Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:22 pm    Post subject: Re: Why I don't trust Libertarians. Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
SFrank85 wrote:
Can you name me an authoritarian social conservative? Hitler was authoritarian, Stalin was authoritarian. Just because you disagree with the argument does not make them authoritarian.

Are you familiar with Godwin's Law? Just thought I would ask...

Let's see... authoritarian social conservatives... how about Ayatollah Khomeini? Don't like that one? How about George W. Bush instead?

You don't need to be offended by the word 'authoritarian' since it only means someone who sees government's role in society is to direct the people. An authoritarian social conservative, therefore, is someone who wants the government to impose their beliefs on everyone. Of course, doing so represents no imposition to the so-con but to someone who doesn't agree with them, it represents a major imposition.

SFrank85 wrote:
As for socials conservatism, why would they need to look at the Old Testament? It would be against Christian belief, who happens to be a social conservative to ignore the teachings of Jesus Christ, and follow the Old Testament. They would have a Jewish belief, not a Christian one.

In other words, your assertion that social conservatism hasn't changed since mankind first formed society is a fallacy.

SFrank85 wrote:
Also, just how many of those libertarian philosophers just happened to be Christian? Most known philosophers were. That is why it would hurt them to see people use libertarianism to justify the use of abortion.

I agree. Most of them were Christians and most would be offended by abortion... but all of them would be offended by the social conservative movement's attempts to impose their beliefs on others.

-Mac


The same reason on the state imposing itís will in allowing abortions to take place, right up to the term of birth?

The same reason why state has control of marriage. Social conservatives want the state to get out of institutions, like re-defining marriage, funding abortions, daycare, and taxes. It is because of the state redefined marriage that this country will face problems with polygamy, and there is nothing the state can do about it, because they already changed the definition.

It might sound like libertarianism, but in actual fact, libertarians want to use the state to try putting forth their agenda. In a perverse way, some libertarians want the state to get involved in marriage just because they believe in equal marriage.

It is like saying you donít want the state to interfere, but use the state to make policies not to interfere.

As for George W. Bush, come on! He does not believe in forcing his views on anyone. Eight years in office and America has not become a theocracy, and never will.

As for Ayatollah Khomeini, he was leader of an Islamic state, completely different from a westernized state. Also, he was from a completely different religion, a religion founded on authoritarian rule.
urbanmonk





Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Posts: 307
Reputation: 16.8Reputation: 16.8
votes: 5

PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:18 pm    Post subject: Re: Why I don't trust Libertarians. Reply with quote

Mac wrote:

urbanmonk, I'm not sure Canada is ready for a libertarian government so I think you're pretty safe from that worry.
-Mac

Nah, I don't worry about things like that, however the three teenage libertarians under my roof have been known to worry me at times!
Some Guy 2.0





Joined: 05 Jan 2009
Posts: 304
Reputation: 21Reputation: 21
votes: 2

PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've figured out that the people I've talked to recently only claim to be Libertarians. Their opinions, however, are more like those of anarchists.

Not the people on this group, just the people who I originally talked to who introduced themselves as Libertarians.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:31 pm    Post subject: Re: Why I don't trust Libertarians. Reply with quote

SFrank85 wrote:
The same reason on the state imposing itís will in allowing abortions to take place, right up to the term of birth?

How many abortions has the state forced you to have, SFrank85?

SFrank85 wrote:
The same reason why state has control of marriage. Social conservatives want the state to get out of institutions, like re-defining marriage, funding abortions, daycare, and taxes. It is because of the state redefined marriage that this country will face problems with polygamy, and there is nothing the state can do about it, because they already changed the definition.

The perfect example and argument for libertarianism is marriage. For the social conservative, marriage is the union of a man and a woman, joined together for the purpose of propagation, blessed by God and the church, right?

Slight problem. Several, actually. Marriage also involves numerous legal issues involving taxation, power of attorney, survivorship and so on, none which involve the church. There's a reason why marriage licences are issued by the state, rather than by the church.

So what happens if the parties involved aren't religious whatsoever. We're not talking hard-core atheists, just regular folks who weren't raised in the church. Are you going to force them to adopt your religion in order to be married so they can put each other down as beneficiary for life insurance? Of course not. They're married in a civil ceremony by a judge, a justice, a captain at sea or even a Mountie in some remote communities. No religion involved whatsoever.

Extend the scenario. Make the couple are two ladies who've been together as a couple for 40 years but the church rejects their same-sex union. Please tell me why they shouldn't be married? If one or the other falls sick and they're not married, the sick one's family would have power of attorney for her medical treatment over the person who shared her life for 40 years. Does that sound reasonable to you? They're a couple but if one dies before the other, the deceased's family inherits half of the couple's home and net worth? Does that sound like justice to you?

The so-con objection to same sex marriage has everything to do with imposing their values on everyone else. How many same sex marriages has the state forced you to have. SFrank85?

SFrank85 wrote:
It might sound like libertarianism, but in actual fact, libertarians want to use the state to try putting forth their agenda. In a perverse way, some libertarians want the state to get involved in marriage just because they believe in equal marriage.

Who issues marriage licences, SFrank85? The state and they serve all people, not just those who are socially conservative. It is not the government's job to impose your values on anyone. I want the state to keep anyone from imposing their values on me. Today, it's you who wants to do so but for my great-grandkids, it might be the Muslims who want to impose their religion on Canada.

If you can't convince people to follow your lifestyle and values by the inherent and evident virtues, by what right do you compel the government to impose your values and your choices? Is your faith so weak that you fear it will disappear without the government to back you up?

SFrank85 wrote:
It is like saying you donít want the state to interfere, but use the state to make policies not to interfere.

You got it!! It is not the state's role to be judgmental. The government should serve the people, not the other way around.

SFrank85 wrote:
As for George W. Bush, come on! He does not believe in forcing his views on anyone. Eight years in office and America has not become a theocracy, and never will.

Sorry to burst your bubble, SFrank85, but Dubya did try to use his position to impose his so-con views. The most glaring example? The Terry Schiavo case but luckily, he failed. Some would argue that the war in Iraq was more about Dubya's so-con values than anything else.

SFrank85 wrote:
As for Ayatollah Khomeini, he was leader of an Islamic state, completely different from a westernized state. Also, he was from a completely different religion, a religion founded on authoritarian rule.

You didn't specify any particular religion yet I was easily able to find two modern examples of authoritarian social conservatives, both much more current than the two examples you used.

Would you like me to dig around and come up with more examples? There's plenty to pick from. I just used examples which were familiar and a bit controversial to get your attention.

I wonder if you could provide an example of a libertarian despot?

-Mac
Some Guy 2.0





Joined: 05 Jan 2009
Posts: 304
Reputation: 21Reputation: 21
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac, what Frank is pointing out is that abortions force a choice on an unborn child, and having them legal effectively says that unborn children have no rights. Consider this:

We can all agree it is logical to err on the side of life.
So, if this is logical, then let's apply it to abortion. In the case of abortion, there is no consensus on whether or not the unborn child is alive. So, if we assume the unborn isn't alive, one of the following happens.
1. We are right, and nothing bad happens.
2. We are wrong, and millions of children die.
On the other hand, let's assume the unborn is alive.
1. We are right. Millions of lives are saved.
2. We are wrong. A woman is inconvenienced for nine months.

If we are to logically err on the side of life, that means abortion should and must be illegal.

As for marriage, many of us social conservatives believed in having civil unions for same sex couples, because that is not religious, and a same sex union would not be religious. The couple would be allowed to go through a union in a liberal church or synagogue or other place of worship, but it would not be labeled a marriage, but a civil union. Civil unions have all the same rights as a marriage, but under a different title.

