Talk-Polywell.org

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/04/jim- ... an-enough/

Randy's comment is especially good.

Things must be really dire in the country for Demint to put aside social issues to focus on economic problems.

Because he has had positions on social issues:

Did the homos crash the economy?
http://classicalvalues.com/2011/02/did_the_homos_c/

Making freedom “greater”
http://classicalvalues.com/2010/10/making_freedom/

I think this (Demint) epitomizes the fact that Social Conservatism is a Dead End for attracting youth. Ron Paul rallies at colleges are mobbed. Santorum rallies not so much.

Maybe the Republicans are getting a brain.

MSimon wrote:Maybe the Republicans are getting a brain.

Maybe there were a lot more Republicans like this than you give credit for.

seedload wrote:

MSimon wrote:Maybe the Republicans are getting a brain.

Maybe there were a lot more Republicans like this than you give credit for.

Well where were they in 2010? And don't forget that just a few weeks ago Santorum was putting down libertarians. And as pointed out above Demint's positions on several issues linked above were not very libertarian friendly.

MSimon wrote:http://classicalvalues.com/2012/04/jim- ... an-enough/

Randy's comment is especially good.

Things must be really dire in the country for Demint to put aside social issues to focus on economic problems.

Because he has had positions on social issues:

Did the homos crash the economy?
http://classicalvalues.com/2011/02/did_the_homos_c/

Making freedom “greater”
http://classicalvalues.com/2010/10/making_freedom/

I think this (Demint) epitomizes the fact that Social Conservatism is a Dead End for attracting youth. Ron Paul rallies at colleges are mobbed. Santorum rallies not so much.

Maybe the Republicans are getting a brain.

More like they are giving up principles for expediency. We all know what Franklin said about a similar trade.



"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

This also reminds me of the Missouri compromise. Those making it somehow thought this issue was going to go away as a result.


I have always argued that Fiscal and Social are two sides of the same coin, and you will never be able to get the one thing to work properly without the other thing working correctly as well.


And yes, things are very dire in the country. Triage, you know.

MSimon wrote:

seedload wrote:

MSimon wrote:Maybe the Republicans are getting a brain.

Maybe there were a lot more Republicans like this than you give credit for.

Well where were they in 2010? And don't forget that just a few weeks ago Santorum was putting down libertarians. And as pointed out above Demint's positions on several issues linked above were not very libertarian friendly.

I was talking about people who call themselves Republican, not politicians and party leaders. Heck, you even quote Reagan as saying this much.

I think of myself as a fiscal conservative and a social liberal tending towards libertarianism but not radically so. There are a lot like me.

And while Reagan's quote is really fitting, it is also ironic considering that he is the one that did the most to pull the religious right into the party agenda, thereby securing the fact that I would remain uncomfortable within my own party and you could continue to comment about how the Santorum's of the world dominate.

regards

D,

If you want to play politics it is nothing but expediency. It is surprising some one as worldly as you doesn't get it.

If the voters are going libertarian the politicians who want to win elections will get in front of the parade.

In my world the politicians don't matter. And here is why. I'll put it in terms you can get. If you want a Christian government first make (or get) a Christian Nation.

Evidently my work and the work of many others is starting to turn this nation (back) into a libertarian nation. So much so that politicians are beginning to notice.

You will probably not get the morality you want from such a government (moral government is an oxymoron). But you will be free to practice your morality as you see fit. As long as your fist stops before it touches my nose. And your taxes will be a LOT lower. And you will not be regulated to death.

You might enjoy this video by a libertarian Judge. It is about the Commerce Clause and Health Care. And Liberty.

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/04/thei ... t-at-work/

MSimon wrote:D,

If you want to play politics it is nothing but expediency. It is surprising some one as worldly as you doesn't get it.

Oh, I get it. Corruption is an integral part of democracy.

MSimon wrote: If the voters are going libertarian the politicians who want to win elections will get in front of the parade.

Nowadays the most foolish 50.0001 percent of the nation sets the agenda as pro-foolish. This is why the nation was founded as a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy.

MSimon wrote: In my world the politicians don't matter. And here is why. I'll put it in terms you can get. If you want a Christian government first make (or get) a Christian Nation.

There are those who would argue that is exactly what we had, and that it is only through the efforts of revisionists that it is now perceived differently. I personally don't care what God or gods someone wants to believe in, I just make the obvious utilitarian observation that the Christian version of religion has seemingly accomplished a great deal of human advancement in History while all other versions of religion would seemingly have stuck the human population back in the bronze age.

