Libertarians for Life

[editor]

Since most of you are totally, completely, hopelessly ignorant of Libertarian philosophy---that doesn't stop you from commenting negatively about it, of course---I provide a link to some interesting reading.

While I don't view myself as a Libertarian evangelist, I do think you would all do well to at least familiarize yourself with what they believe before continuing on in your merry, republican way.

There is a reason the Evangelical Christians make up the largest growing segment of the party.  Perhaps you should check it out.  Of course, in doing so you may have to read sentences with big words, and semi-complex thinking.  Democrats-are-bad-Republicans-are-good type arguments don't require much in the way of intellect, but they do provide the same type of security of confidence that so many of us think we need.

So, start reading here, and maybe you can appreciate what I've been doing with my time when not Sailing, working, going to sports and playing poker.

http://www.l4l.org/library/index.html

Also, Tom Maddux, if you read this information and then pop off with some vapid comment like,  "Who are these nuts,"  I will strongly consider deleting you account.  (probably won't do it though)

I don't remember you acting like an authority on everything in the past, but you sure do it now.  Yes, you know much more than many of us in certain areas, which we all appreciate.  However, when you speak about certain things, like the posts I have been on recently,  you display a certain rigid ignorance that is not becoming of you.  Read this stuff and debunk it with ideas, not sophmoric name calling.

I think you will all be surprised if you actually investigated something new and different.

Brent

[outdeep]

Since most of you are totally, completely, hopelessly ignorant of Libertarian philosophy---that doesn't stop you from commenting negatively about it, of course---I provide a link to some interesting reading.

While I don't view myself as a Libertarian evangelist, I do think you would all do well to at least familiarize yourself with what they believe before continuing on in your merry, republican way.

There is a reason the Evangelical Christians make up the largest growing segment of the party.  Perhaps you should check it out.  Of course, in doing so you may have to read sentences with big words, and semi-complex thinking.  Democrats-are-bad-Republicans-are-good type arguments don't require much in the way of intellect, but they do provide the same type of security of confidence that so many of us think we need.

So, start reading here, and maybe you can appreciate what I've been doing with my time when not Sailing, working, going to sports and playing poker.

http://www.l4l.org/library/index.html

Also, Tom Maddux, if you read this information and then pop off with some vapid comment like,  "Who are these nuts,"  I will strongly consider deleting you account.  (probably won't do it though)

I don't remember you acting like an authority on everything in the past, but you sure do it now.  Yes, you know much more than many of us in certain areas, which we all appreciate.  However, when you speak about certain things, like the posts I have been on recently,  you display a certain rigid ignorance that is not becoming of you.  Read this stuff and debunk it with ideas, not sophmoric name calling.

I think you will all be surprised if you actually investigated something new and different.

Brent

Thanks, Brent for the website and I will poke around in it.  I read a Libertarian in our local voters guide and he seemed over-the-top in his statements so I wouldn't mind looking at a more established representation to see where this party is really coming from.

I would suggest, Brent, that the "we're more intellectual than you" angle you are taking is a big turnoff for me.  Maybe give me a chance to decide that for myself.   You may want to also consider that the problem may not be completely with us.  The times I encountered Libertarians were either people who said things that were shocking and seemed off-the-wall or those who were so amoral that they just didn't want any authority in their lives.  If the party is to grow, you may want to face the fact that you have a bit of a PR problem that doesn't lend itself to people wanting to come check out the basis for your views.

And, yes Tom, if you can think of ways to answer in a way that states your point without provoking immediate confrontation, perhaps we won't have to wade through these endless back-and-forths.  You know:  seek to win both the debate and the audience.

Now for my wish.  Now that the election is out of our hands and into the hands of the lawyers, it would be really great if this blog got back to ministering to former Assemblites.  I understand that this is an open forum and I am not in any way suggesting that I control the content.  But, often I have come here looking for encouragment and my heart would sink when the board is embroiled in an endless (and often fruitless) debate over modern translations or whether we should blast the crap out of the middle east.  Kudos to Mark Campbell who does not waver from a desire to shepherd God's people.

Perhaps the thing to do is to leave this board as a free-for-all for the ten of us who are left and start a wounded-pilgrim blog whose content is controlled (allowing for free comments, but the main section would be posted by a moderator).   This way, folks can go to the blog if they want shepherding, Christian encouragement, and a new perspective from their Assembly past.  The rest of us can come here to sharpen our debating skills.

-Dave

[editor]

I would suggest, Brent, that the "we're more intellectual than you" angle you are taking is a big turnoff for me.  Maybe give me a chance to decide that for myself.   You may want to also consider that the problem may not be completely with us.  The times I encountered Libertarians were either people who said things that were shocking and seemed off-the-wall or those who were so amoral that they just didn't want any authority in their lives.  If the party is to grow, you may want to face the fact that you have a bit of a PR problem that doesn't lend itself to people wanting to come check out the basis for your views.

Absolutely, you couldn't be more correct.

