1 - 8
In response to:

The Trees

5214 Wrote: Feb 24, 2014 8:05 PM
Yup. Rush was my inspiration and Anthem was the first libertarian book I read. It inspired me to get my philosophy degree. I've been writing songs with similar ideas for 8 years at PatriotMusic.com. Here's just one: "They Can't Take That Away From You": http://www.reverbnation.com/mattfitzgibbons/song/8622446-they-cant-take-that-away-from-you
Mr. Baisley. The Whigs, Republicans, Democrats, and (almost) all other American parties are Federalists. Classic Liberals or Libertarians are Anti-Federalists. The Anti-Federalists (through all their incarnations) have consistently supported the Bill of Rights, the ideas of self-rule and individualism and States' rights, while the Federalists seek collectivism. Both the Democrats and Republicans today are Federalists. You conveniently do not mention the Radical Republicans' (as history refers to them) unconstitutional passing of the 14th Amendment. Today, the Republican position on abortion is simply more Federalism; superimposition of moral views on a Federal level where no Constitutionally enumerated power exists. -Matt PatriotMusic.com
What other Civil Rights would you suggest be restricted without conviction of an actual crime because of someone's views? And what views? Who's going to determine them? Should the right to trial by jury be removed for those who deny global warming? For some, that's an "alarming view". Why not just deny guns to anyone who believes in God or is against abortion or gay marriage? And why stop at the Bill of Rights? Why not repeal the right of women who express anti-incumbant views to be denied their 19th Amendment right to vote? What about individual rights Mr. Sullum? Are you serious? Frankly, I find your views alarming. Maybe YOU shouldn't be surprised if you try to buy a firearm to defend yourself and get turned away. PatriotMusic
Agreed. Mr. Hawkins sometimes confuses Social Conservativism with our Founding Principles. I refer to the latter as "States' Rights Libertarianism". Mr. Hawkins' philosophy is one which would force his values on the rest of us on a Federal level despite a lack of Constitutionally enumerated powers. 90% of the article is on-target, but the errors set dangerous precedents and are exactly what caused the mess we're in. PatriotMusic.com
Though I agree with you, it up to the States to define it, not the Federal Government for which no enumerated power exists to do so. States define drivers ages and other things differently. Marriage is the same. It is clearly a State's right if it isn't an enumerated power. Regarding abortion, again, no enumerated Federal power exists. If you want to amend the Constitution to define life and criminalize abortion, say after the first trimester, many Constitutionalists would support it, but doing it any other way is a slippery slope to Federalism (which is what got us into this mess). Respectfully. PatriotMusic.com
If those who identify with the Tea Party support an Originalist view of the Constitution (as I do), then Mr. Hawkins is confusing social conservatism with Constitutionalism and he is mistaken about #s 18 - 20. #18 & #19 (Gay Marriage and Abortion) Both are a State's rights issues under the Tenth Amendment. It is up to each State to choose whether it allows either. And no other State would be forced to acknowledge any private union made under the unique laws of another State. #20 The Pledge of Allegiance is an oath to the Union, not to the Founding Principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which the Union exists to protect. Preserving liberty is more important than Nationalist mantras.
1 - 8