Conservatives Against Liberty

[aCultureWarrior]

I have stated on this thread again and again that libertarians hold positions that are defiance to God for they take social positions approving of that which God condemns.

Including being defiant to God when it comes to Libertarian ideas of property rights, which I've been trying to point out.

Property rights are economic rights. If I cannot choose to use my property as I please, then the government owns it in fact.

Back to zoning laws: How exactly do the people of a community which make up goverment "own" your property if they give guidelines on how it can be used? Again, I'll use the example of opening a nightculb in a residential neighborhood.

He who controls something is the owner of it. If I pay for a car but someone else tells me when, where, and how I can use it, and I have little or no say when, where, and how I can use the car I paid for then it isn't "my car".

I've never heard of regulations telling a car owner when or where he could use the car, but most definitely "how".

"How" as you can't drive 65 MPH through a school zone. "How" as you must stop at a traffic signal.

I look forward to your answers.

 

[The Barbarian]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
God created civil government as one of 3 institutions for the governance of man (the family and Church being the other two). Benevolence (well meaning) automatically comes with the role of civil government. Again, be more specific with your definition of "human interactions".

The governments of the world to NOT act benevolently.

Corruption is an essential part of government. Governments, like any corporation, private or public, tends to look after its own good and neglects all else, unless it fears consequences for doing so.

This is why democracy is essential. If businesses rig the system so that they don't have to fear consumer choices, or government rig elections so that they don't have to fear voters, then corruption quickly ensues.

The point of the founders was to have power subject to the will of the people, but to make it difficult to change basic freedoms so that our rights are not at the whim of the mob, while still ensuring that an aristocracy of wealth or power could not assume control.

This is why we have conflicting demands for ballot security. On the left, the concern is to allow all legal voters to vote and to ensure foreign governments do not try to influence the result. On the right the concern is to limit the number of people voting, if they belong to certain demographic groups.

Hence "Moscow Mitch."

 

[The Barbarian]

Mitch McConnnell is right. Secure, open elections would elect more democrats.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...-elect-more-democrats/?utm_term=.5f851b640014

 

[Stripe]

Mitch McConnnell is right.

Great! :thumb:

We'll expect to see you voting Re-publican. :thumb:

 

[drbrumley]

***shakes head in disbelief***

ACW can do that do people...a natural talent he has...

that libertarians hold positions that are defiance to God for they take social positions approving of that which God condemns.

True...but so might someone who is not a libertarian.

I'm guessing one has to hash out the word approving....I know many libertarians who do not approve of certain vices.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I look forward to your answers ffreeloader.

 

[Gary K]

Including being defiant to God when it comes to Libertarian ideas of property rights, which I've been trying to point out.



Back to zoning laws: How exactly do the people of a community which make up goverment "own" your property if they give guidelines on how it can be used? Again, I'll use the example of opening a nightculb in a residential neighborhood.




I've never heard of regulations telling a car owner when or where he could use the car, but most definitely "how".

"How" as you can't drive 65 MPH through a school zone. "How" as you must stop at a traffic signal.

I look forward to your answers.

I'm not even going to dignify this with an answer. Your fallacies are so apparent they aren't worth spending time on as you just continue to create them one after another. So long.

 

[Gary K]

ACW can do that do people...a natural talent he has...



True...but so might someone who is not a libertarian.

I'm guessing one has to hash out the word approving....I know many libertarians who do not approve of certain vices.

I don't associate myself with, and by that I mean identify myself with anyone who holds ideas antithetical to liberty. Liberty is just too precious and too vitally important an issue to side with anyone who holds views that oppose it. That's exactly the reason I could never identify myself with someone like acw.

I have never said all libertarians hold to exactly the same ideas. However, the name libertarian is associated with immoral concepts by those libertarians who hold those concepts. Libertarians are not the totalitarians the Democrats/socialists are and thus there will be differences in beliefs.

I'm not condemning anyone who does identify themselves with libertarianism, I'm just saying I can't do that for reasons of conscience, my conscience.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

In closing:

Libertarian social doctrine is no different than Libertarian economic doctrine as they're both based on "Me! Me! Me!" selfishness, i.e. "It's MY body or private property and I can darn well do with it as I please!"

 

[Right Divider]

In closing:

Libertarian social doctrine is no different than Libertarian economic doctrine as they're both based on "Me! Me! Me!" selfishness, i.e. "It's MY body or private property and I can darn well do with it as I please!"

Poor baby wants other people's stuff.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

In closing:

Libertarian social doctrine is no different than Libertarian economic doctrine as they're both based on "Me! Me! Me!" selfishness, i.e. "It's MY body or private property and I can darn well do with it as I please!"

Poor baby wants other people's stuff.

I see that you're confusing civil government taking people's property and redistributing to others (theft) with being able to tell people what they can and can't do with their property (no Murray Rothbard, you cannot starve a deformed baby to death just because he or she is your "property") :

This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)?4 The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die.
https://mises.org/library/children-and-rights