point by throwing wild allegations and boll$h!t into the discussion.

    We’ve all had enough experience to recognize these … feminist tactics.
    ********

    Either wear the shoe, or explain why it doesn’t fit!

  • Lurk

    Liberty as defined by Dictionary.com and as it pertains to Patrick Henry’s speech has to do with :
    1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
    2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.

    While there are other definitions, they do not apply to Mr. Henry’s words, and attempting to justify a position of governance and individual freedom using the quote is not supportable referring to these words.

    What is clear, is that if we were to procede to restore the Constitution to it’s original intent and meaning, we could have the liberty that we desire. And this does actually give consideration of votes to the minorities and women because the provisions for ammending the Constitution are a part of the original intent and writings of the Constitution.

    It is because our government at the various levels and branches have long ignored the intent of the document and instead preferred to use it to justify their desires, rather than to support its requirements. It is the integrity of the people in power that is in question, not the agreement that was forged between the government and those to be governed. Any reading of the Constitution becomes very clear that it is an agreement between entities and it assigns and reserves powers, duties and responsibilities. When one entity decides to no longer honor its end of the agreement, does the agreement amount to anything at all?

  • Lurk

    Liberty as defined by Dictionary.com and as it pertains to Patrick Henry’s speech has to do with :
    1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
    2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.

    While there are other definitions, they do not apply to Mr. Henry’s words, and attempting to justify a position of governance and individual freedom using the quote is not supportable referring to these words.

    What is clear, is that if we were to procede to restore the Constitution to it’s original intent and meaning, we could have the liberty that we desire. And this does actually give consideration of votes to the minorities and women because the provisions for ammending the Constitution are a part of the original intent and writings of the Constitution.

    It is because our government at the various levels and branches have long ignored the intent of the document and instead preferred to use it to justify their desires, rather than to support its requirements. It is the integrity of the people in power that is in question, not the agreement that was forged between the government and those to be governed. Any reading of the Constitution becomes very clear that it is an agreement between entities and it assigns and reserves powers, duties and responsibilities. When one entity decides to no longer honor its end of the agreement, does the agreement amount to anything at all?

  • http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com Roger Knight

    chas, the reason women (some women, actually) are able to deny constitutional protections to their men in the courts is because divorce litigation, as presently set up, is the EASIEST way for a lawyer to make a living.
    It is the one field of “law” where we can dispense with the due process of law, i.e. having to prove that a party did something wrong, and go straight to the deprivation of property.
    Settlements and judgments and enforcement of same is where the money is in the practice of law, other than the retainer a desperate and wealthy felony defendant will pay for his defense.
    The system is tilted against breadwinning husbands and fathers for the same reason Robin Hood stole from the rich.
    More profitable than stealing from the poor.
    Most of our judges have themselves profited off divorce and family law litigation, or they do not wish to be a threat to those who do.
    That and the other primary incentive government has, which is to expand itself at the expense of everything else in society, is why wer have such unfortunate circumstances today in family law.
    We can have our freedom, whenever WE insist on it.
    But WE, unfortunately, requires considerably more people than just you and me.
    In the meantime, lets just keep trying to educate our fellow citizens through fora like this.
    Sometimes, the masses “get it”.
    And sometimes, the problem with democracy is like when you give it to the Palestinians, they elect Hamas!

  • http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com Roger Knight

    chas, the reason women (some women, actually) are able to deny constitutional protections to their men in the courts is because divorce litigation, as presently set up, is the EASIEST way for a lawyer to make a living.
    It is the one field of “law” where we can dispense with the due process of law, i.e. having to prove that a party did something wrong, and go straight to the deprivation of property.
    Settlements and judgments and enforcement of same is where the money is in the practice of law, other than the retainer a desperate and wealthy felony defendant will pay for his defense.
    The system is tilted against breadwinning husbands and fathers for the same reason Robin Hood stole from the rich.
    More profitable than stealing from the poor.
    Most of our judges have themselves profited off divorce and family law litigation, or they do not wish to be a threat to those who do.
    That and the other primary incentive government has, which is to expand itself at the expense of everything else in society, is why wer have such unfortunate circumstances today in family law.
    We can have our freedom, whenever WE insist on it.
    But WE, unfortunately, requires considerably more people than just you and me.
    In the meantime, lets just keep trying to educate our fellow citizens through fora like this.
    Sometimes, the masses “get it”.
    And sometimes, the problem with democracy is like when you give it to the Palestinians, they elect Hamas!