Dave, I don't think for a second that I'm more intellectual than anyone else here.  Neither do I think that Libertarians are more intellectual.  Case in point, the candidate that somehow got the nod for CA governor last time ran on the platform of legalizing ferret ownership!  (I voted republican on that one, for many reasons)

There is also a contingent of one-issue libertarians, who want only to legalize marijuana.....for all the wrong reasons.  The kooks are being weeded out, but the party has had, since its inception, some brilliant minds at the top.

The PR issue is a huge problem, that is compounded greatly by the fact that the republicrats won't allow Libertarians to debate them.  The truth is that most of the Libertarian candidates would wipe the floor with them, however in the mean time, the word is out that "Libertarians are kooks."  I wonder where that message comes from?

As for my tone, I'm glad you noticed.  It isn't very nice to treated as an intellectual inferior, is it?  That is exactly how I feel when certain people reply to my views with that attitude.  It really doesn't lend itself to an open, honest exchange of idea, does it?

I put a bit of thought into my posts, and decided to reply in like manner, in order to illustrate something that has been going on around here for quite some time.

I took many months away from the BB, and during that time I was able to see things from a more detached perspective.  I honestly believe that there is a good deal of truth to some of the charges leveled against us, in that we tend to blast those who don't agree.

I certainly feel "blasted" in the way that certain people have mis-read me, and especially the way in which they dispatch my ideas with a flippant, "Are you nuts?" comment.  

If we really want to be a blessing to ex-assembly people, we need to lose this attitude pronto.  Hopefully, it is obvious now.  BTW, I am quite guilty of doing this exact thing....perhaps the most guilty member on this BB.  Maybe that is why I see it so clearly.

Dave, I'm glad you noticed my purposeful tone.   Hopefully I won't use it again, but if I do, it will only be in response to someone else.

We need to treat eachother with respect, and listen and consider what each of us has to say before prounouncing "Nuthood" on eachother.

Brent

[outdeep]

Point well taken.  The trouble with BB is the same problem as driving in our cars - we can say or do things towards other people that we would rarely do face-to-face.

-Dave

[Oscar]

Brent,

You wrote,

"Also, Tom Maddux, if you read this information and then pop off with some vapid comment like,  "Who are these nuts,"  I will strongly consider deleting you account.  (probably won't do it though)

I don't remember you acting like an authority on everything in the past, but you sure do it now.  Yes, you know much more than many of us in certain areas, which we all appreciate.  However, when you speak about certain things, like the posts I have been on recently,  you display a certain rigid ignorance that is not becoming of you.  Read this stuff and debunk it with ideas, not sophmoric name calling.

I think you will all be surprised if you actually investigated something new and different.

Brent

I have a lot on my plate right now so I haven't read the website you reference.

But,

1. Regarding my "vapid" (definintion: lacking liveliness, briskness, or force.) comment about someone being "nuts."  If I recall correctly, I was talking about the comment about men having abortions.

Now, I am not as well trained in human anatomy as you must be, so to me, that seems "nuts".

Do I have it wrong?  

2. Regarding my views on Libertarianism:

I have been aware of Libertarianism for a couple of decades.  When I first encountered it I took a look at it.  The question I always ask when someone makes pronouncements about what the government should or should not do is "Why?", or "Why not?"

The Libertarians always gave me the same answer, ie, "Every man owns himself, so therefore he owns the fruits of his labor.  If government taxes you to pay for anything it does, (which includes everything it does), it is illegitimate unless you want them to do it.

I have asked several "how do you know every man owns himself?"  The question always causes them some confusion.  The don't seem to have thought about it.

Millions of people "belonged" to other people legally for most of human history.  Under the subterfuge of debt slavery, millions still do.  They can't quit or leave until the debt to the landowner/employer is paid, and that will never happen.

So, to claim, "that's the way it is" is not even true.

The real question is "should men own themselves?"

The question I ask requires them to justify their beliefs by some metaphysical/philosophical principles.  
I'm still waiting for one to do so.

The argument they make about who owns who is actually a moral arguement.  No man should belong to another.

But, how does one know this?  No answer yet.

And here all along I thought everything, including everyone, belonged to God!

I believe that Law should refelect what is morally right and wrong.  It doesn't always do this, but it should.  In philosophy, this idea is known as the theory of Natural Rights.  

That is what T. Jefferson was referring to when he spoke of self-evident truths that men have a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  But remember, Jefferson also strongly supported the Constitution, although he was in France during the convention.  He didn't see it as an infringment on Natural Rights.

But no author I have ever read has argued that virtual total freedom from government regulation is one of them.

Government is a. necessary due to our fallen condition  b. instituted by God for the restraint of evil.

Abortion violates the Natural Right to life.  Hence, it is wrong.

Hence, I am not a Libertarian, and won't be real soon.

God bless,

Thomas Maddux
Virulent Dog first class, Purveyor of Vapidity etc, etc.

[editor]

I have a lot on my plate right now so I haven't read the website you reference.

But,

1. Regarding my "vapid" (definintion: lacking liveliness, briskness, or force.) comment about someone being "nuts."  If I recall correctly, I was talking about the comment about men having abortions.

Now, I am not as well trained in human anatomy as you must be, so to me, that seems "nuts".

Do I have it wrong?  