As a social experiment, all other religions are seemingly a failure in terms of human advancement, and that appears to be an objective call.

"Libertarian" will work out as well for modern humans as "bacchanalian" did for the Greeks.

MSimon wrote: Evidently my work and the work of many others is starting to turn this nation (back) into a libertarian nation. So much so that politicians are beginning to notice.

Yes, you are following in the footsteps of Previous Progressives who thought banning Alcohol was a good ideas. It never occurred to them either, that there would be consequences which they didn't foresee.

MSimon wrote: You will probably not get the morality you want from such a government (moral government is an oxymoron). But you will be free to practice your morality as you see fit. As long as your fist stops before it touches my nose. And your taxes will be a LOT lower. And you will not be regulated to death.

You always seem to misunderstand my point. It is my opinion that morality is a function of nature, and is not really subjective. Populations exhibiting morality that aids in their advancement and the survival of the species will flourish while populations exhibiting morality which results in losses and destruction will diminish.

It's all part of natural science from my perspective. Nature sets the table. Humans eat off of it. Some insist on eating poisoned fruit.

MSimon wrote: You might enjoy this video by a libertarian Judge. It is about the Commerce Clause and Health Care. And Liberty.

http://classicalvalues.com/2012/04/thei ... t-at-work/

Yes, i've always liked Judge Napolitano, though he has gotten a little weird this last year.

Corruption is an integral part of democracy.

Any form of government for that matter. The problem is that you cant live with it and cant live without it. I am (and people often dont quite understand me correctly in this regard) for small government WHERE possible. I am also for paying less no matter what I pay it for or who I pay it to. If that means that I pay less to a government than to a private corporation, then I will happily pay less to the government. If it means that I pay less to a corporation than a government then I welcome paying to the private corporation. If I have the choice between either of them, even better.
Just dont ask me to pay more for something because it happens to fit a certain ideology or the agenda of some political party. If it costs me money, I will probably not like it.

I'm getting the impression that people are saying "libertarian" in some cases where they mean "libertine". The major difference being the acceptance vs. rejection of responsibility.

Di,
Too bad you aren't as wise as your namesake

I know nothing, except the fact of my ignorance.
Diogenes (the REAL one)

Diogenes the fake local one wrote:

MSimon wrote:D,
If you want to play politics it is nothing but expediency. It is surprising some one as worldly as you doesn't get it.

Oh, I get it. Corruption is an integral part of democracy.

Skipjack did ok with this one.

Diogenes wrote:

MSimon wrote: If the voters are going libertarian the politicians who want to win elections will get in front of the parade.

Nowadays the most foolish 50.0001 percent of the nation sets the agenda as pro-foolish. This is why the nation was founded as a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy.

The US was formed as a statistical democatic republic (or vice versa if you wish). The "republic" part was how how governments CRAFTED law, the statistical democracy (rule by concent of the governed) was the fully informed jury. Well, the "statistical democracy" part was killed in the late 1800s by the "republic" part which has been working since that time to enslave us.

Diogenes wrote:

MSimon wrote: In my world the politicians don't matter. And here is why. I'll put it in terms you can get. If you want a Christian government first make (or get) a Christian Nation.

There are those who would argue that is exactly what we had, and that it is only through the efforts of revisionists that it is now perceived differently.

Those would be wrong. While it is true that the majority of the people who LIVED in these united States were some form of "Christian", most of the leaders who FORMED these united States into a nation were deist at most, agnostic in the main.

Diogenes wrote: "Libertarian" will work out as well for modern humans as "bacchanalian" did for the Greeks.

Hanelyp responded well to this.

Diogenes wrote:

MSimon wrote: Evidently my work and the work of many others is starting to turn this nation (back) into a libertarian nation. So much so that politicians are beginning to notice.

Yes, you are following in the footsteps of Previous Progressives who thought banning Alcohol was a good ideas. It never occurred to them either, that there would be consequences which they didn't foresee.

WHAAA???!!!
The biggest supporter of prohibition on this forum says this??? Di, what have you been smokin dude?

Skipjack wrote:

Corruption is an integral part of democracy.

Any form of government for that matter. The problem is that you cant live with it and cant live without it. I am (and people often dont quite understand me correctly in this regard) for small government WHERE possible. I am also for paying less no matter what I pay it for or who I pay it to. If that means that I pay less to a government than to a private corporation, then I will happily pay less to the government. If it means that I pay less to a corporation than a government then I welcome paying to the private corporation. If I have the choice between either of them, even better.
Just dont ask me to pay more for something because it happens to fit a certain ideology or the agenda of some political party. If it costs me money, I will probably not like it.