  • chas

    RN So I would take from that statement, you think we can return to the original meaning of our constitution, when women did not vote, and were not in the government, (which is okay with me) and so were powerless, to deny fundamental constitutional protection, to men in the courts, as they do now. Now, women are the majority, will always give themselves special treatment, and will always manipulate the government to do their dirty work against men; They are like a child who always schemes, to manipulate her parents, to punish her siblings for things they didn’t do, because its fun. You will never be able to bring women to a point of understanding they are doing this. What force will you use to get them to stop doing this?

  • chas

    RN So I would take from that statement, you think we can return to the original meaning of our constitution, when women did not vote, and were not in the government, (which is okay with me) and so were powerless, to deny fundamental constitutional protection, to men in the courts, as they do now. Now, women are the majority, will always give themselves special treatment, and will always manipulate the government to do their dirty work against men; They are like a child who always schemes, to manipulate her parents, to punish her siblings for things they didn’t do, because its fun. You will never be able to bring women to a point of understanding they are doing this. What force will you use to get them to stop doing this?

  • http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com Roger Knight

    Now children! Please.
    I for one, believe that the Constitution is a great idea!
    We ought to try it sometime.
    A few years ago I had this exchange with a father new to the divorce thing:

    You mean it does not matter that I NEVER did anything WRONG?
    Yep! You got it, bub! Now tell me, what finger did you lift in the previous 38 years of your life to force an even handed approach in divorce courts and have them treat the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and not as a mere list of suggestions to be ignored?
    Silence.
    Come on, I’m waiting. Do-de-do-di-do-de-do (Jeopardy theme music)
    Now that’s not fair! I always thought that the problem was all these fathers abandoning their families!
    And that’s exactly what you are doing right now! Abandoning your family!
    No, I’m not! I’m the RESPONDENT in this divorce.
    As are 80% of all those fathers who abandon their families!
    But I got a restraining order prohibiting me from getting within 1,000 feet of the house!
    And there you are by your own admission, you are refusing to get within a thousand feet of your children. No wonder they hate you!

    Based upon mere allegations of RAISING YOUR VOICE!

    You see, ladies and gentlemen, the libertarian argument as I see it is not whether we should tolerate homosexuals or the crazy lifestyle of Amsterdam, or even the specific political positions adopted from time to time by an organization called the Libertarian Party.

    The argument is that when we allow our government to ignore our Constitutional principles, however compelling the interest government may claim, and what could be more compelling than stopping domestic violence and supporting our children, when we deny fundamental constitutional protections to ANY of our citizens for ANY reason,

    BAD THINGS HAPPEN.

    Children hating fathers who have been thrown out of their lives is but one of the terrible things that happen.

    To me, that is the libertarian argument, and one that Pat Henry was talking about. He opposed the original Constitution because he believed it gave the federal government too much power and was strongly supported adding the Bill of Rights to it.

    Which, incidentally, what we think of the most when we talk about Constitutional rights.

    I don’t think ol’ Pat Henry would have been too opposed to the idea of buttressing the Bill of rights with the 13th and 14th Amendments, to get rid of slavery and to mandate equal protection of the laws.

    To me, that is true libertarianism.

  • http://www.antipeonage.0catch.com Roger Knight

    Now children! Please.
    I for one, believe that the Constitution is a great idea!
    We ought to try it sometime.
    A few years ago I had this exchange with a father new to the divorce thing:

    You mean it does not matter that I NEVER did anything WRONG?
    Yep! You got it, bub! Now tell me, what finger did you lift in the previous 38 years of your life to force an even handed approach in divorce courts and have them treat the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and not as a mere list of suggestions to be ignored?
    Silence.
    Come on, I’m waiting. Do-de-do-di-do-de-do (Jeopardy theme music)
    Now that’s not fair! I always thought that the problem was all these fathers abandoning their families!
    And that’s exactly what you are doing right now! Abandoning your family!
    No, I’m not! I’m the RESPONDENT in this divorce.
    As are 80% of all those fathers who abandon their families!
    But I got a restraining order prohibiting me from getting within 1,000 feet of the house!
    And there you are by your own admission, you are refusing to get within a thousand feet of your children. No wonder they hate you!

