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

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

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'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.


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.


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

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

Brent,

You said,


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,

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,

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

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

Brent,

You said,



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.


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.


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