It is my belief that people should only be required to pay for the NECESSARY expenditures of government. Pretty much nothing but defense and law enforcement. All of this other Liberal social engineering crap is NOT a legitimate function of Government, and people ought to be allowed to refuse to pay for it from their taxes.

If people only had to pay for LEGITIMATE expenditures by government, the Democrat party would cease to exist.

Diogenes wrote:
It is my belief that people should only be required to pay for the NECESSARY expenditures of government. Pretty much nothing but defense and law enforcement. All of this other Liberal social engineering crap is NOT a legitimate function of Government, and people ought to be allowed to refuse to pay for it from their taxes.

If people only had to pay for LEGITIMATE expenditures by government, the Democrat party would cease to exist.

So save your lunch money and move to Somalia where the libertarian ideal of minimalist government is fulfilled. You'll be free of all those horrible communistic Democrats. FREE, FREE, FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

KitemanSA wrote:Di,
Too bad you aren't as wise as your namesake

I know nothing, except the fact of my ignorance.
Diogenes (the REAL one)

I would point out that eventually even the real Diogenes would have to learn something. He couldn't remain ignorant about everything forever.

KitemanSA wrote:

Diogenes the fake local one wrote:

MSimon wrote:D,
If you want to play politics it is nothing but expediency. It is surprising some one as worldly as you doesn't get it.

Oh, I get it. Corruption is an integral part of democracy.

Yes, you don't agree with me, so therefore I am ignorant/stupid. Got it.

KitemanSA wrote: Skipjack did ok with this one.

Diogenes wrote:

MSimon wrote: If the voters are going libertarian the politicians who want to win elections will get in front of the parade.

Nowadays the most foolish 50.0001 percent of the nation sets the agenda as pro-foolish. This is why the nation was founded as a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy.

The US was formed as a statistical democatic republic (or vice versa if you wish). The "republic" part was how how governments CRAFTED law, the statistical democracy (rule by concent of the governed) was the fully informed jury. Well, the "statistical democracy" part was killed in the late 1800s by the "republic" part which has been working since that time to enslave us.

Gobbledygook that I don't have the time or inclination to decipher.

KitemanSA wrote:

Diogenes wrote: There are those who would argue that is exactly what we had, and that it is only through the efforts of revisionists that it is now perceived differently.

Those would be wrong. While it is true that the majority of the people who LIVED in these united States were some form of "Christian", most of the leaders who FORMED these united States into a nation were deist at most, agnostic in the main.

Jefferson was alleged to be a Deist; a charge which he vehemently denied. Thomas Paine was open about his Deism, and of course he was pretty much ran out of the country in fear of his life. Just which of the founders are you suggesting were agnostics or Deists? I would point out that in the US Constitution they Exempted the President from working on the Sunday Sabbath and Ended the Document with a reference to Jesus.

People misunderstand this issue a lot. The founders took it for granted the nation was "Christian" but they were very much aware that different States were composed of different Christian Denominations, such as the Quakers in Pennsylvania, the Anglicans in Virginia, the Puritans in Massachusetts, and the Catholics in Maryland. The prohibition against Congress making a law "respecting an establishment of religion" was really a practical matter to insure that the fledgling republic would not blow itself apart from Denominational conflicts. (To avoid the Denominational strife which had so rent Europe.)

It was accepted that each state had the right and authority to impose it's own state religion on the population within it's borders, and it wasn't until 1833 that the last state (Massachusetts) gave up it's official establishment of a state religion.

KitemanSA wrote:

Diogenes wrote: Yes, you are following in the footsteps of Previous Progressives who thought banning Alcohol was a good ideas. It never occurred to them either, that there would be consequences which they didn't foresee.

WHAAA???!!!
The biggest supporter of prohibition on this forum says this??? Di, what have you been smokin dude?

If one is arguing with a believer in Islam, it is pointless to cite scripture from the Bible. Arguments are more effective if made in the frame of reference of the recipient. MSimon has long railed about the "progressives" tampering with existing conditions and producing unfortunate results which they did not foresee.

Can I help it if his efforts remind me of theirs? From my perspective, he is behaving like just another "progressive", but with a different agenda.

Diogenes wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:Di,
Too bad you aren't as wise as your namesake

I know nothing, except the fact of my ignorance.
Diogenes (the REAL one)

I would point out that eventually even the real Diogenes would have to learn something. He couldn't remain ignorant about everything forever.