    Based upon mere allegations of RAISING YOUR VOICE!

    You see, ladies and gentlemen, the libertarian argument as I see it is not whether we should tolerate homosexuals or the crazy lifestyle of Amsterdam, or even the specific political positions adopted from time to time by an organization called the Libertarian Party.

    The argument is that when we allow our government to ignore our Constitutional principles, however compelling the interest government may claim, and what could be more compelling than stopping domestic violence and supporting our children, when we deny fundamental constitutional protections to ANY of our citizens for ANY reason,

    BAD THINGS HAPPEN.

    Children hating fathers who have been thrown out of their lives is but one of the terrible things that happen.

    To me, that is the libertarian argument, and one that Pat Henry was talking about. He opposed the original Constitution because he believed it gave the federal government too much power and was strongly supported adding the Bill of Rights to it.

    Which, incidentally, what we think of the most when we talk about Constitutional rights.

    I don’t think ol’ Pat Henry would have been too opposed to the idea of buttressing the Bill of rights with the 13th and 14th Amendments, to get rid of slavery and to mandate equal protection of the laws.

    To me, that is true libertarianism.

  • red pill

    Milliondadsmarch:
    Sadly you really want to beleive that one can be an independant agent at time of war against your kind. Pass out those most responsible leaflets to those that ignore you and mean you no harm as you wish, complain against those that would place you in any condition from inconvenience to danger but pretending you are entitled as a member of a nation to be fully left alone so that others can carry your social burden for your personal benefit is pathetic and speaks to your estimation of your responsibilities to your kind. I know, I know, you will say your most sacred responsibility is to thine own self be true and free absolutely but what you really mean is I want what I want when I want it and if scared I will save myself until danger passes. Sir: You shame yourself by hiding yourself behind Lady Liberty rather than protecting her when she needs it.

  • red pill

    Milliondadsmarch:
    Sadly you really want to beleive that one can be an independant agent at time of war against your kind. Pass out those most responsible leaflets to those that ignore you and mean you no harm as you wish, complain against those that would place you in any condition from inconvenience to danger but pretending you are entitled as a member of a nation to be fully left alone so that others can carry your social burden for your personal benefit is pathetic and speaks to your estimation of your responsibilities to your kind. I know, I know, you will say your most sacred responsibility is to thine own self be true and free absolutely but what you really mean is I want what I want when I want it and if scared I will save myself until danger passes. Sir: You shame yourself by hiding yourself behind Lady Liberty rather than protecting her when she needs it.

  • red pill

    As a dictum “less” gov’t is not definable if “less” is the absence of application of standards. THere is conservatism which I define as taking full volunary responsibility and care of ones own without adversely impacting your neighbor or community. Pretending to have no standards other than your own, as many self-confessed libertarians do is simply a teenagers wet-dream version of anarchy and responsibility-less liberalism. The term for this really should be Liberaltarian.

  • red pill

    As a dictum “less” gov’t is not definable if “less” is the absence of application of standards. THere is conservatism which I define as taking full volunary responsibility and care of ones own without adversely impacting your neighbor or community. Pretending to have no standards other than your own, as many self-confessed libertarians do is simply a teenagers wet-dream version of anarchy and responsibility-less liberalism. The term for this really should be Liberaltarian.

  • http://www.MillionDadsMarch.org MillionDadsMarch

    Chas said, “If Patrick Henry saw, what you are trying to do, all of you would be in stockades, in the town square.”

    Tell us Chas, what would Patrick Henry do to GW Bush, or how about Folley, or Oliver North, or any of the other traitors that Republicans have ELECTED to power?

    The fact remains, Republicans have had power for over 6 years now. Look how badly you f*d up the Constitution. NO party that passes the “Homeland Security” or “Patriot Act”, or any of that BS has any right to ASSume what the Libertarians stand for.