Yes, you do have it wrong.  Do you actually suppose that the person I was quoting was suggesting that men would physically become pregnant and go on to abort their babies?  What he was trying to say was that if the government gets involved in funding abortion, so many will be performed that even men will have them.  It's called hyperbole, which I clearly outlined in my post, and which you ignored.  I am more than a little frustrated that you argue this point.

I have been aware of Libertarianism for a couple of decades.  When I first encountered it I took a look at it.  The question I always ask when someone makes pronouncements about what the government should or should not do is "Why?", or "Why not?"

The Libertarians always gave me the same answer, ie, "Every man owns himself, so therefore he owns the fruits of his labor.  If government taxes you to pay for anything it does, (which includes everything it does), it is illegitimate unless you want them to do it.

I've never heard these arguments put forth by anyone in the party, or who thinks and reasons like a libertarian.  Libertarians are all about the constitution and the human ideals of freedom and liberty.  

In order for us to enjoy, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, there needs to be social order, which is provided by the government.  Libertarians believe this obvious fact, and support it wholeheartedly, which is why they participate in our political system.

The debate is about how much government is good,  and recently how much government is constitutional.  Republican rhetoric is usually right on the mark.  The problem isn't with their rhetoric, but with their actions.

When I say, "The federal government should not have created a national system of public schools, but should have left education up to local government," I say this after reading and understanding the constitution.  Never have I resorted to some idea that, "we each own ourselves."

So, you really would do well to base your current views on libertarianism on the facts, and not on what you heard some people say a few decades ago.

But no author I have ever read has argued that virtual total freedom from government regulation is one of them.

Government is a. necessary due to our fallen condition  b. instituted by God for the restraint of evil.

Abortion violates the Natural Right to life.  Hence, it is wrong.

Hence, I am not a Libertarian, and won't be real soon.

Does it bother you in the least that you habitually misrepresent the position of those contrary to your own?  It should, and even more so, because you do it constantly.

No Libertarian author has ever suggested that we be free from all regulation.  Libertarians are not anarchists, never were, and never will be.  By suggesting otherwise, you demonstrate not only your ignorance, but your arrogance as well.  It's not factual, yet you believe it.  That's not healthy, Tom.

Abortion violates the Natural Right to life.  Hence, it is wrong.

I agree.  Abortion is homicide.  They are one and the same thing.  That's why I voted for a person who doesn't support it.

You must see your hypocrisy here, Tom.  You set forth a series of totally false arguments about my position, and cite some people you talked with 2 decades ago as your sources, then go on to make a statement like the one quoted directly above.

Yet, you vote for a man who is pro-choice, and who wants to take your tax dollars and give them to people who create, kill and harvest human embryos for "research."

To reach the absolute pinnacle of hypocritical actions,  you claim in a post below that, "No Christian could vote for a leader who supports abortion."

Yet, you did exactly that, while I did no such thing.

Tom,  you are a massive, total, absolute hypocrite.  To make matters worse, in order to discredit another's view, you actually misrepresent what they believe in order to make your point.  Having satisfied yourself you made a valid point---which you did not---you then go on to state a moral principle

That you yourself violated with your own vote!

No, you won't be a libertarian very soon.

Brent

[al Hartman]

     The most recent posts of Dave, Brent, & Tom on this thread are the most encouraging in a while:  clear, open, honest.  At least I perceive them as such.

     Brent, one of the reasons I haven't been among those who have welcomed your return to posting is that I never know when you are being forthright in what you say and when you're playing head games to teach someone (everyone?) a lesson.  You are intelligent, knowledgeable, clever, witty, but it's difficult for me to tell which of your attributes are or are not in play in any given post, and I've been reading you for some time.  I can't even imagine what newcomers to the BB must think of some of your posts.

     To cite a mild example, your following of this statement:

There is also a contingent of one-issue libertarians, who want only to legalize marijuana.....for all the wrong reasons.

     ...with this one:

 The kooks are being weeded out...

     ...was a brilliant pun.  I tend to think it was unintentional, but I have no way of knowing.  Sadly, the misunderstandings are usually over much more serious matters.

     At any rate, I am grateful to Dave for presenting the issue of our conduct toward each other, and to both Brent and Tom for your responses.  I sincerely ask that if any posts of mine are offensive you will bring it to my attention publicly or privately as you see fit.  I think we would all benefit from each other's teaching by being a good example, rather than by imitating a bad one...

God bless,
al

[editor]

     The most recent posts of Dave, Brent, & Tom on this thread are the most encouraging in a while:  clear, open, honest.  At least I perceive them as such.

     Brent, one of the reasons I haven't been among those who have welcomed your return to posting is that I never know when you are being forthright in what you say and when you're playing head games to teach someone (everyone?) a lesson.  You are intelligent, knowledgeable, clever, witty, but it's difficult for me to tell which of your attributes are or are not in play in any given post, and I've been reading you for some time.  I can't even imagine what newcomers to the BB must think of some of your posts.

     To cite a mild example, your following of this statement:

There is also a contingent of one-issue libertarians, who want only to legalize marijuana.....for all the wrong reasons.

     ...with this one:

 The kooks are being weeded out...

     ...was a brilliant pun.  I tend to think it was unintentional, but I have no way of knowing.  Sadly, the misunderstandings are usually over much more serious matters.

     

Fair enough Al:

Here's how I look at my posting: I try to present my ideas as clearly as I am able.  I do so in a manner that not only communicates what I think, but that also takes into account what I perceive to be others' thoughts, especially those who disagree with me.

If I was trying win an election, persuade people to be loyal to my position, or procure a loyal following, I wouldn't be nearly so abrasive in my speech, and would do my best to sugar coat my ideas, or simply refrain from saying what I truly thought, especially if it was controversial.

I have attempted to be open and honest about where I really stand on things, and that from day one.

As for it being difficult to determine which of my "attributes" are in play at any given time, I would humbly suggest reading the words and assigning the meanings to the words that are customary in modern American English.

Also, if you know that I am all for Nuking the Middle East, don't try saying that my political beliefs will weaken the country so foreigners can take over, as one person did.

If I plainly state that I consider abortion to be infanticide, it doesn't make much sense to judge my political leanings as being pro-abortion, without at least a cursory investigation of the facts.  

As for head games, when people are totally set in their ways, unable to see, hear or think differently, the only way to get their attention and jar their brains into action is to play a head game with them.

A great example of this is when Jesus asked the Pharisees, "John's baptism, was it from God or man?"

This simple question caused them to think, and confront their own hypocrisy, and then to demonstrate conclusively that they were indeed children of Satan, as their subsequent deeds clearly illustrated.

Don't think that I have any illusions/delusions about how effective I am at this...I make no such comparison.  However, I do intend to make people think.  If they choose to ignore me or reject me, I'll just have to deal with it.

I do it all the time.  I don't ask that anyone agree with me, neither do I look down on anyone for being convinced otherwise...in fact, I respect it.  

However, what I don't appreciate is someone misrepresenting an argument and countering with a vapid personal snipe.

In the old Saturday Night Live, Dan Akroyd would use this tactic against Jane Curtain during "Point-counterPoint," by saying,  "Jane you ignorant slut."  It was hilarious, because it was so absurd...at least at that time.

Sadly, we have almost sunk to that level in real life now.  People hold strong beliefs and opinions, and fail to see the lack of effectiveness of their stated positions and the results of them.  Anyone who points this out becomes the target of an ad hominem attack.

For example, Tom should have said something like this:

"Brent, I disagree with your Libertarian views because I believe that government needs to be expanded in our modern world.  Just because the founders warned us of this, doesn't mean they were right.  Old ideas aren't always the best, and I really believe the most prudent course of action is one that melds Liberty with a greater degree of government regulation.  If this is in conflict with the constitution, then we need to ammend it.  We need to grow and change with the times."

The above is a valid point of view.

Calling me a "nut," isn't.

I am fully aware that my views are quite on the fringe.  I am comfortable with them nontheless, and am quite happy to share them and debate their merits.

(BTW, the pun was intentional)

Also, I don't really care what newcomers might think, only that they DO THINK.  If we water down our ideas, and take the seasoning out of our speech to the point where no one is stimulated, we are worthless.

Ideas have consequences, and bold ideas have bold consequences.

Brent

[al Hartman]

Brent,

     A long time ago, I took some flak from you for telling one of your detractors that I wasn't defending you because you are a big boy & can defend yourself.  I really don't mind the flak-- in the long run I'm sure it builds character.  I only mention it to point out that I am not defending Tom either.  You posted:

For example, Tom should have said something like this:

"Brent, I disagree with your Libertarian views because I believe that government needs to be expanded in our modern world.  Just because the founders warned us of this, doesn't mean they were right.  Old ideas aren't always the best, and I really believe the most prudent course of action is one that melds Liberty with a greater degree of government regulation.  If this is in conflict with the constitution, then we need to ammend it.  We need to grow and change with the times."

The above is a valid point of view.

Calling me a "nut," isn't.

     With its surrounding text, what you have said above is that it's OK for you to express yourself as you see fit-- in a way that you're comfortable with, but when others speak they have to meet certain criteria of which you approve.

I am fully aware that my views are quite on the fringe.  I am comfortable with them nontheless, and am quite happy to share them and debate their merits.

     It is not your views that are in question, but the manner in which you sometimes choose to express them.  For example, your insinuation toward those who may misunderstand you: "...I would humbly suggest reading the words and assigning the meanings to the words that are customary in modern American English," not only lacks any vestige of humility, but is patently snide and demeaning; an altogether unnecessary insult.

Also, I don't really care what newcomers might think, only that they DO THINK.  If we water down our ideas, and take the seasoning out of our speech to the point where no one is stimulated, we are worthless.

     Once again, this is not about (1) ideas, or (2) watering anything down.  This is about damaging the sensibilities of the weak and wounded.  To not care about their first impressions is unconscionable-- they may never return for a second impression.  Does that make them unworthy of the BB, or could the offending BB posting be unworthy of them?

Ideas have consequences, and bold ideas have bold consequences.

     Bold is not synonymous with good, and bold consequences are not necessarily good consequences.  Please just pray about it.

     For the record, the bible tells us that Jesus knew all things-- therefore, He didn't play head games.  Get it?-- He KNEW all things:  There was never a question of His possibly making a mistake...

al

[Oscar]

Brent,

You said,

"For example, Tom should have said something like this:

"Brent, I disagree with your Libertarian views because I believe that government needs to be expanded in our modern world.  Just because the founders warned us of this, doesn't mean they were right.  Old ideas aren't always the best, and I really believe the most prudent course of action is one that melds Liberty with a greater degree of government regulation.  If this is in conflict with the constitution, then we need to ammend it.  We need to grow and change with the times."

The above is a valid point of view.

Calling me a "nut," isn't.

Actually, if you will read my comments carefully, you will notice that I did not call you a "nut."

I said the ideas in your post were "nutty".  

Mein Gott!!!  I take it back!!

Let's just substitute absurd.


You have also said that,

"I've never heard these arguments put forth by anyone in the party, or who thinks and reasons like a libertarian.  Libertarians are all about the constitution and the human ideals of freedom and liberty."

First, when you say "I've never heard these arguments put forth by anyone in the party..."  I believe you.

But...on the other hand....I have.   It's not hard to find.  Here in the LA area there is a popular radio talk show host named Larry Elder, who is a Libertarian.

He regularly says things like, (I paraphrase)

"There should be no public healthcare system."

"The public school system should not exist."

"Drugs should be legalized for all adults."

"There should be no public relief system."

And so on and on.

So, my friend, I am not making it up.

In addition, after I had posted about having been aware of Libertarianism for a couple of decades, I remembered that I had read a couple of books by Ayn Rand back in the 60's, so let me revise that to having been aware of Libertian ideas for about 40 years.

I am well aware that all of the Libertarian ideas that I listed above, as well as others, can be debated.

As you said,

"I've never heard these arguments put forth by anyone in the party, or who thinks and reasons like a libertarian.  Libertarians are all about the constitution and the human ideals of freedom and liberty."

Conservatism (theoretically) recognizes that all men are "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights".  What that means is that there is a recognition that human rights derive from a higher source.

Ayn Rand, one of the philosophical guiding lights of Libertarianism was an angry, raging athiest.

She hated Christianity because it promoted what she called "altruism".  Her guiding principle was "Enlightened self interest."  

This was supposed to lead mankind to a paradise of liberty and prosperity.  

I simply don't believe that it will.  She rejected the idea of the fall, and therefore had an optimism about human nature that I do not share.

When I talk to Libertarians, I always ask them "How do you know what the government should or should not do?"

In my experience, they always stumble around talking about freedom, liberty, prosperity etc.  But they do not seem to have any idea WHY men should be free, prosperous, etc.

They generally recognize no overarching moral standards, and as a result are open to euthanasia and abortion.

One other thing.  My hypocrisy.

I am a pragmatist.  I believe that right now, a pro-life evangelical  has zero chance of being elected to statewide office in California.  Hence, I didn't vote for McClintock.

Arnold, for me, represented the idea that "half a loaf is better than none."  Churchill said that politics is the art of the possible.  I agree.

Now, regarding Arnold's support of prop 71.  I admit, I was blindsided on this one.  But remember, the issue was never whether or not there would be embryonic stem cell research.  It is quite legal.

The issue is the bonds, which provide public funds for the research.  I voted against it, as did my whole family.

If Arnold runs for the senate, I will have to investigate whether or not he will observe party discipline or not.  If not, I won't vote for him.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Virulant Dog, Purveyor of Vapidity

[editor]

One other thing.  My hypocrisy.

I am a pragmatist.  I believe that right now, a pro-life evangelical  has zero chance of being elected to statewide office in California.  Hence, I didn't vote for McClintock.

Arnold, for me, represented the idea that "half a loaf is better than none."  Churchill said that politics is the art of the possible.  I agree.

Now, regarding Arnold's support of prop 71.  I admit, I was blindsided on this one.  But remember, the issue was never whether or not there would be embryonic stem cell research.  It is quite legal.

The issue is the bonds, which provide public funds for the research.  I voted against it, as did my whole family.

If Arnold runs for the senate, I will have to investigate whether or not he will observe party discipline or not.  If not, I won't vote for him.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux
Virulant Dog, Purveyor of Vapidity

Thanks Tom,

Now we have some common ground.  I agree with you, evengelical, pro-life candidates have a slim chance in CA right now.  However, I maintain that if all us evangelical pro-lifers voted solely on principle, it would force the CA republican party to change, which would be for the better.  We need to win with our ideas before we win solely on the basis of pragmatism and compromise.

I wasn't blindsided by Arnold's break with the party.  I am also quite aware of the fact that stem cell research has been going on in the private sector for many years.

Here is a disgusting fact for all of you:

Where do you think the embryos are obtained from which they harvest the cells?  They don't buy them, they make them themselves.  (At least many of them are home grown)  This means that many of these researchers are killing their own young.  Chew on that for a while and then realize that our tax dollars are being used to fund this.

As for Larry Elder, I think he's a great talk show host and I agree with the list of things he mentioned below.  