George bush was very social conservative, more social conservative than I am by far, but his support for the unborn, his support for the sanctity of marriage and the promotion of the family unit are all things I support.

As for Iraq... Well, that's a separate argument.

As for a Libertarian despot... Julius Caesar. Homosexual and polygamous relations were allowed, as was the worship of any religion, and he highly supported decentralization in the running of the Empire.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Justin Hoffer wrote:
Mac, what Frank is pointing out is that abortions force a choice on an unborn child, and having them legal effectively says that unborn children have no rights. Consider this:

We can all agree it is logical to err on the side of life.
So, if this is logical, then let's apply it to abortion. In the case of abortion, there is no consensus on whether or not the unborn child is alive. So, if we assume the unborn isn't alive, one of the following happens.
1. We are right, and nothing bad happens.
2. We are wrong, and millions of children die.
On the other hand, let's assume the unborn is alive.
1. We are right. Millions of lives are saved.
2. We are wrong. A woman is inconvenienced for nine months.

If we are to logically err on the side of life, that means abortion should and must be illegal.

I'm not pro-choice, Justin. Neither am I pro-life. I would be pro-life but I believe there are a few, tragic cases where abortion is the appropriate measure and "alternative form of birth control" is NOT one of those cases. I generally avoid the abortion issue since parties on both sides are deeply entrenched in their opinions.

Justin Hoffer wrote:
As for marriage, many of us social conservatives believed in having civil unions for same sex couples, because that is not religious, and a same sex union would not be religious. The couple would be allowed to go through a union in a liberal church or synagogue or other place of worship, but it would not be labeled a marriage, but a civil union. Civil unions have all the same rights as a marriage, but under a different title.

So, really, it comes down to petty semantics. Not much of an issue, is it?

Justin Hoffer wrote:
George bush was very social conservative, more social conservative than I am by far, but his support for the unborn, his support for the sanctity of marriage and the promotion of the family unit are all things I support.

As for Iraq... Well, that's a separate argument.

I agree. Dubya was very socially conservative but he certainly wasn't fiscally conservative...

Justin Hoffer wrote:
As for a Libertarian despot... Julius Caesar. Homosexual and polygamous relations were allowed, as was the worship of any religion, and he highly supported decentralization in the running of the Empire.

I haven't read much about Julius Caesar but, given the state of mankind and society at that time, I'm not sure libertarian would be an apt description.

-Mac
Some Guy 2.0





Joined: 05 Jan 2009
Posts: 304
Reputation: 21Reputation: 21
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:

I'm not pro-choice, Justin. Neither am I pro-life. I would be pro-life but I believe there are a few, tragic cases where abortion is the appropriate measure and "alternative form of birth control" is NOT one of those cases. I generally avoid the abortion issue since parties on both sides are deeply entrenched in their opinions.


I dislike the "pro-life" label. I believe in the death penalty. I'm anti-abortion.

I believe there are three sides. Pro-abortion (all abortions should be allowed and legal), pro-choice (abortions should have limits), and anti-abortion (no compromises). I am anti-abortion. I can see the argument in favour of having abortion in the case of rape and incest or severe risk to the mother, but because these issues can be faked, and they currently make up only 1% of all abortions, I'd rather it be banned all together.

Mac wrote:

So, really, it comes down to petty semantics. Not much of an issue, is it?


To you, its semantics, but to someone religious, it is much more, and it feels like someone else is pushing their ideology on us. I'm Jewish and believe marriage is between one man and one woman, and this has been the common definition of it for at least 2 thousand years. The government forced a change in definition, and that is the problem here.

Mac wrote:

I agree. Dubya was very socially conservative but he certainly wasn't fiscally conservative...


I can agree with you on that. More spend happy than Bill Clinton.

Mac wrote:

I haven't read much about Julius Caesar but, given the state of mankind and society at that time, I'm not sure libertarian would be an apt description.