    See, y’all sit here in the comfy of your Cyber-lairs, criticising, complaining, whining, but otherwise accomplishing NOTHING.

    You obviously have NO idea what the hell you are talking about, and you are using feminist tactics to try to win. Sad and pathetic.

    Oh and Grizzlie, you want to call me cowardly? Hey, I’m not the one hiding my identity. Come on down, buddy. On January 11th I’ll be standing outside the Shawnee County courthouse (in Topeka, KS), handing out the flyers below.
    http://acfc-ks.org/Materials/Sign_Bullock-2_11-05.pdf

    Thomas Lessman
    . http://www.ThomasLessman.com

  • http://www.MillionDadsMarch.org MillionDadsMarch

    Chas said, “If Patrick Henry saw, what you are trying to do, all of you would be in stockades, in the town square.”

    Tell us Chas, what would Patrick Henry do to GW Bush, or how about Folley, or Oliver North, or any of the other traitors that Republicans have ELECTED to power?

    The fact remains, Republicans have had power for over 6 years now. Look how badly you f*d up the Constitution. NO party that passes the “Homeland Security” or “Patriot Act”, or any of that BS has any right to ASSume what the Libertarians stand for.

    See, y’all sit here in the comfy of your Cyber-lairs, criticising, complaining, whining, but otherwise accomplishing NOTHING.

    You obviously have NO idea what the hell you are talking about, and you are using feminist tactics to try to win. Sad and pathetic.

    Oh and Grizzlie, you want to call me cowardly? Hey, I’m not the one hiding my identity. Come on down, buddy. On January 11th I’ll be standing outside the Shawnee County courthouse (in Topeka, KS), handing out the flyers below.
    http://acfc-ks.org/Materials/Sign_Bullock-2_11-05.pdf

    Thomas Lessman
    . http://www.ThomasLessman.com

  • jjtaup

    Although initially enormoured of libertarianism, I must tentatively conclude along the lines of what grizzlie and chas have said, that libertarianism seems to treat “liberty” as an absolute; if so, then chas’s conclusions certainly follow. This is not the first time I have heard these allegations. Libertarians, I believe, want the legalization of most drugs. While this sounds, on the surface, to be freedom with the individual in charge, we do live in a society, and a modicum of regulation is required. Absolute “liberty” is anarchy, and anarchy leads to slavery.

    Sorry, Dan, I’m not convinced.

  • jjtaup

    Although initially enormoured of libertarianism, I must tentatively conclude along the lines of what grizzlie and chas have said, that libertarianism seems to treat “liberty” as an absolute; if so, then chas’s conclusions certainly follow. This is not the first time I have heard these allegations. Libertarians, I believe, want the legalization of most drugs. While this sounds, on the surface, to be freedom with the individual in charge, we do live in a society, and a modicum of regulation is required. Absolute “liberty” is anarchy, and anarchy leads to slavery.

    Sorry, Dan, I’m not convinced.

  • chas

    You make liberty way more important than Patrick Henry, did when he said, “give me liberty, or give me death.” For him it was close to absolute, it was something he considered worth fighting to the death, to obtain or to keep, but not the most important thing. Liberty to him was about losing the King, losing being a British colony, and forming a republic, but not all the things you make it. The problem with Libertarians is they take an idea like liberty, and make it absolute; it becomes the most important thing, one of your gods. All your solutions, to the problem of the loss of Liberty, in the US, will only exacerbate the chaos. What Libertarians want, is to be able to get rich, making a profit, off the immoral things, that are causing the breakdown. If Patrick Henry saw, what you are trying to do, all of you would be in stockades, in the town square. In post modern US, after decades of apostasy, anti-Americanism, and intentional breakdown of society at all levels, this country will never be able to return, to the limited government we were given. The greater the breakdown, the greater the need there will be, for a police state.

  • chas

    You make liberty way more important than Patrick Henry, did when he said, “give me liberty, or give me death.” For him it was close to absolute, it was something he considered worth fighting to the death, to obtain or to keep, but not the most important thing. Liberty to him was about losing the King, losing being a British colony, and forming a republic, but not all the things you make it. The problem with Libertarians is they take an idea like liberty, and make it absolute; it becomes the most important thing, one of your gods. All your solutions, to the problem of the loss of Liberty, in the US, will only exacerbate the chaos. What Libertarians want, is to be able to get rich, making a profit, off the immoral things, that are causing the breakdown. If Patrick Henry saw, what you are trying to do, all of you would be in stockades, in the town square. In post modern US, after decades of apostasy, anti-Americanism, and intentional breakdown of society at all levels, this country will never be able to return, to the limited government we were given. The greater the breakdown, the greater the need there will be, for a police state.

  • http://www.MillionDadsMarch.org MillionDadsMarch

    Once again, Grizzlie tries making a point by throwing wild allegations and boll$h!t into the discussion.

    We’ve all had enough experience to recognize these … feminist tactics.

    Otherwise, thank you Dan, for helping explain how the Libertarian Party and the Parents/Family Rights movement are natural allies.

    When the government bureacracy gets involved in families, bad things happen.

    Respectfully,

    Thomas Lessman
    . http://www.ThomasLessman.com

  • http://www.MillionDadsMarch.org MillionDadsMarch

    Once again, Grizzlie tries making a point by throwing wild allegations and boll$h!t into the discussion.

    We’ve all had enough experience to recognize these … feminist tactics.

    Otherwise, thank you Dan, for helping explain how the Libertarian Party and the Parents/Family Rights movement are natural allies.

    When the government bureacracy gets involved in families, bad things happen.

    Respectfully,

    Thomas Lessman
    . http://www.ThomasLessman.com

  • grizzlieantagonist

    The liar known as Dan Rode — who calls himself a libertarian conservative (as if there was or could be any such animal) — avoids the issue that he says he wants to address: what would life be like under a libertarian society?

    Would it be — as someone else repeatedly asked — like Amsterdam?

    The liar just waves the flag and refuses to answer the question.

    He piously invoked the high sounding word of freedom. But one individual’s “freedom” is another one’s slavery.

    Someone’s “right” to ingest controlled substances means that someone else has lost the right to be in a drug-free environment.

    Someone’s “right” to procreate at will means that someone else — including all taxpayers — is required to bear the cost of raising that child.

    A gay couple’s “right” to have its coupling sanctioned as “marriage” by civil authorities means that others have lost the right to define marriage.

    Libertarians believe in unrestricted distribution and consumption of drugs, procreation at will, and compulsory homosexuality.

    Libertarians do not believe in freedom. They believe in asserting their rights to their lifestyle to the detriment of others.

    This is not about freedom. This is about competing values. Liar Dan Rode refers to himself as a “moral conservative”, but one cannot be both a “moral conservative” and a libertarian.

  • grizzlieantagonist

    The liar known as Dan Rode — who calls himself a libertarian conservative (as if there was or could be any such animal) — avoids the issue that he says he wants to address: what would life be like under a libertarian society?

    Would it be — as someone else repeatedly asked — like Amsterdam?

    The liar just waves the flag and refuses to answer the question.

    He piously invoked the high sounding word of freedom. But one individual’s “freedom” is another one’s slavery.

    Someone’s “right” to ingest controlled substances means that someone else has lost the right to be in a drug-free environment.

    Someone’s “right” to procreate at will means that someone else — including all taxpayers — is required to bear the cost of raising that child.

    A gay couple’s “right” to have its coupling sanctioned as “marriage” by civil authorities means that others have lost the right to define marriage.

    Libertarians believe in unrestricted distribution and consumption of drugs, procreation at will, and compulsory homosexuality.

    Libertarians do not believe in freedom. They believe in asserting their rights to their lifestyle to the detriment of others.

    This is not about freedom. This is about competing values. Liar Dan Rode refers to himself as a “moral conservative”, but one cannot be both a “moral conservative” and a libertarian.

  • NationalVoice

    Nice summation Dan!

  • NationalVoice

    Nice summation Dan!

  • Lurk

    …Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
    http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html

  • Lurk

    …Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775
    http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html







Right.

Man up.

Buy the book now on Amazon.com. Or listen to Ronnie tell a story at escaping-from-reality.com.

Search