The public school system should not exist....in its present form.  Public schools are a fine idea, but they should be locally funded and overseen.  So, the current public school system should not exist.

As a healthcare provider I can't stress enough how much damage the public healthcare system is doing to the quality of healthcare in this country.  It shouldn't exist.  Are you on Medicare yet Tom?

I also totally agree with legalization of drugs---this would make a very interesting discussion.   Please note that I am not advocating using them, or in any way saying that they are good, or harmless....the reasons for legalizing them are many but health benefits are not one of them.

Set aside the emotional, gut level revulsion to this idea and realize that anyone who wants to obtain these drugs can do so right now.  Legalizing and regulating them won't make them more available, but it will radically change the organized crime problem we face.  Think prohibition and alchohol.  

For ten bucks I can buy enough alchohol to kill myself withing the hour, yet I haven't been drunk for almost 23 years.  On the other hand, if alchohol was illegal again, I would be a criminal, and so would most of the people I know, because I use alchohol in a responsible manner.

I don't use marijuana or any other recreational drug in any capapcity!!

Also, I was commenting on the statement you made that Libertarians answer every question by saying,  "We all belong to ourselves."

It's that argument that I have not run across, and that was what I was referring to.  As for the list of things you gave, that list accurately represents the Libertarian position on things.

Lastly, let me say that I am much happier today knowing that President Bush will have four more years, and that we are not to be subjected to John Kerry.

Brent

[al Hartman]

Thanks Tom,

Now we have some common ground.  I agree with you, evengelical, pro-life candidates have a slim chance in CA right now.  However, I maintain that if all us evangelical pro-lifers voted solely on principle, it would force the CA republican party to change, which would be for the better.  We need to win with our ideas before we win solely on the basis of pragmatism and compromise.

I wasn't blindsided by Arnold's break with the party.  I am also quite aware of the fact that stem cell research has been going on in the private sector for many years.

Here is a disgusting fact for all of you:

Where do you think the embryos are obtained from which they harvest the cells?  They don't buy them, they make them themselves.  (At least many of them are home grown)  This means that many of these researchers are killing their own young.  Chew on that for a while and then realize that our tax dollars are being used to fund this.

As for Larry Elder, I think he's a great talk show host and I agree with the list of things he mentioned below.  

The public school system should not exist....in its present form.  Public schools are a fine idea, but they should be locally funded and overseen.  So, the current public school system should not exist.

As a healthcare provider I can't stress enough how much damage the public healthcare system is doing to the quality of healthcare in this country.  It shouldn't exist.  Are you on Medicare yet Tom?

I also totally agree with legalization of drugs---this would make a very interesting discussion.   Please note that I am not advocating using them, or in any way saying that they are good, or harmless....the reasons for legalizing them are many but health benefits are not one of them.

Set aside the emotional, gut level revulsion to this idea and realize that anyone who wants to obtain these drugs can do so right now.  Legalizing and regulating them won't make them more available, but it will radically change the organized crime problem we face.  Think prohibition and alchohol.  

For ten bucks I can buy enough alchohol to kill myself withing the hour, yet I haven't been drunk for almost 23 years.  On the other hand, if alchohol was illegal again, I would be a criminal, and so would most of the people I know, because I use alchohol in a responsible manner.

I don't use marijuana or any other recreational drug in any capapcity!!

Also, I was commenting on the statement you made that Libertarians answer every question by saying,  "We all belong to ourselves."

It's that argument that I have not run across, and that was what I was referring to.  As for the list of things you gave, that list accurately represents the Libertarian position on things.

Lastly, let me say that I am much happier today knowing that President Bush will have four more years, and that we are not to be subjected to John Kerry.

Brent

Brent,

     Every word of the above post is clear and instructive to me.  I even agree with you on a lot of it.  Thank you.  I would much rather read you when you're in this mode.

al

[editor]

Brent,

    Every word of the above post is clear and instructive to me.  I even agree with you on a lot of it.  Thank you.  I would much rather read you when you're in this mode.

al

Thanks Al,

I had something to work with, so I responded in like manner.  I prefer this "mode" as well.  

Brent

[Oscar]

Brent,

You said,

"The public school system should not exist....in its present form.  Public schools are a fine idea, but they should be locally funded and overseen.  So, the current public school system should not exist.

Fine, I agree with you.  Most people do.  But what you said is not libertarianism.  They believe that public schools are a TERRIBLE idea.  To them, it is a form of intrusion into personal liberty.

Since their ideas are largely untried in the modern world, they don't seem to think about the consequences of their implementation.

What it means is that all the poor children in America would be less educated than they are now!  In suberbia people have the resources to make home schooling work.  They have made home schooling work by using their know how and personal educational resources.

Among the people in the 10% income tax bracket, or the o% bracket,  this is more difficult.  They usually work long hours and frequently have very poor educational skills themselves.

Statistically, illiteracy is the strongest predictor of future incarceration.

What is needed is a return to educational practices, (this includes discipline), that work.

As a healthcare provider I can't stress enough how much damage the public healthcare system is doing to the quality of healthcare in this country.  It shouldn't exist.  Are you on Medicare yet Tom?

No, I'm not on mediicare yet, since I am a young fellow of only 63.  

But I do realize that many of our problems in healthcare are caused by government intrusion/regulation.  The problem is that politics IS the art of the possible and we have trained people to look to the government for solutions.

But, again, libertarians aren't about reform, they are about totally abolishing the public wellfare system.  What would that mean?   Poor people dying in the streets is a definite possibility.

A personal anecdote.  In 1983 my 13 year old daughter, Glory, developed kidney cancer.  I had excellent medical insurance through my job as a teacher.  Her treatment cost about $350,000 dollars, (1984).

One night I was at the hospital.  A social worker told me that the kid in the next bed had no insurance at all.  She, however, was receiving the same treatment through Medical.

What if there had been no Medical?  Could a working stiff go out and raise $350,000.  A few might have.  Most couldn't.

For that little girl, that would have meant a horrible death by cancer.  My Glory is now 33 years old and doing fine.  I trust she is as well....no thanks to libertarians.

No, I'm not a libertarian.

I also totally agree with legalization of drugs---this would make a very interesting discussion.  Please note that I am not advocating using them, or in any way saying that they are good, or harmless....the reasons for legalizing them are many but health benefits are not one of them.

Set aside the emotional, gut level revulsion to this idea and realize that anyone who wants to obtain these drugs can do so right now.  Legalizing and regulating them won't make them more available, but it will radically change the organized crime problem we face.  Think prohibition and alchohol.  

For ten bucks I can buy enough alchohol to kill myself withing the hour, yet I haven't been drunk for almost 23 years.  On the other hand, if alchohol was illegal again, I would be a criminal, and so would most of the people I know, because I use alchohol in a responsible manner.

I don't use marijuana or any other recreational drug in any capapcity!!

Did you know that all these drugs were legal a century ago?  We have tried the legalization idea.  What it lead to was tens of thousands of "normal" people becoming addicted to drugs.  

Things like cough syrup had addictive drugs in them!  Quiet addiction among housewives, (the standard female occupation of the day), was common.

Do you have a tummy ache? Cramps? Back pain?  Take Dr. Feelgood's pepper-upper pills.  (also known as codein)

BTW, we have a terrible problem with teenage drunkenness.  Where do the kids get the booze?  From their parent's home supplies in their bar.

Do you want to add cocain, codein, morphine, heroin, marijuana, various designer drugs, demerol, hashish, etc. etc., to the mix?

Also, when the effects take hold, unless the libertarians have their way, what will be the impact on public wellfare?

IMHO, the solution is not legalization.  It is an automatic death penalty for importing or transporting illegal drugs in the USA.  

Some say this isn't "fair" because the drug lords never do the dirty job of smuggling.  But it sure would make it hard to find people to do it after a few dozen had been executed.

No, I'm not a libertarian.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

[editor]

Brent,

You said,

"The public school system should not exist....in its present form.  Public schools are a fine idea, but they should be locally funded and overseen.  So, the current public school system should not exist.

Fine, I agree with you.  Most people do.  But what you said is not libertarianism.  They believe that public schools are a TERRIBLE idea.  To them, it is a form of intrusion into personal liberty.

Since their ideas are largely untried in the modern world, they don't seem to think about the consequences of their implementation.

What it means is that all the poor children in America would be less educated than they are now!  In suberbia people have the resources to make home schooling work.  They have made home schooling work by using their know how and personal educational resources.

Among the people in the 10% income tax bracket, or the o% bracket,  this is more difficult.  They usually work long hours and frequently have very poor educational skills themselves.

Statistically, illiteracy is the strongest predictor of future incarceration.

What is needed is a return to educational practices, (this includes discipline), that work.

As a healthcare provider I can't stress enough how much damage the public healthcare system is doing to the quality of healthcare in this country.  It shouldn't exist.  Are you on Medicare yet Tom?

No, I'm not on mediicare yet, since I am a young fellow of only 63.  

But I do realize that many of our problems in healthcare are caused by government intrusion/regulation.  The problem is that politics IS the art of the possible and we have trained people to look to the government for solutions.

But, again, libertarians aren't about reform, they are about totally abolishing the public wellfare system.  What would that mean?   Poor people dying in the streets is a definite possibility.

A personal anecdote.  In 1983 my 13 year old daughter, Glory, developed kidney cancer.  I had excellent medical insurance through my job as a teacher.  Her treatment cost about $350,000 dollars, (1984).

One night I was at the hospital.  A social worker told me that the kid in the next bed had no insurance at all.  She, however, was receiving the same treatment through Medical.

What if there had been no Medical?  Could a working stiff go out and raise $350,000.  A few might have.  Most couldn't.

For that little girl, that would have meant a horrible death by cancer.  My Glory is now 33 years old and doing fine.  I trust she is as well....no thanks to libertarians.

No, I'm not a libertarian.

I also totally agree with legalization of drugs---this would make a very interesting discussion.  Please note that I am not advocating using them, or in any way saying that they are good, or harmless....the reasons for legalizing them are many but health benefits are not one of them.

Set aside the emotional, gut level revulsion to this idea and realize that anyone who wants to obtain these drugs can do so right now.  Legalizing and regulating them won't make them more available, but it will radically change the organized crime problem we face.  Think prohibition and alchohol.  

For ten bucks I can buy enough alchohol to kill myself withing the hour, yet I haven't been drunk for almost 23 years.  On the other hand, if alchohol was illegal again, I would be a criminal, and so would most of the people I know, because I use alchohol in a responsible manner.

I don't use marijuana or any other recreational drug in any capapcity!!

Did you know that all these drugs were legal a century ago?  We have tried the legalization idea.  What it lead to was tens of thousands of "normal" people becoming addicted to drugs.  

Things like cough syrup had addictive drugs in them!  Quiet addiction among housewives, (the standard female occupation of the day), was common.

Do you have a tummy ache? Cramps? Back pain?  Take Dr. Feelgood's pepper-upper pills.  (also known as codein)

BTW, we have a terrible problem with teenage drunkenness.  Where do the kids get the booze?  From their parent's home supplies in their bar.

Do you want to add cocain, codein, morphine, heroin, marijuana, various designer drugs, demerol, hashish, etc. etc., to the mix?

Also, when the effects take hold, unless the libertarians have their way, what will be the impact on public wellfare?

IMHO, the solution is not legalization.  It is an automatic death penalty for importing or transporting illegal drugs in the USA.  

Some say this isn't "fair" because the drug lords never do the dirty job of smuggling.  But it sure would make it hard to find people to do it after a few dozen had been executed.

No, I'm not a libertarian.

Blessings,

Thomas Maddux

Thanks for a thoughtful reply Tom.

If you don't mind, I beg to differ with you on a few points:

Local control of schools is Libertarianism in its fundamental fform.  I have no idea where you have gotten the idea that Libertarians are anti-education.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  They are anti-government controlled education for sure, but that doesn't mean that they don't want schools.

Their ideas are not only thouroughly tried and tested in the modern world, they are the very ideas that conservatives express in their rhetoric.  Abraham Lincoln wasn't educated in a "No Child Left Behind" classroom, neither did he take the SAT.  America became great without Social Security, Medicare, Medical or Income Tax.

The only areas in Healthcare where we see decreasing costs, coupled with high patient satisfaction, are the areas that DO NOT HAVE INSURANCE COVERAGE.

I refer to Laser Eye Surgery, and Plastic Surgery.

Every single day in my practice, I see patients for free...no charge at all.  The reason for this is because I have compassion on them and am happy to donate my skill in order to help them.  While they may not repay me monetarily---most do months later---I am happy to help anyway.  I DON'T KNOW A SINGLE DOCTOR WHO DOESN'T DO THE SAME!!  Physicians literally stand in line to participate in Doctors Without Borders, and other charitable causes.

The little girl you refer to would receive help from doctors with compassion.  This sort of American spirit is more apparent when there is no Medical, like we see in Peru, or Guatemala.  Libertarian ideas would make healthcare affordable, like it used to be, and leave the door open for individuals to exercise true compassion.  

But, again, libertarians aren't about reform, they are about totally abolishing the public wellfare system.  What would that mean?  Poor people dying in the streets is a definite possibility.

Not true.  Tom, when you see a poor person, dying of hunger, do you go up to a well dressed man, take his wallet, and give money to the poor man, or do you help him yourself?  

I submit that there are millions of people like yourself, who don't take the other guy's wallet, but have compassion on the poor themselves. Jesus talked about this....even GHW Bush did!  He called it the "Thousand Points of Light."

There is nothing about Libertarianism that would stop you from being generous and fulfilling your Christian ideals.  In fact, you would have more money in your pocket to do so.

True, it might be acceptable to some people to use other people's money to "give" to the poor, but I like the idea of doing it myself, and I do it  on a regular basis.  How about you?  Would you rather tithe my money to your church, or your own?

Do you want to add cocain, codein, morphine, heroin, marijuana, various designer drugs, demerol, hashish, etc. etc., to the mix?

Also, when the effects take hold, unless the libertarians have their way, what will be the impact on public wellfare?

IMHO, the solution is not legalization.  It is an automatic death penalty for importing or transporting illegal drugs in the USA.  

First of all, have you noticed that, "cocain, codein, morphine, heroin, marijuana, various designer drugs, demerol, hashish, etc. " are already quite in the mix?  It is far easier for a Junior Highschool student to get pot, than booze...it's a known fact.   As for kids getting it from their parents, do you advocate making alchohol illegal?  It's been tried of course.

So, the argument that these drugs would be more available is totally specious.  The supply is already huge, in spite of the "war" on drugs.

Now, an automatic death penalty for imorting or transporting drugs, eh?

This idea has merit....it reminds me of my Nuke-The-Middle-East policy.  You get high marks for this one.

Of course, I would be dead, as would our current president if this were the case.  I have driven with illegal drugs in the car before.  Do you want to gas your neighbor's kid, who has 2 joints and "transports" them to Nevada for a ski trip?

I agree, this course of action would cut down on drug use.  

I am willing to adopt it.....or course pretty much everyone I know would be dead if it had been law....but hey, these drugs are bad.

Brent