-Mac


Not fully Libertarian, but his beliefs and rules were very Libertarian in nature. People were not punished for their beliefs or acts, unless they hurt others or were treason.

So, yes, a Libertarian despot can exist.
SFrank85





Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2269
Reputation: 59.8
votes: 4
Location: Toronto - Scarborough Southwest

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac, when you have the state taken to the extreme of prosecuting church leaders because they refused to have a same-sex couple get married in their church?

As Justin Hoffer has stated, the state needs to recognize the difference between marriage and unions. Marriages are a ceremony that takes place under the guidance of the church leader. Civil licences are given at city hall. Civil licences, not marriage is what entitles you to spousal rights.

When you have the state redefine marriage, then you have the state get involved in the decision of churches. When you have the state involved in the church, then you see church leaders sent to Human Rights tribunals because they refused to marry a same-sex couple.

This is what libertarians donít see when they support the re-definition of marriage.
mrsocko





Joined: 29 Oct 2006
Posts: 2463
Reputation: 131.2
votes: 8
Location: Southwestern Ontario

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe people who don't get married in church could call themselves Unionized. That would make comrade Layton happy. :lol:
Some Guy 2.0





Joined: 05 Jan 2009
Posts: 304
Reputation: 21Reputation: 21
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrsocko wrote:
Maybe people who don't get married in church could call themselves Unionized. That would make comrade Layton happy. :lol:


Oh boy would it ever. :lol:
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Justin Hoffer wrote:


As for a Libertarian despot... Julius Caesar. Homosexual and polygamous relations were allowed, as was the worship of any religion, and he highly supported decentralization in the running of the Empire.


That is a stretch.
Some Guy 2.0





Joined: 05 Jan 2009
Posts: 304
Reputation: 21Reputation: 21
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscalconservative wrote:
Justin Hoffer wrote:


As for a Libertarian despot... Julius Caesar. Homosexual and polygamous relations were allowed, as was the worship of any religion, and he highly supported decentralization in the running of the Empire.


That is a stretch.


Not really. Rome under Julius Caesar had very libertarian attitudes.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Justin,

You mistake Romes love of self indulgence to be Libertarian, again one of your misconceptions. Romans definitely did not follow the rules of ZAP (Zero Aggression Principle) and Libertarians do not believe in slavery. Romans were about imposing their rule and domination over the world where as Libertarians tend to want to be left alone and live in peace on their own piece of land.

Just because you think two diverse Ideas have an element in common does not make it equal.
Some Guy 2.0





Joined: 05 Jan 2009
Posts: 304
Reputation: 21Reputation: 21
votes: 2

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crazymamma wrote:
Justin,

You mistake Romes love of self indulgence to be Libertarian, again one of your misconceptions. Romans definitely did not follow the rules of ZAP (Zero Aggression Principle) and Libertarians do not believe in slavery. Romans were about imposing their rule and domination over the world where as Libertarians tend to want to be left alone and live in peace on their own piece of land.

Just because you think two diverse Ideas have an element in common does not make it equal.


I'm not saying they were fully libertarian, but they definitely had a lot in common.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ya know Justin to equate Ceasar, the ambitious ruler of an empire, ever grasping for more lands and slaves, waring on others to achieve his goals to a libertarian who shuns any form of the state enforcing, coercing them into an abhorrent action is silly.

About the abortion issue your objection to libertarianism is question of degree only. I am against abortion, you are against abortion. You are willing to use the state to enforce your want, where I am more prone to educating, discussing, learning from a group like MADD who has used this approach to change the societal mores. Making it a socially unacceptable thing to do.

You do know that your tax monies do pay for abortions don't you? Unless you withhold your taxes from the government,you are kidding yourself that you are more moral and ethical about your objections to abortion then your average Libertarian who objects, Because you still finance it . Like I said, it's about degrees isn't it?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 5

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Why I don't trust Libertarians.

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB