A Libertarian's Viewpoint

[ViperJock]

Personally I do not believe there is any such thing or person as a moderate. We always say we're the moderate their not and point to the right and left of us.

Moderate is a very subjective term and in modern day politics is used to try and scare someone off their personal stands. they will say "Your stand is to extreme you need to moderate it closer to the left or to the right to capture the votes you need."

I am sorry but I do not go for it when you move off your principles to gain popularity (whether it be for money, fame or power) you are not being a moderate you are compromising.

And that is exactly how the US left it's origins of a Representative Republic to some quasi-social democracy. It needs to get back to it's origins.

One thing of note. It was never freedom of religion or freedom from religion, it is freedom FOR religion. Whatever that may be. I have a very strong belief system. While I do not accept other beliefs. I respect their right to hold to them, to have them and to practice them including atheism (which is a religion) having said all that the US was founded based upon Christian values (I know it was not based as a Christian country) But to deny the founders suggested that it was based upon anything secular is either an outright display of ignorance of the facts or an outright attempt at deception.
They did want however at the same time anyone to be able to practice their own religion as they saw fit.

http://youtu.be/f8Hy306pGmU

Interesting point about moderates. I'm not sure it means compromising principles. To me "live and let live" is a moderate perspective. I can be, and am, a religious person without forcing my morality on anyone else.

Your point about "separation of church and state" was exactly what I meant. Perhaps I was too clever to be clear The FF understood the problems with either the church running the state or the state running the church--especially if that religion were atheism.

 

[Bondhead88]

Personally I do not believe there is any such thing or person as a moderate. We always say we're the moderate their not and point to the right and left of us.

Moderate is a very subjective term and in modern day politics is used to try and scare someone off their personal stands. they will say "Your stand is to extreme you need to moderate it closer to the left or to the right to capture the votes you need."

I am sorry but I do not go for it when you move off your principles to gain popularity (whether it be for money, fame or power) you are not being a moderate you are compromising.

And that is exactly how the US left it's origins of a Representative Republic to some quasi-social democracy. It needs to get back to it's origins.

One thing of note. It was never freedom of religion or freedom from religion, it is freedom FOR religion. Whatever that may be. I have a very strong belief system. While I do not accept other beliefs. I respect their right to hold to them, to have them and to practice them including atheism (which is a religion) having said all that the US was founded based upon Christian values (I know it was not based as a Christian country) But to deny the founders suggested that it was based upon anything secular is either an outright display of ignorance of the facts or an outright attempt at deception.
They did want however at the same time anyone to be able to practice their own religion as they saw fit.

http://youtu.be/f8Hy306pGmU

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngzx-1Rq1gE&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngzx-1Rq1gE&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[Bondhead88]

Me too!

All except for the saying who is John Galt. There was a man in the town next to us who founded Galt and his first name was John.

The mall in town was The John Galt Mall.

I always thought that was hilarious!

 

[mrjarrell]

 

[dross]

The only problem with libertarianism is that it seem to breed absolutism and rejection of reality. Once a person comes to a full understanding of freedom, you see the world in such a radically different way it becomes difficult to live in the actual world.

For a long time after I "saw the light" I couldn't help but see evil and oppression all around me. To truly live according to libertarian ideals is impossible anywhere but some community far away from society.

Human nature appears to me to drive humans towards some level of control over their fellows. I hate it and I always have, but what am I to do? To truly live up to my ideals would put me in a constant state of war. There will always be those who want to take from others and their nature will provide them with power. We end up having to live with that and work with those people. The vast majority of people, including all of those here on this board as far as I can tell, feel that way too. We compromise. The question becomes "How much compromise?"

I've accepted that the world is as it is. As societies go, ours in one of the more free that exists. I'd like it to be more free than it is by a long shot. I accept that it will never be as free as I want it to be. That's just the reality. I also have to face the reality that even though I see oppression, serious, deadly, life threatening oppression around me I have yet to take up arms against it. Why? I want to raise my daughter and live out my life, which I recognize is a better life than 99.999% of all the human who have ever lived. I'm also more free than most of those who have ever lived.

That's not nothing. It's not even a small thing, it's a huge thing. In many, many ways our founders achieved more than their wildest dreams with this country. In so many ways, life is better than it ever has been.

I think pure freedom is like an unachievable ideal, something to be strived for, but not to the point where we can't see what is wonderful in the way things exist as they are.

 

[KG1]

Good post dross. You can't let the bright light of libertarian absolutism blind you from dealing with reality.