When you claim you "know" something, you block any possibility that you may be wrong. He seems to have thought that he MIGHT know things but left the door open to being wrong, he left the door open to learning better. You don't seem to share that wisdom.

Diogenes wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:

Diogenes the fake local one wrote: Oh, I get it. Corruption is an integral part of democracy.

Yes, you don't agree with me, so therefore I am ignorant/stupid. Got it.

I left this response to skipjack. The fact that you didn't pick that up may demonstrate...

Diogenes wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:

Diogenes wrote: Nowadays the most foolish 50.0001 percent of the nation sets the agenda as pro-foolish. This is why the nation was founded as a REPUBLIC, not a Democracy.

The US was formed as a statistical democatic republic (or vice versa if you wish). The "republic" part was how how governments CRAFTED law, the statistical democracy (rule by concent of the governed) was the fully informed jury. Well, the "statistical democracy" part was killed in the late 1800s by the "republic" part which has been working since that time to enslave us.

Gobbledygook that I don't have the time or inclination to decipher.

Another demonstration that you are not as wise as the man who's name you have besmirtched.

Diogenes wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:

Diogenes wrote: There are those who would argue that is exactly what we had, and that it is only through the efforts of revisionists that it is now perceived differently.

Those would be wrong. While it is true that the majority of the people who LIVED in these united States were some form of "Christian", most of the leaders who FORMED these united States into a nation were deist at most, agnostic in the main.

Jefferson was alleged to be a Deist; a charge which he vehemently denied. Thomas Paine was open about his Deism, and of course he was pretty much ran out of the country in fear of his life.

Which seems to be a good reason why most leaders kept their mouths shut in public!

Diogenes wrote:Just which of the founders are you suggesting were agnostics or Deists? I would point out that in the US Constitution they Exempted the President from working on the Sunday Sabbath and Ended the Document with a reference to Jesus.

I didn't say "totally". No shades of grey in your thought process?
By the way, can you point out said "reference to "Jesus". Are you silly enough to equate the use of the term "Year of Our Lord" as a reference to "Jesus" rather than just a standard dating convention? Man, that would be an asinine stretch.

Diogenes wrote: People misunderstand this issue a lot. The founders took it for granted the nation was "Christian" but they were very much aware that different States were composed of different Christian Denominations, such as the Quakers in Pennsylvania, the Anglicans in Virginia, the Puritans in Massachusetts, and the Catholics in Maryland. The prohibition against Congress making a law "respecting an establishment of religion" was really a practical matter to insure that the fledgling republic would not blow itself apart from Denominational conflicts. (To avoid the Denominational strife which had so rent Europe.)

It was accepted that each state had the right and authority to impose it's own state religion on the population within it's borders, and it wasn't until 1833 that the last state (Massachusetts) gave up it's official establishment of a state religion.

They were very much aware that in the main the inhabitants were some form of "Christian". They were wise to nip what Christians so often do in the bud. People mired in "Christian" thought probably wouldn't have seen the issue.

Diogenes wrote:

KitemanSA wrote:

Diogenes wrote: Yes, you are following in the footsteps of Previous Progressives who thought banning Alcohol was a good ideas. It never occurred to them either, that there would be consequences which they didn't foresee.

WHAAA???!!!
The biggest supporter of prohibition on this forum says this??? Di, what have you been smokin dude?

If one is arguing with a believer in Islam, it is pointless to cite scripture from the Bible. Arguments are more effective if made in the frame of reference of the recipient. MSimon has long railed about the "progressives" tampering with existing conditions and producing unfortunate results which they did not foresee.

Can I help it if his efforts remind me of theirs? From my perspective, he is behaving like just another "progressive", but with a different agenda.

A soldier acts just like a murderer but with a different agenda. Comparing the two is most questionable logic. So is comparing someone working toward morality (voluntary action) and someone working toward immorality (subjugation of the populous). But then you seem to be unable to distinguish between the two. So sad.

Jefferson was alleged to be a Deist; a charge which he vehemently denied. Thomas Paine was open about his Deism, and of course he was pretty much ran out of the country in fear of his life. Just which of the founders are you suggesting were agnostics or Deists? I would point out that in the US Constitution they Exempted the President from working on the Sunday Sabbath and Ended the Document with a reference to Jesus

Just as you noted, if you deny religion or religous beliefs, you get the Thomas Paine treatment. Jefferson probably denied the charge to save himself socially, politically, and physically. He was known to rework the bible, removing references to "supernatural" events and sections of the New Testament. That generally would be the definition of a deist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible