Ye Olde Libertarian Pub

Status
Not open for further replies.

Calvinist Dark Lord

Regular Member
Apr 8, 2003
1,589
468
Near Pittsburgh, which is NOT in Scotland!
✟27,806.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
As I recall, Mr. Barr threw a big fit over Ron Paul's unwillingness to directly support/endorse him. He also sounded like he renounced a lot of his libertarian ideals the week before the election. I don't blame RP though; he was good friends with Chuck Baldwin as well who got my vote. If Free and Equal can host the next third party debate, both Constitution Party and Libertarian candidates will continue to bear consideration from me.
i did appreciate Barr not attending the "Can't We All Get Along" conference that Ron Paul held --not one of his better ideas--

Barr was right in not attending. The Libertarians had nothing in common with Cynthia McKinney, and there was nothing to discuss.

In retrospect, i'd have to agree with Ron Paul in his endoursement of Baldwin. Baldwin did turn out to be the most liberty-minded candidate of the bunch, even if he was nominated by a party that is more Sociocon than Freedom minded.
 
Upvote 0

Nilloc

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2007
4,155
886
✟28,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
i did appreciate Barr not attending the "Can't We All Get Along" conference that Ron Paul held --not one of his better ideas--
What was it exactly? I wasn't a libertarian then and didn't pay attention to Ron Paul as much.
 
Upvote 0

5stringJeff

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2005
1,117
43
GA
✟9,115.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I voted for Barr in '08, mostly because I was newly liberated from the GOP and wanted to vote for the LP candidate as a protest vote. Barr is looking to run for Congress again, presumably as a Republican, so I think we can see how shallow his LP roots were.

I also voted for Gary Johnson, and with no reservations. Of course, that was after I voted for Ron Paul in the state primary!
 
Upvote 0

abysmul

Board Game Hobbyist
Jun 17, 2008
4,495
845
Almost Heaven
✟60,490.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It's amazing how many of us became ex-Republicans because of Bush. Says a lot.

For me it's not just Bush, but what whole Big Government Republican movement.

It's sickening ... you have two parties that each think their form of Totalitarianism is better than the others'.
 
Upvote 0

Motor City Christian

Senior Veteran
Jun 24, 2003
5,472
190
41
Detroit area
✟22,530.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
i did appreciate Barr not attending the "Can't We All Get Along" conference that Ron Paul held --not one of his better ideas--

Barr was right in not attending. The Libertarians had nothing in common with Cynthia McKinney, and there was nothing to discuss.

In retrospect, i'd have to agree with Ron Paul in his endoursement of Baldwin. Baldwin did turn out to be the most liberty-minded candidate of the bunch, even if he was nominated by a party that is more Sociocon than Freedom minded.

That panel with Cynthia McKinney in 2008 was good because it exposed how much campaign reform is needed. We have a situation where all ideas should be heard by the public, and they are not at all. If CSPAN would not have shown the 2012 Free and Equal debate, the public would have zero msm presentations about these people. Even though I didn't agree with Rocky or Jill Stein, the voting public deserves to have options. If not for that debate, I would not have been confident voting for Gary Johnson. He gave me another option to Goode.
 
Upvote 0

zoink

:-)
Apr 13, 2004
932
62
West of the rockies
✟1,969.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Single
From my reading it seems that bitcoins are popular with Libertarians, what do you guys think of the recent correction? Looks to me like the value has hit a pretty good spot when it comes to its previous long term growth.
In my opinion bitcoin goes big or goes home. I think it will either lose almost all of it's value or be worth thousands of dollars a coin. Either way the cats out of the bag and crypto-currencies are here to stay. I think it's a matter of if network effect makes bitcoin the new Facebook and relegates the other the competitors to the likes of myspace and google+.

If bitcoin achieved the descriptiveness it is capable of, states are going to fight back.

Just don't put money you can't afford to lose into it.
 
Upvote 0
I

ImperialJohn

Guest
The US Libertarian Party would cause a unprecedented change in American politics if it made a few small changes.

If it shifted from left of centre or the fence to right of centre, and also adopted a stance against open borders and advocated for limited and controlled immigration, they would be on to a winner!

I am from the UK and support UKIP (The United Kingdom Independence Party) who are the Libertarian Party in the UK. They are right of centre and are against open borders and advocate leaving the EU.

In the last year the support for the party has gone up at a staggering rate as voters have become disillusion with the Conservative Lib-Dem Coalition government and don't trust Labour after all the expenses corruption they were involved in plus the squandering of so much money. UKIP have taken votes off all the other parties as a result and one of the big issues is immigration.

Next year in 2014 Romania and Bulgaria both join the EU and their citizens will be able to come to the UK in millions. This is bad because we have record youth unemployment, a lack of housing to support such numbers and is essentially full.

In addition their is presently a record crime wave in London and approximately 30,000 arrests made by Police have all been illegal Romanian immigrants to the UK and this is before Romania has even joined the EU.

This is one of the reasons people have switched from the other parties to UKIP along with it's other common sense policies. They seem to have the answers that none of the other parties have who are all pro-EU and as such limited in what they can do as they are bound by EU law.

I would argue that it is not libertarian to be in favour of open borders because it does not protect the liberty of "all" the citizens and people of your nation and al their rights and that controlled immigration is the only sensible option for any nation not least on the above mentioned grounds but also as a matter of national security.

Controlled immigration is good where you accept the best candidates who are qualified in the areas you have shortfalls in, if you do have any shortfalls. With record unemployment and lack of jobs in the US and UK were I live, is it wise to allow masses of immigrants in when the people already here have no jobs and unemployment is so high? It just doesn't make sense.

If the US Libertarian Party adopted a policy against closed borders and moved to the centre-right I believe they would cause huge political upheavals in America like UKIP is presently causing in the UK.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Motor City Christian

Senior Veteran
Jun 24, 2003
5,472
190
41
Detroit area
✟22,530.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Unfortunately, the U.S. is a lot different than the UK. Having studied the UK Parliamentary system and also watching prime minister's questions on a semi-regular basis, there is much more room for 3-5 parties. We have winner take all elections.

In the US, Both Republicans and Democrats are going to push for immigration reform which is pretty much amnesty for those here illegally. Their interests are funded by some of the same big businesses, despite the facade of warring party spending. Due to the fact they have spent millions of millions on elections, they force out most libertarian ideals.

I am not saying I don't agree with your argument, quite the contrary. However, the special interests want cheap labour both here and in the UK because it makes the bottomline fatter. I believe that it should be a very selective immigration process because of the instability many immigrants bring with them. They come from very violent background.

Your argument was embraced by the US Constitution party candidate in 2012, Virgil Goode. He called for a moratorium on ALL immigration, which I felt was extreme. However, I believe that there needs to be immigration reform the other way opposite to the amnesty crowd. More close monitoring of those with student visas may be in order. I understand that my view is not fully accepted by libertarians as a whole, but I never claimed to accepted 100% of their plank. There are plenty of others like me though and a few of them are still libertarian. Gary Johnson decided to take the other extreme route and want everyone in while planning to cut the budget. Despite the fact I ended up voting for him(mainly because I found out Goode was a racist), this idea is not practical.
 
Upvote 0

zoink

:-)
Apr 13, 2004
932
62
West of the rockies
✟1,969.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Single
I would argue that it is not libertarian to be in favour of open borders because it does not protect the liberty of "all" the citizens and people of your nation and al their rights and that controlled immigration is the only sensible option for any nation not least on the above mentioned grounds but also as a matter of national security.
What aspect of libertarian philosophy are you basing advocating physical force to prevent me from associating with individuals who are currently a certain distance away from me?

How do you propose to carry out physical force against these individuals? Do you advocate that enforcement will be conducted through donations and volunteers or do you believe there is some inherent claim on the fruit of my labor to fund these activities?

**********
I believe that it should be a very selective immigration process
What scriptures do you use to rationalize physical force to prevent the movement of individuals who happen to currently reside a certain distance from you?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Nilloc

Senior Veteran
Mar 6, 2007
4,155
886
✟28,888.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
What aspect of libertarian philosophy are you basing the advocating physical force to prevent me from associating with individuals who are currently a certain distance away from me?
I belive having immigration restrictions was/is the position of many Old Right libertarians (e.g. Robert Taft). I agree though that open borders is the consistent libertarian position.
 
Upvote 0

zoink

:-)
Apr 13, 2004
932
62
West of the rockies
✟1,969.00
Faith
Nazarene
Marital Status
Single
I belive having immigration restrictions was/is the position of many Old Right libertarians (e.g. Robert Taft). I agree though that open borders is the consistent libertarian position.
I'm aware of these things. From what I have seen emigration is an Achilles heel for the embarrassed republicans, racists, and xenophobes that have attached themselves to the libertarian moniker. We'll see though, maybe I've findally found a couple who can explain the libertarian philosophical basis for restricting non-aggressive freedoms of association.
 
Upvote 0

Mariposa36

Member
Jun 1, 2013
283
14
United States
✟15,509.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I agree with everyone else saying this "reform" is essentially amnesty.

Instead of amnesty, I'd rather see these undocumented citizens redirected to the legal path of obtaining citizenship or work visas.

I'd also like to see more companies bring factories to Mexico. A lot of these people aren't criminals like some of the extreme righties stereotype them to be, they just want work so they can support themselves and their family. Plus, I'd rather buy stuff made in Mexico than China.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kurama

Believe in Humanity
Mar 25, 2013
1,396
231
✟17,730.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
:D
I agree with everyone else saying this "reform" is essentially amnesty.

Instead of amnesty, I'd rather see these undocumented citizens redirected to the legal path of obtaining citizenship or work visas.

I'd also like to see more companies bring factories to Mexico. A lot of these people aren't criminals like some of the extreme righties stereotype them to be, they just want work so they can support themselves and their family. Plus, I'd rather buy stuff made in Mexico than China.

But Chinese product very good quality, la!

You buy, I sell you very cheep! You buy from China so sweatshop worker get rice, and government get more money to buy USA. We like your neo-conservative idea, we buy your war bonds and take more oil from Middle East because you kill dictator, la! :D
 
Upvote 0
Feb 2, 2013
3,492
111
✟19,178.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
Could someone educate me on the many branches of libertarianism, and how libertarinism is Scriptural?

From most leftist to most right-wing:

1. libertarian socialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
2. mutualism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)
3. agorism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism
4. anarcho-capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
5. minarchism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism
6. US Libertarian Party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Libertarian_Party#Recent_issue_stances
7. libertarian conservatism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism

..and the first four on that list all technically fall into the category of "voluntaryism": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism


Libertarianism is the only Scriptural political philosophy because God did not command us to turn our secular governments into monolithic theocratic states. This is what both the left and the right statist parties seek: theocracy. Leftist Christians want to enforce commandments to give to the poor, and right-wing Christians want to enforce commandments about homosexuality and other things. When a member of either group uses the Bible to justify their stances, I ask them if they want to ban lying too, because not lying is a commandment. Instead of looking at God's commandments for individuals and using that to form our governments, we need to look at Scripture that comments on governments and is related to how they operate.

Even in ancient Israel, before there was a king, the people self-regulated and followed God's commandments by their own choice, without needing a king. When they demanded a king, God said "They have rejected Me":

6 But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord. 7 The Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.
-1 Samuel 8:6-7

The act of asking for a king is mentioned later as "evil":

19 Then all the people said to Samuel, “Pray for your servants to the Lord your God, so that we may not die, for we have added to all our sins this evil by asking for ourselves a king.”
-1 Samuel 12:19

Asking for a king is evil, then, but look also at the immoral acts that governments commit. Namely, every government violates "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal". In waging war without needing God's commandment to do so, governments are killing. In taking money from people to fund those wars and any other government program, governments are stealing. When the Israelites demand a king, Samuel warns them that a king "takes":

10 So Samuel spoke all the words of the Lord to the people who had asked of him a king. 11 He said, “This will be the [d]procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots. 12 He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to [e]do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants. 15 He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants. 16 He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and [f]use them for his work. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants. 18 Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”


-1 Samuel 8:10-18


Notice that many of the sentences have "he will take" or "he will also take". Samuel knows that a king will steal much from the people, and he warns them of this after they demand a king.


Now, examining Scripture that is commonly used to support the existence of the state:


Romans 13:1–7


Many Christians use this verse to support the existence of the state. Now, it does demonstrate that no Christian should engage in the act of tax resistance. Tax resistance is a violation of "resist not evil" and "turn the other cheek" as it is. What this passage doesn't demonstrate is that Christians must support the existence of the state or the existence of the state in its current form; it only demonstrates that we Christians must submit to governments so long as they don't force us to violate God's commandments.


Church of the Brethren minister Vernard Eller explained this quote well, he said: "Be clear, any of those human [authorities] are where they are only because God is allowing them to be there. They exist only at his sufferance. And if God is willing to put up with...the Roman Empire, you ought to be willing to put up with it, too. There is no indication God has called you to clear it out of the way or get it converted for him. You can't fight an Empire without becoming like the Roman Empire; so you had better leave such matters in God's hands where they belong."


Christians who interpret Romans 13 as advocating support for governing authorities are left with the difficulty of how to act under tyrants or dictators. - Wikipedia


Another quote used to support Christian statism is Matthew 22:21
"They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."


This quote is actually a very libertarian quote. Yes, it commands Christians not to resist taxes, but Christian libertarians are not tax resistance advocates. Christian libertarians want the government to tax less or not at all, but they should not resist taxation. Other than that, this quote doesn't say that the Roman government is acting morally in taking from the people. In fact, that is not what this quote is about at all. Jacques Ellul explained this quote remarkably well:

"Render unto Caesar..." in no way divides the exercise of authority into two realms....They were said in response to another matter: the payment of taxes, and the coin. The mark on the coin is that of Caesar; it is the mark of his property. Therefore give Caesar this money; it is his. It is not a question of legitimizing taxes! It means that Caesar, having created money, is its master. That's all. Let us not forget that money, for Jesus, is the domain of Mammon, a satanic domain!"


In saying "give to Caesar what is Caesar's", Jesus is saying that the coinage is Caesar's, it is under his control. This quote is a rejection of the Roman fiat currency in saying we should give it back to its maker.

That is my explanation of why libertarianism is the Scriptural political philosophy, let me know what you think! :)

I myself am a voluntaryist at heart (although sometimes I take slightly more moderate stances when discussing libertarianism with statists), and choose not to identify as anything more specific than that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Cachook

Member
Jun 14, 2013
288
11
✟505.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
From most leftist to most right-wing:

1. libertarian socialism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
2. mutualism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)
3. agorism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism
4. anarcho-capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
5. minarchism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism
6. US Libertarian Party: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Libertarian_Party#Recent_issue_stances
7. libertarian conservatism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism

..and the first four on that list all technically fall into the category of "voluntaryism": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism


Libertarianism is the only Scriptural political philosophy because God did not command us to turn our secular governments into monolithic theocratic states. This government was not originally secular, but has now become so. This is what both the left and the right statist parties seek: theocracy, bein. Leftist Christians want to enforce commandments to give to the poor, and right-wing Christians want to enforce commandments about homosexuality and other things. When a member of either group uses the Bible to justify their stances, I ask them if they want to ban lying too, because not lying is a commandment. Instead of looking at God's commandments for individuals and using that to form our governments, we need to look at Scripture that comments on governments and is related to how they operate.

Even in ancient Israel, before there was a king, the people self-regulated and followed God's commandments by their own choice, without needing a king. When they demanded a king, God said "They have rejected Me":

6 But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the Lord. 7 The Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.
-1 Samuel 8:6-7

The act of asking for a king is mentioned later as "evil":

19 Then all the people said to Samuel, “Pray for your servants to the Lord your God, so that we may not die, for we have added to all our sins this evil by asking for ourselves a king.”
-1 Samuel 12:19

Asking for a king is evil, then, but look also at the immoral acts that governments commit. Namely, every government violates "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal". In waging war without needing God's commandment to do so, governments are killing. In taking money from people to fund those wars and any other government program, governments are stealing. When the Israelites demand a king, Samuel warns them that a king "takes":

10 So Samuel spoke all the words of the Lord to the people who had asked of him a king. 11 He said, “This will be the [d]procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots. 12 He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to [e]do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants. 15 He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants. 16 He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and [f]use them for his work. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants. 18 Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”


-1 Samuel 8:10-18


Notice that many of the sentences have "he will take" or "he will also take". Samuel knows that a king will steal much from the people, and he warns them of this after they demand a king.


Now, examining Scripture that is commonly used to support the existence of the state:


Romans 13:1–7


Many Christians use this verse to support the existence of the state. Now, it does demonstrate that no Christian should engage in the act of tax resistance. Tax resistance is a violation of "resist not evil" and "turn the other cheek" as it is. What this passage doesn't demonstrate is that Christians must support the existence of the state or the existence of the state in its current form; it only demonstrates that we Christians must submit to governments so long as they don't force us to violate God's commandments.


Church of the Brethren minister Vernard Eller explained this quote well, he said: "Be clear, any of those human [authorities] are where they are only because God is allowing them to be there. They exist only at his sufferance. And if God is willing to put up with...the Roman Empire, you ought to be willing to put up with it, too. There is no indication God has called you to clear it out of the way or get it converted for him. You can't fight an Empire without becoming like the Roman Empire; so you had better leave such matters in God's hands where they belong."


Christians who interpret Romans 13 as advocating support for governing authorities are left with the difficulty of how to act under tyrants or dictators. - Wikipedia


Another quote used to support Christian statism is Matthew 22:21
"They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."


This quote is actually a very libertarian quote. Yes, it commands Christians not to resist taxes, but Christian libertarians are not tax resistance advocates. Christian libertarians want the government to tax less or not at all, but they should not resist taxation. Other than that, this quote doesn't say that the Roman government is acting morally in taking from the people. In fact, that is not what this quote is about at all. Jacques Ellul explained this quote remarkably well:

"Render unto Caesar..." in no way divides the exercise of authority into two realms....They were said in response to another matter: the payment of taxes, and the coin. The mark on the coin is that of Caesar; it is the mark of his property. Therefore give Caesar this money; it is his. It is not a question of legitimizing taxes! It means that Caesar, having created money, is its master. That's all. Let us not forget that money, for Jesus, is the domain of Mammon, a satanic domain!"


In saying "give to Caesar what is Caesar's", Jesus is saying that the coinage is Caesar's, it is under his control. This quote is a rejection of the Roman fiat currency in saying we should give it back to its maker.

That is my explanation of why libertarianism is the Scriptural political philosophy, let me know what you think! :)

I myself am a voluntaryist at heart (although sometimes I take slightly more moderate stances when discussing libertarianism with statists), and choose not to identify as anything more specific than that.

Voluntaryism is a nice philosophy, but it seems idyllic and unrealistic. I spoke to a former friend who has had correspondence with the father of the doctrine; it was a very interesting debate. Another friend is a diehard voluntarism.

Being an independent, it all seems as if one can toss up whatever from the Bible they like so as to prop up their ideology. I trust no party, but the conservative branches of libertarian politic look to be promising.

The original basis for my leanings were that there is not a political party found in he Bible, and not a party today which follows true with Christianity, and there were no parties intended by our founders, Washington most notably.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.