No worries mate

[Bottomfeeder 244]

But, I will continue to post in the Football and All Things Considered forums. Occassionally I may post something here that may interest the libertarian reader. Otherwise, I'll try not to wear out my welcome.

-isms:

I must state that I have no affiliation with any Nazi organizations, nor am I a bigot. Far from it. I just take the scripture for what it says, and that's what it says. Most everyone here has probably read the post, so my position is known. I'll continue to stand on that position.

Illegal Immigration:

I don't like illegal immigration anymore than the next guy. But, if you look at the problem, it has to do with displaced indigenous peoples (farmers) from Mexico. Companies, after NAFTA, bought up lands in Mexico and farm them for a profit. The people who once farmed those lands became displaced and now have no land, no food and no hope. So what would you do if a foreign corporations like say, Archer Daniel Midland and Cargill did this to you? We're talking 15 million people. These people aren't hunter-gathers, they are like us, they cultivate the land and survive on the harvest. You gotta eat.

.

Down on the Farm: NAFTA's Seven-Years War on Farmers and Ranchers in the U.S., Canada and Mexico

http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=6788

Under NAFTA, the Mexican government hoped to attract foreign industrial investment and to expand its exports of fruits and vegetables to the U.S. and Canada, while moving farmers away from grain farming, which, in line with the classical economic theories of David Ricardo, Mexico “should not” be doing because the geography and climate of the U.S. and south-central Canada are better suited to this than Mexico’s.

This all went awry the first day that NAFTA came into force: Jan. 1, 1994, when Native American peasants in Chiapas rose in armed rebellion, claiming that NAFTA would destroy their communities. The PRI’s presidential candidate, Luis Donaldo Colosio, was assassinated in February (an event unconnected with the Chiapas rebellion). This set off a chain of events involving devaluation, disinvestment and capital flight, which nearly collapsed the Mexican fiscal house of cards.

To rescue U.S. investors, the Clinton administration organized a $50 billion loan with conditions that led then-President Zedillo to greatly speed up the pace of implementing neoliberal policies.

The results have been devastating. The government agency that used to buy 20 percent of the Mexican maize crop at a subsidized price to sell cheaply to the poor was dismantled. Neither the export-oriented crop farming nor foreign-owned factories were able to absorb the displaced grain farmers. Mexican real wages dropped drastically to less than half their 1994 value, and many businesses went broke.

As a result, economically displaced Mexicans have poured into the “informal” economy and over the border to the U.S.

http://www.pww.org/article/articleview/10543/1/148/

My new signature is an Iraqi girl sitting beside her dead parent.

Here is another one of Major Michael Beiger cradling a dying little Iraqi girl.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/media/ima...chives/0059.jpg

This kind of a shot rips out my heart.

I bet you won't find O'Reilly reporting this kind of stuff. You don't need a tin-foil hat for this. This is real life and death for a people who are defenseless against our "Weapons of indiscriminate effect" (i.e. Daisy-Cutters, etc.). Not to mention the civil war that has ensued. The deaths will continue looong after we are gone. Cancer rates will continue to skyrocket. And the crude profit-sharing will not cover our expenses past, present or future as the Bush admin. proposed before the war. Now I'm going to hold Bush to that one.

http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/u23.htm

Weapons of mass destruction cause sudden death or destruction in target areas, some with long term or widespread effects. Weapons of indiscriminate effect cause widespread or long lasting contamination liable to cause injury, chronic illness, slow death or severe birth defects. Both are outlawed in the 1st Protocol of the Geneva Conventions.

Notes

US Patent 6389977 (Shrouded Aerial Bomb) clearly identifies Depleted

Uranium as an intended design option for the hard target guided bombs

most widely used in Afghanistan - upgraded versions of the 2,000 lb

BLU-109/B hard target warhead with the AUP-116 advanced penetrator.

These include versions of the GBU-15, 24 and 31 and the AGM-130C.

Patent 6389977 verifies Conclusion 1 in Depleted Uranium weapons

2001-2002 (page 129)* that some Advanced Penetrator warheads are

designed to use Uranium as the main warhead casing or ballast.

http://www.eoslifework.co.uk/pdfs/USpats.pdf

National Debt:

My issue is we can no longer afford to give money away to other countries when we have veterans coming back from Iraq who are homeless. The same thing happened after Nam. The national DEBT will never be paid off. Our income taxes, which you guys are always complaining about and one of the reasons most of you vote Republican, go to pay just the interest on the national debt (I understand, I hate income taxes too). My question is how long can we simply be a credit card nation for the world? And, how much longer will we be able to export inflation?

So, how do you guys suggest we pay for this little adventure? I know, it really doesn't matter, right?

Thanks for understanding and fell free to educate me on these issues.

Respectfully,

BF

[TexasTiger 13,006]

That would be "no worries."

[AFTiger 282]

Do you have a picture of a dead Israeli student killed by an indiscriminating suicide bomb set off by an discriminate Palistinian sucide bomber sent in by a cowardly Palistinian leader? Or do you just limit yourself to the narrow wacko youtube truther society from which you post so often.

BF, as far as I am concerned, you can post anywhere you damn well please and I will not post chocolate fuge recipes in response because TitanTiger and TigerAl said I couldn't.

You live in a tormented world with simple unrealistic solutions. Your posts are a waste of bandwidth and add nothing of value to the discussion in this forum.

I have long suspected but you have now convinced me that Libertarianism is where the wacky left and the wacky right merge.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Do you have a picture of a dead Israeli student killed by an indiscriminating suicide bomb set off by an discriminate Palistinian sucide bomber sent in by a cowardly Palistinian leader? Or do you just limit yourself to the narrow wacko youtube truther society from which you post so often.

BF, as far as I am concerned, you can post anywhere you damn well please and I will not post chocolate fuge recipes in response because TitanTiger and TigerAl said I couldn't.

You live in a tormented world with simple unrealistic solutions. Your posts are a waste of bandwidth and add nothing of value to the discussion in this forum.

I have long suspected but you have now convinced me that Libertarianism is where the wacky left and the wacky right merge.

You're free to post that photo. Why does everyone you disagree with have to be "fair and balanced" to your satisfaction? You think you routinely post both sides of anything?

[AURaptor 1,126]

www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com

They call them 'kitlers' , fyi.

Something of a go away gift for ya, BF.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

BF, do not post photos of dead people and blood spatter, especially in your sig. People who don't bother with the Politics forum don't need to see that and some of us have kids that don't need to stumble upon that stuff either.

You've been warned about your tendency to post graphic photos before. That one wasn't as bad as past examples, but is still over the line for a signature. If you wish to post a link to it with a warning as to what it is, that's fine. But don't take that as carte blanche to link to any photo you want. If people want to view photos anymore graphic than that sig pic, they can avail themselves of Google.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Okay, I have another question:

You're trimming the lawn, and you see two neighbors fighting.

Do try to break up the fight?

Do you do nothing?

Or, do you choose a side and hand the that person a weapon?

I personally would try to break up the fight before someone gets hurt.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Libertarianism is where the wacky left and the wacky right merge.

No, that would be the neocons. Libertarians believe in a nonintrusive small Fedreal Government. Whereas, neocons believe in conquering the world by force and police action, regardless of the cost to the American taxpayer. And, any dissent is label as unpatriotic. They also believe in a mammoth Federal Government that uses fear to align the public with their policies. Brezenski explain this in his book, and also noted that if the US wanted to remain the only suerpower, they would have to control the remaining oil reserves. This explains the policy of pre-emption. Well, it didn't work. Now we have a mess on our hands with a hornet's nest in Iraq.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

That would be "no worries."

That's one of things I have in common with Bush, dyslexia. Thinking one thing and writing another. The other is our marriage vows anniversary. We didn't have a wedding. I just can't see spending that kind of money, plus we didn't have it.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

One of my favorite writers, Mark Shea, has a nice summary of libertarian vs traditional conservatives (not the type in power now):

The founders, even the deists, retained enough of their Christian heritage to know that the notion of the "perfectibility of man" was rubbish. They designed a state built on the knowledge that since man is fallen, he will always tend to do evil if you give him too much power. So they set the branches of government at cross purposes.

The libertarian tends to remember that government is a menace due to the fall. He does not tend to remember that he is a menace due to the fall. He wants freedom from government so that he can do whatever the hell he wants. And frequently, he wants hell. The Traditionalist (and by this, I have in view the Christian tradition since it is, like, the basis of Western civilization) wants freedom in order to attempt, with God's help, virtue.

The fact that this is regarded as "theocratic Christianist fascism" by libertarian cons like Sullivan tells you pretty much all you need to know about the ultimate compatibility of these two visions of conservatism. How it will all play out in the long run I don't know. At present, the Morphed Conservatives are running the show. And their spectacular failures mean that the will soon *not* be running the show as our emotionally incontinent culture throws the rascals out and votes in an even more catastrophic liberal regime that will promptly build on the disastrous legacy of Leviathan the Bush administration has done so much to build. Sin makes you stupid and our increasing post-Christian culture appears to be ready to explore new regions of folly.

[townhallsavoy 2]

Okay, I have another question:

You're trimming the lawn, and you see two neighbors fighting.

Do try to break up the fight?

Do you do nothing?

Or, do you choose a side and hand the that person a weapon?

I personally would try to break up the fight before someone gets hurt.

If one of the neighbors is my friend and the other is someone who I don't care for, I probably help out my friend. No matter what the reason is. Loyalty, bub.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Anyone else here not a fan of long good-byes, or is it just me ?

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Anyone else here not a fan of long good-byes, or is it just me ?

I hope he stays and tortures you guys who are otherwise so fond of torture. If he bothers you, use the ignore feature. I use it on you when you're getting on my last nerve.

[otterinbham 0]

"The founders, even the deists, retained enough of their Christian heritage to know that the notion of the "perfectibility of man" was rubbish. They designed a state built on the knowledge that since man is fallen, he will always tend to do evil if you give him too much power. So they set the branches of government at cross purposes.

The libertarian tends to remember that government is a menace due to the fall. He does not tend to remember that he is a menace due to the fall. He wants freedom from government so that he can do whatever the hell he wants. And frequently, he wants hell. The Traditionalist (and by this, I have in view the Christian tradition since it is, like, the basis of Western civilization) wants freedom in order to attempt, with God's help, virtue.

The fact that this is regarded as "theocratic Christianist fascism" by libertarian cons like Sullivan tells you pretty much all you need to know about the ultimate compatibility of these two visions of conservatism. How it will all play out in the long run I don't know. At present, the Morphed Conservatives are running the show. And their spectacular failures mean that the will soon *not* be running the show as our emotionally incontinent culture throws the rascals out and votes in an even more catastrophic liberal regime that will promptly build on the disastrous legacy of Leviathan the Bush administration has done so much to build. Sin makes you stupid and our increasing post-Christian culture appears to be ready to explore new regions of folly."

I'm not sure who you're quoting here, but it's one of the most asinine things I've ever read. There was profound suspicion among the Founding Fathers not just of a strong central government, but government in general. It was acknowledged as no more than a necessary evil. If you read how much power was divested to the states even after the Constitutional Convention, you realize how off base this writer was.

Further, the writer makes an incredible stretch to say that Christianity is the basis of modern American culture, and I say this as a devout member of the faith. The principles of American democracy are Greco-Roman in nature, refined by political philosophers such as Locke and Rousseau. The rational basis that underpins the state today comes from philosophers such as Erasmus and Bacon, men that the churches of the time did their level best to suppress.

And while many came to this shore to exercise religious liberty, they quickly used that liberty to suppress other religious denomination. Witness the Puritan treatment of Roger Williams and Baptists or the fact that Catholics were not allowed in many portions of the country. As a result, many of the tenets linking Christianity and government were held in suspicion by the country's founders, which led to the inclusion of Freedom of Religion into the Bill of Rights. As it stands Jefferson, the architect of the Bill of Rights, Jefferson produced his own version of the Bible excising the verses that he deemed unlikely to have actually happened. Can you imagine a president today being elected with that on his resume? And since, of the founding fathers, only George Washington was a churched Christian (the rest being deists), it's difficult to assume that they were building a Republic based on traditional Christian values.

Further, I would offer that whenever the Republic has flirted with imposing faith-based proscriptions on behavior, it has been a disaster. Remember Prohibition? I would offer that the War on Drugs has been a similar disaster, leading to the erosion of civil liberties and public expenditures that has proved more costly than drug use itself. Heck, Alabama has a law on the books banning the sale of sex toys in the state (Please explain how that is anybody's business). And most of all, within the realm of Christianity, which denomination gets to call the shots? The writer you quote seems to believe that it is the business of government to make sure I adhere to Christian principles or "virtue", an idea I find profoundly ominous to say the least. I like to think I live a reasonably virtuous life. The last thing I need is a government agency to define what it should be.

Libertarianism instead posits a simple theorum: Less government is the best government. It doesn't mean that industry gets to belch pollutants into rivers. It doesn't mean that the kids go uneducated or that the shores go undefended. What it does assume is that government is usually a deterrent to individual human happiness and prosperity--not a vehicle for it. It is a principle that the Democratic party abandoned in 1933 and the Republican seems to be abandoning at the moment.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I'm not sure who you're quoting here, but it's one of the most asinine things I've ever read. There was profound suspicion among the Founding Fathers not just of a strong central government, but government in general. It was acknowledged as no more than a necessary evil. If you read how much power was divested to the states even after the Constitutional Convention, you realize how off base this writer was.

Isn't this exactly what I (he) said? They didn't trust in the inherent goodness of human beings, especially human beings vested with a lot of power (government). So they devised a government with branches that kept one another in check. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with here. This is a very Christian understanding of the world.

Further, the writer makes an incredible stretch to say that Christianity is the basis of modern American culture, and I say this as a devout member of the faith. The principles of American democracy are Greco-Roman in nature, refined by political philosophers such as Locke and Rousseau. The rational basis that underpins the state today comes from philosophers such as Erasmus and Bacon, men that the churches of the time did their level best to suppress.

It has all of these factors mixed with a Judeo-Christian understanding. No one said it was in pure form, but Locke, Rousseau, Bacon and others didn't form their ideas in a vacuum.

And while many came to this shore to exercise religious liberty, they quickly used that liberty to suppress other religious denomination. Witness the Puritan treatment of Roger Williams and Baptists or the fact that Catholics were not allowed in many portions of the country. As a result, many of the tenets linking Christianity and government were held in suspicion by the country's founders, which led to the inclusion of Freedom of Religion into the Bill of Rights. As it stands Jefferson, the architect of the Bill of Rights, Jefferson produced his own version of the Bible excising the verses that he deemed unlikely to have actually happened. Can you imagine a president today being elected with that on his resume? And since, of the founding fathers, only George Washington was a churched Christian (the rest being deists), it's difficult to assume that they were building a Republic based on traditional Christian values.

Again, no one said they were seeking to build a pure theocracy or even a pure Christian democracy. But to act like the Founding Fathers were deriving their worldviews and ideas from some parallel train of thought unaffected by centuries of Christian thought is just crazy. Like it or not, the basic principles are very Christian in nature.

Further, I would offer that whenever the Republic has flirted with imposing faith-based proscriptions on behavior, it has been a disaster. Remember Prohibition? I would offer that the War on Drugs has been a similar disaster, leading to the erosion of civil liberties and public expenditures that has proved more costly than drug use itself. Heck, Alabama has a law on the books banning the sale of sex toys in the state (Please explain how that is anybody's business). And most of all, within the realm of Christianity, which denomination gets to call the shots? The writer you quote seems to believe that it is the business of government to make sure I adhere to Christian principles or "virtue", an idea I find profoundly ominous to say the least. I like to think I live a reasonably virtuous life. The last thing I need is a government agency to define what it should be.

You're reading an awful lot into that statement. His simple point was that, from a Christian perspective, libertarianism has it's own set of problems from not grasping the fallen nature of man.

And I can assure you from other writings of his, he's by no means advocating a theocracy, Christian Reconstructionism or the current administration's track record.

[otterinbham 0]

I take deep exception the writer's contention that Christianity is the basis of Western Civilization. This is absolute nonsense. Greek and Roman ideas on government and commerce are the foundation of Western civilization. After the Roman empire collapsed, the Christian church attempted to run things for a millenium and failed badly. It says a lot that, in 1450, the best roads remained the Roman ones, even after 1000 years of disrepair.

In fact, Western Civilization did not begin to revive until two developments occured in the same year: The wholesale movement of Classical Greek and Roman texts from Constantinople to Italy and the invention of the printing press. The resulting Renaissance was a blooming of thought that was absolutely at odds with Christian orthodoxy of the time. Christianity was the upholder of feudalism and the notion of divine right, not the belief in individualism.

Furthermore, the political philosophers of the late 1600s and 1700s, the ones who influenced the Founding Fathers, were products of the Enlightenment, a time of harsh religious criticism. In as much as they were products of their time, they continued to hold religious beliefs, but they were profoundly suspicious of the church.

So to make the blanket statement that the function of government is to create Virtue is silly to the extreme.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

One of my favorite writers, Mark Shea, has a nice summary of libertarian vs traditional conservatives (not the type in power now):

The founders, even the deists, retained enough of their Christian heritage to know that the notion of the "perfectibility of man" was rubbish. They designed a state built on the knowledge that since man is fallen, he will always tend to do evil if you give him too much power. So they set the branches of government at cross purposes.

The libertarian tends to remember that government is a menace due to the fall. He does not tend to remember that he is a menace due to the fall. He wants freedom from government so that he can do whatever the hell he wants. And frequently, he wants hell. The Traditionalist (and by this, I have in view the Christian tradition since it is, like, the basis of Western civilization) wants freedom in order to attempt, with God's help, virtue.

The fact that this is regarded as "theocratic Christianist fascism" by libertarian cons like Sullivan tells you pretty much all you need to know about the ultimate compatibility of these two visions of conservatism. How it will all play out in the long run I don't know. At present, the Morphed Conservatives are running the show. And their spectacular failures mean that the will soon *not* be running the show as our emotionally incontinent culture throws the rascals out and votes in an even more catastrophic liberal regime that will promptly build on the disastrous legacy of Leviathan the Bush administration has done so much to build. Sin makes you stupid and our increasing post-Christian culture appears to be ready to explore new regions of folly.

Are you say libertarians are going to hell? Well, all of us will go to hell when we die. You see "hell" is the belly of the earth. Now, "hades" or the "lake of fire", those two descirbe the final place for satan and his demons.

Does "the dead in Christ shall rise" ring a bell?

[TitanTiger 20,510]

I take deep exception the writer's contention that Christianity is the basis of Western Civilization. This is absolute nonsense. Greek and Roman ideas on government and commerce are the foundation of Western civilization. After the Roman empire collapsed, the Christian church attempted to run things for a millenium and failed badly. It says a lot that, in 1450, the best roads remained the Roman ones, even after 1000 years of disrepair.

In fact, Western Civilization did not begin to revive until two developments occured in the same year: The wholesale movement of Classical Greek and Roman texts from Constantinople to Italy and the invention of the printing press. The resulting Renaissance was a blooming of thought that was absolutely at odds with Christian orthodoxy of the time. Christianity was the upholder of feudalism and the notion of divine right, not the belief in individualism.

Furthermore, the political philosophers of the late 1600s and 1700s, the ones who influenced the Founding Fathers, were products of the Enlightenment, a time of harsh religious criticism. In as much as they were products of their time, they continued to hold religious beliefs, but they were profoundly suspicious of the church.

So to make the blanket statement that the function of government is to create Virtue is silly to the extreme.

There is a difference between Judeo-Christian truth and the people who have attempted to put it into practice. The truth remains true no matter how bad we may screw it up. For instance, where does the notion that "All men are created equal" (Declaration of Independence) come from? On a purely empirical basis, such a statement is utter nonsense. Some people are strong, some are weak, some are smart and some not so much. Some fast, some slow. Some lazy, some diligent. Some were great babies who barely gave their parents a second of trouble and others were almost holy terrors from the second they drew breath. Some are pretty, others homely. Some healthy as a horse, some sick from the day they were born. Even one of the great Greek thinkers of his time (and all time), Aristotle came to such a conclusion based on the cold hard facts and said some people were "natural slaves."

So where do we get this deep conviction that all are created equal? Not from empirical evidence but from a purely mystical doctrine found in the Judeo-Christian tradition and expressed in numerous ways: God is no respecter of persons. Man and woman--not just white men, not just white men and women, not just Jews, not just Christians, not just Americans--but man and woman are made in the image and likeness of God. It's on this basis and this basis only that we based our belief.

True, the inheritors of the Judeo-Christian tradition (such as the slave owner Thomas Jefferson) have often failed to fully grasp or obey its ultimate import. But this is hardly a reason to reject the Tradition itself and replace it with an ideology of empiricism that is even more blind to the mystical truth of human equality than the people who failed to be true to Christian teaching. A Christian society that kept slaves had within it the seeds of doctrine capable of destroying slavery. An empirical and rationalist society has within it only the seeds for re-instituting slavery since it cannot say anything at all about the existence of odorless, colorless, non-empirically observed rights. To the rationalist and empiricist, the existence of God-given rights is as nonsensical as the existence of God-given guardian angels. If the strong can dominate the weak, why shouldn't they? It's nature's way, isn't it? Only the Judeo-Christian tradition has a reply to this.

My point in saying all that is, just because Christians in power failed to live up to the truth and worldview delivered to them and just because Deists and Enlightenment thinkers went off on some profoundly unbiblical tangents or an atheist can proclaim to believe in equality and human rights doesn't mean that they don't owe that belief to the fact that they weren't born into a vacuum with no history or no interaction of God in the earth they walk. It's in this sense that I (and the author above) are invoking the notion of Judeo-Christian truth as a basis of Western Civilization.

this post is a mixture of my own thoughts and heavily borrowed from other writings of Mr. Shea since I thought it would make sense to let his writings address some of the rejections to what I posted earlier from him.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Are you say libertarians are going to hell? Well, all of us will go to hell when we die. You see "hell" is the belly of the earth. Now, "hades" or the "lake of fire", those two descirbe the final place for satan and his demons.

Does "the dead in Christ shall rise" ring a bell?

Do you even speak the same language as the rest of us?

[Bottomfeeder 244]

Are you say libertarians are going to hell? Well, all of us will go to hell when we die. You see "hell" is the belly of the earth. Now, "hades" or the "lake of fire", those two descirbe the final place for satan and his demons.

Does "the dead in Christ shall rise" ring a bell?

Do you even speak the same language as the rest of us?

Yes, I do. I just prefer to use the Strong's Concordance to understand the words used in the scripture.

It's like the word "grace". For years we were preached to that grace meant "unmerited favor". But according to the Greek translation, 99% of the time in the New Testament, it means...the divine influence of the Spirit upon the heart, and the change it makes in that life." Sure it means unmerited favor, but they left the best part. His changing us to be more like Him, and not anything we can do ourselves. You know, unlike those people who still think good works will get them into heaven.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Reread the original post, then ponder for a while how you managed to completely miss the point if you speak the same language.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

And frequently, he wants hell.

The phrase I was referring to. The Christian right wants control of the Federal Government so bad that they would attempt to slander the Libertarian.

It is not that Libertarians necessarily want a free for all, rather they want the US Constitution to be the rule of law. Government funded programs such as the "War on Drugs" have fail to meet their objectives. The Libertarian approach:

The Libertarian Party does not advocate the use of drugs. But recognizing that people should have the right to make their own decisions and that the War on Drugs is ineffective, expensive, and has led us closer to a police state, the party calls for the legalization of drugs for personal use. Also, we support holding people who commit crimes or cause accidents while under the influence of any drug (including alcohol) fully liable for their actions. The party also supports the repeal of all laws and regulations which impede the establishment of private drug treatment programs.

http://www.lp.org/lpn/9807-drugs.html

Then the states could pass and enforce their owns laws dealing with drug enforcement. This would release needed funds for the states to use as they so desire.

Waste in federal spending is at an all time high, and I'm fed up with it. I'm fed up with the two party system, because I can't tell the difference between them. I'm telling you people, Ron Paul is we want in the Whtie House to straighten out this mess.

Remember "State's Rights?" Well, here's your chance. It may be our last chance.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

And frequently, he wants hell.

The phrase I was referring to. The Christian right wants control of the Federal Government so bad that they would attempt to slander the Libertarian.

Ever reading, never comprehending. He isn't slandering anyone. Of course libertarians wouldn't say they are seeking hell and he's not saying they are knowingly doing so. He's saying that the end result of the things they want in their elevation of the individual will be hell.

Second, you're doing the same thing you accuse him of when you label him with the thinly-veiled pejorative term "Christian right" and use words like "control." And he's not so easily pegged. I found this tidbit from another essay he wrote describing his place on the political spectrum:

Some people play hardball politics. I play oddball politics. I can't help it. I'm Catholic.

Am I conservative or liberal? I am ardently prolife. I oppose artificial contraception. I believe in private property. I think parents have the principle responsibility for the education of their children. I am suspicious of Big Government. I reject the idea of ordaining women. I think the Church's teachings--all of them and not just the bits I like--are the teaching of Jesus Christ. I abhor the banishment of serious religious belief from the public square and the usurpation of democracy by the judiciary. I think we are in a major culture war and that the forces of darkness have overwhelming control of the manufacturing machinery of culture in their possession of the television, movie, and music industries. So I must be a Neanderthal right-winger, right?

I'm not so sure. What sort of conservative am I to reject the death penalty? Why am I just as suspicious of Big Business as of Big Government? Why do I not think that my (guarded) support for the second amendment necessarily means that anybody needs an assault rifle or that the Constitution is about the right to keep and bear field artillery? Why am I as skeptical of Rush Limbaugh's optimism about individualism as I am of Ralph Nader's pessimism about corporations and yer garden variety liberal's messianic view of the State? What am I anyway?

I suppose, I repeat, that I'm a Catholic more than an ideologue. It seems to me that Catholic faith never fits well into political molds and that terms like "conservative" and "liberal" therefore don't work very well.

Here's my theory of why: American culture tends to be divided between those who place the individual (including that legal fiction of an individual called the corporation) at the center of human society versus those who place the State there. For those on the Left, the tendency is to always look to the State as the Answer. For those on the Right, the tendency is to look to the individual (or to the corporation).

But both ends of the spectrum are blind to two things. First, they don't see that, in reality, neither the individual nor the corporation nor the State are the center of society. Rather, as the Church teaches again and again, the family is. For we are made in the image of God and God, being a Trinity, is a kind of family himself. So the human person can only be understood as being in relationship to a family (even if he is single or a monk in the desert).

Secondly, neither liberal or conservative ideologies see another important fact: original sin. Both sides are, of course, quite ready to see the other as the locus of evil in the universe. But neither side is very ready to see that statism, corporatism, and individualism are all, in their own ways, mortal enemies of the family. Worship of state opposes the family by taking from its resources and its dignity, worship of the corporation opposes the family by appealing to all our materialistic impulses despite the good of the family, and individualism opposes the family by pitting "me, my truth, my needs, my pleasures" against the love that binds the family together.

And so, I foolishly remain Catholic in a world swept by the gusts of received political wisdom and cling to the old, unpopular, thoroughly Catholic vision of the family at the center of my social and political thought. Insofar as an ideology helps the family and helps it be the domestic church, I'm for it. Insofar as it attacks the family, I'm agin' it. Ideologues tend to think this is hopelessly utopian and impractical social theory in the dot.com era. But I still think the folly of God is wiser than the wisdom of men.

It is not that Libertarians necessarily want a free for all, rather they want the US Constitution to be the rule of law. Government funded programs such as the "War on Drugs" have fail to meet their objectives. The Libertarian approach:

The Libertarian Party does not advocate the use of drugs. But recognizing that people should have the right to make their own decisions and that the War on Drugs is ineffective, expensive, and has led us closer to a police state, the party calls for the legalization of drugs for personal use. Also, we support holding people who commit crimes or cause accidents while under the influence of any drug (including alcohol) fully liable for their actions. The party also supports the repeal of all laws and regulations which impede the establishment of private drug treatment programs.

http://www.lp.org/lpn/9807-drugs.html

Then the states could pass and enforce their owns laws dealing with drug enforcement. This would release needed funds for the states to use as they so desire.

All you've done is shift the problem down a level. And while it may be more effective, it doesn't do what your quote above (legalization for personal use) advocates. If the state makes laws against illegal drugs and local law enforcement arrests you instead of the ATF or the DEA, you're still in prison.

Waste in federal spending is at an all time high, and I'm fed up with it. I'm fed up with the two party system, because I can't tell the difference between them. I'm telling you people, Ron Paul is we want in the Whtie House to straighten out this mess.

Remember "State's Rights?" Well, here's your chance. It may be our last chance.

I too am sick of the wasteful spending. But I can't in good conscience support the libertarian viewpoint anymore than I can support the Democrats.

[Bottomfeeder 244]

They won't arrest me, I don't use or condone the use of drugs. I'm sorry I didn't perceive his message as you did.

[jw 4 au 526]

They won't arrest me, I don't use or condone the use of drugs. I'm sorry I didn't perceive his message as you did.

How about this instead... They legalize drugs, and before the State can get control of it themselves with examples of harsh punishment, a legally messed up meth-head not thinking clearly illegally kills you and your wife, or worse yet one of your kids? Terrible idea to legalize drugs and make them more available than they already are!!! Drugs do not make these people think clearly, and laws won't make it any different. My sister-in-law was killed by a drunk driver at Toomers Corner several years back, he fled the scene of the accident, was later apprehended and convicted on all counts. He was given 15 years in prison by the State of Alabama. He ended up serving 5 years and is out of prison. We had to show up at a parole hearing after 3 years because that is when the State makes it available (likely due to the overcrowding of prisons with the laws we do have!). All this for drinking and driving, killing a pedestrian and fleeing the scene like a coward. I am not sure all of our States would do a great job of this Libertarian idea!