In response to:

Libertarians' Awkward Bedfellows

Jenny45 Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 1:09 PM
Our founders told us that freedom requires a moral, religious people, and homosexuality and drug abuse are immoral. We see that as we have rejected God, we are losing our liberties. I think that's the difference between conservatism and libertarianism. Am I politically incorrect?
Kevin 354 Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 1:58 PM
No, we have not rejected God. You have rejected Federalism and the duty God puts on you to care for your people before you are taxed, and ingnored God's warning not to petition the government to care for your people with revenues derived from taxes. You don't trust God, or the limits of the Constitution. But demand the corrupt power availed by the 16th Amendment. We want none of that.
Fuzzy2 Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 1:19 PM
Whether immoral or not, do yo believe the federal government is charged with the authority to keep us all moral, or to do those things the Constitution authorizes only?

Fuzzy2 Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 1:30 PM
It seems to me that wanting the feds to lead us in all things is the same mistake the Israelites who had God living in their midst still wanted to have a king. God was not happy with that.
OldMexicanblog Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 1:19 PM
Re: Jenny45,
-- Our founders told us that freedom requires a moral, religious people, --

Which founders said such a thing? Besides that, you have it exactly backwards: You need FREEDOM in order to have a moral, religious people or however people choose to live. You can't be a moral person if you have GOVERNMENT choosing the path for you. That only means you're either an uncontrollable barbarian that needs constant guidance, or that you're a moral coward, affraid of making the moral choice. So which one is it?
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 1:23 PM
Noah Webster, author of the first American Speller and the first Dictionary said, "[T]he Christian religion, in its purity, is the basis, or rather the source of all genuine freedom in government. . . . and I am persuaded that no civil government of a republican form can exist and be durable in which the principles of that religion have not a controlling influence."

Gouverneur Morris, Penman and Signer of the Constitution. "[F]or avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy . . . the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people. I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free government
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 1:23 PM
Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence "[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

"Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness . . . it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof." Continental Congress, 1778
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 1:17 PM
You can't legislate Morality. You can try but it will fail. A puritan, or an Amish person today would find you totally Immoral. Would you like THEM dictating our MORAL laws?

You are wrong because you can accept God and follow his laws as YOU believe in him. But it is NOT freedom if you FORCE other people to follow YOUR God and his rules. Forcing others to follow YOUR morals is the OPPOSITE of Liberty.
Marie150 Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 1:25 PM
You cannot advocate for lawlessness and liberty in the same sentence. It is idiotic. Everyone cannot do what is good in there own eyes. It is not logical. It can not work.
kozzzer Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 1:15 PM
Who determines what is moral? Many people consider alcohol immoral, and that harms many people in this country. Should it be banned?
Marie150 Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 1:23 PM
Having some alcohol is not immoral for most people. Having any is immoral for some. I don't see that you understand the issue at all.

Tolerating bad behavior to the point where our nation is forced to give up its liberty is not a good idea.

OldMexicanblog Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 1:28 PM
Re: Marie150,
-- "Who determines what is moral? " God --

And, of course, Man being just as Good as God, then Law of Man can determine what God intends.

I don't know how religious you are, Marie, but you're certainly a very lousy theologian.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 1:33 PM
He got it right and you just ignored it Marie, you wrote: "Having some alcohol is not immoral for most people. Having any is immoral for some"

So whose Morals do you choose? You say God Dictates? Well Jews believe in OT God so for the religious Jew Eating Bacon and shrimp is Immoral. What you really mean is you want GOD to decide as interpreted by YOU and YOUR bible.

But that in itself is unconstitutional.
djgarbis Wrote: Feb 27, 2013 1:55 PM
That's the trouble with arguments such as "what is moral, or who determines what is moral"; morality is really any locally accepted custom. That's why one person's moral behavior is not another's (the alcohol dilemma).

Last week, Conservative pundit Ann Coulter told me and a thousand young libertarians that we libertarians are puss- -- well, she used slang for a female body part.

We were in Washington, D.C., at the Students for Liberty conference, taping my TV show, and she didn't like my questions about her opposition to gay marriage and drug legalization.

"We're living in a country that is 70 percent socialist," she says. "The government takes 60 percent of your money. They take care of your health care, your pensions ... who you can hire ... and you (libertarians) want to suck up to...