The Battle For The Heart Of The Republican Party: Libertarians and CPAC

By: Kristin Tate
43

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) is an annual gathering that has traditionally been overrun by old-school, establishment Republicans.

This year, however, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul was king of the mega conference. Paul’s powerful speech marked a shift in the Republican party away from aging values to the libertarian-friendly ideas of individualism, privacy, and freedom.

Paul began his CPAC speech with, “Imagine the time when the White House is occupied by a friend of liberty. You might think I’m talking about electing republicans… I’m not. I’m talking about electing lovers of liberty.” The Kentucky Senator hinted at the fact that party labels do not matter — rather, what is important is actions and sticking to constitutional principles.

Addressing the young people in the crowd, Paul said, “Will you, new generation of liberty-lovers, stand and be heard?”

Paul also made a point to specifically stress privacy in his speech.”If you own a cell phone, you are under surveillance,” he said. “I believe that what you do on your cell phone is none of [the NSA's] damn business.”

Paul was smart to avoid social Republican talking points and religion altogether in his speech. He understands that in order for the Republican Party to return to the powerhouse it once was, it must win the support of the growing, outspoken Libertarian population.

The support for Rand Paul at CPAC was incredible. “Stand With Rand” signs were ubiquitous throughout the conference. Not surprisingly, Paul won the CPAC straw poll by a large margin. Ted Cruz, another libertarian favorite, came in second.


Of course, however, not everyone at CPAC was a Rand Paul fan. Rick Santorum’s religiously-based speech, a stark contrast to Paul’s, was a hit with some CPAC attendees. Still, many young libertarians thought Santorum came across as sanctimonious and abrasive. Yes, we all know you hate abortion and gay marriage, Rick. This message won’t grow the GOP tent. The usually loud and energized libertarians in the crowd merely applauded politely after Santorum’s speech.

The conservative conference, quite frankly, had an overall odd energy this year due to conflicting camps present: the old school Reagan republicans, the establishment GOP folks, and the young libertarians.

The bigger issue at hand is that the Republican Party often comes off as exclusive and judgmental. For the Party to become dominant and take back the White House, it must attract and embrace independents and non-traditional conservatives (primarily libertarians, who continue to make up an increasing percentage of the electorate). This means not over-emphasizing morality and religion into the base of the platform, and being more accepting of diverse social opinions.

The Republican Party is supposed to represent small government and individualism. Politicians like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz exemplify these values. For the Republican Party to flourish, it must stop listening to the Karl Roves and the Mitt Romneys, and recognize the intense energy generated by the likes of libertarian-leaning republicans . Such politicians won’t make Karl Rove happy or rich, but they can help make the GOP victorious once again.

Follow Kristin on Facebook and Twitter.

The following two tabs change content below.
Kristin Tate is a multi-media reporter for Breitbart News and BenSwann.com. Dedicated to fearless journalism, she regularly works on undercover stings with James O'Keefe to reveal government waste, abuse, and fraud. Tate was a Young Americans for Liberty (YAL) Chapter President and Founder. She will continue to fight tirelessly for individual liberty and free markets through new media. Visit Kristin's website at www.TheLibertarianChick.com.

  • mentalalchemist

    Unfortunately the Pilgrim Society controls both the GOP and the DNC and and it is they who have the final say on who becomes POTUS. The people have no say. The electronic voting machines saw to that. Ross Perot alerted them to the danger of not having complete control over the counting of votes. Representative democracy is all but dead. Please educate yourself with the information at this link. http://wikispooks.com/ISGP/organisations/Pilgrims_Society02.htm

    • dannyboy

      Thanks for the article im pretty well versed on Secret Societies and eager to read this one. Material is pretty hard to come by in the Pilgrim Society.

  • Lisa Futvoye-Shepherd

    Rand Paul CPAC speech revealed for the hypocrisy it is:

    http://youtu.be/2of6gHG-4us

  • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

    GET ‘EM REPUBLICAN Tate! Move in for the REPUBLICAN kill! ALL REPUBLICAN CANNONS FIRING: “REPUBLICANS are libertarian, REPUBLICANS are libertarian, REPUBLICANS are libertarian, REPUBLICANS are libertarian!”

  • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

    Rand (WHO’S NOT IN ANY WAY “LIBERTARIAN”)…

    • Supports amnesty (while using DECEPTIVE euphemisms like “normalizing”).
    • Sold out his own father and endorsed LEFTIST Romney BEFORE the 2012 national convention.
    • Endorsing “lesser evil” republicans… while advising people to NOT vote “lesser evil.”
    • A PURELY POLITICAL filibuster, leaving the impression that he’s against droning Americans, while later stating his SUPPORT for droning Americans.
    • Pushing preferential-treatment zones, while DECEPTIVELY calling them Freedom Zones.
    • Allows himself to be PUBLICLY ABUSED AND EXPLOITED by ANTI-Ron LEFTISTS, like Sean Hannity.
    • CO-OPTED the Tea Party.
    • CO-OPTED his father’s Liberty Movement.
    • Poaches his father’s network and databases.
    • Jesse Benton.
    • Mitch McConnell.
    • George P. Bush.
    • “Outreach” to ethnocentric (racist) gangs.
    • Interventionism (while leaving the impression of being noninterventionist).
    • CONSTANT, INSULTING “Obama did it” GIBBERISH, designed to funnel public anger toward the democrats ONLY.
    • Ignoring Luke Rudkowksi.
    • Campaigning against democrats for specific transgressions, while remaining ABSOLUTELY SILENT about republicans committing THE SAME EXACT transgressions.
    • Expressed support for an IDIOTIC, SUICIDAL Con-Con.

  • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

    GUT CHECK:

    Rand IS NOT a “Libertarian.”
    Cruz IS NOT a “Libertarian.”

    Rand IS NOT “libertarian-leaning.”
    Cruz IS NOT “libertarian-leaning.”

    Rand IS NOT “Tea Party.”
    Cruz IS NOT “Tea Party.”

    Rand IS NOT “ANTI-Establishment.”
    Cruz IS NOT “ANTI-Establishment.”

    Rand IS NOT “ANTI-Elite.”
    Cruz IS NOT “ANTI-Elite.”

    THEY ARE BOTH REPUBLICANS! NOTHING MORE! STOP LYING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND STOP CO-OPTING MY MOVEMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Jona

      Atheistic Libertarianism falls short! It presupposes rights for the individual. However, why those rights and not the rights of “health care”. Why is stealing wrong? Why is tyranny wrong? If a society is here to survive, then the majority of a society has an obligation ( in order to survive) to get money any way they can. Libertarianism is the way to go because it is the most consistent view with the Christian Faith. Stealing is wrong because God has said it is wrong to steal for every individual including politicians! Murder is wrong because God has said not to murder! This whole idea that we have natural rights leads to people making up their own imaginary rights they see or come up with. Unalienable rights by whom and how do we know these “rights” are unalienable. We have rights given to us by God who has revealed himself through the Bible….. reformedlibertarian.com

      • Tannim

        “Atheistic Libertarianism falls short!”

        Define terms, please.

        “It presupposes rights for the individual.”

        That’s because rights are presupposed for the individual.

        “However, why those rights and not the rights of
        “health care”.”

        Because “health care”(more appropriately called “health care
        insurance” is a product and a service, not a right. “Health” is a right, a subset of Life, and “health
        care” is a responsibility that each individual has in order to have their
        health.

        “Why is stealing wrong?”

        Because it violates the property rights of others.

        “Why is tyranny wrong?”

        Because it violates the overall rights of others.

        “If a society is here to survive, then the majority of a society
        has an obligation ( in order to survive) to get money any way they can.”

        Yes, because that’s how free markets and capitalism work.

        “Libertarianism is the way to go because it is the most
        consistent view with the Christian Faith.”

        When the Christian “faith” is practiced as the Christ taught
        it, yes.

        “Stealing is wrong because God has said it is wrong to steal
        for every individual including politicians!”

        Stealing is wrong because it is unethical and immoral to
        take that which is not yours, regardless of your religion.

        “Murder is wrong because God has said not to murder!”

        Murder is wrong because it is unethical and immoral to take a
        life which is not yours, except in self-defense, regardless of your religion.

        “This whole idea that we have natural rights leads to people
        making up their own imaginary rights they see or come up with.”

        Not really, unless one has no idea what rights really
        are. Most people don’t, though, which is
        why they call “health care” a right when it isn’t.

        “Unalienable rights by whom and how do we know these
        “rights” are unalienable.”

        “By whom” is irrelevant as they exist because we exist.

        “We have rights given to us by God who has revealed himself
        through the Bible…..”

        That’s your perspective; however, it would be
        incorrect. We have rights because we
        exist, and whether we exist because of Creationist nonsense from a third-rate
        Hebrew war god, the Big Bang, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is irrelevant to
        the fact we have them, which is what matters.

        • dannyboy

          You have inalienable rights endowed from your creator (Bill of Rights) Atheistic libertarianism is woeful ideology try to ascribe morality to naturalism when the view justifies social Darwinism (ie liberal ideology). If you can’t see that you don’t understant a great deal of reasons and justifications for the state of affairs. Athiestic Libertarianism is a hollow ideology. Libertarians rely on their creator as foundation for their rights and moral objectivity to anchor their position. Take away the creator you pull the rug out from under libertarians. The greatest atheistic philosophers have struggled to ascribe morality to a naturalistic worldview. Creation vs Evolution blah blah blah. This is about are you subject to a state who has right over you a glorious monkey or do you have rights endowed to you as a human being created to and sanctioned by your creator.

          • Tannim

            “You have inalienable rights endowed from your creator (Bill of Rights)”

            That is the *belief* of people who believe in that sort of thing. However, the assertion is without merit because a creator is unprovable; it is assumed. The idea that people have rights because they exist, however, is based on a provable assumption of existence…

            “Atheistic libertarianism is woeful ideology try to ascribe morality to naturalism when the view justifies social Darwinism (ie liberal ideology).”

            Nope. It simply moves morality and ethics out of the religious sphere to where they belong, because they are not dependent upon religion and in fact transcend religions—something that is rather obvious to anyone who has done any comparative religious studies and philosophy. (That’s presuming a definition for the term, which you never bothered to define.)

            “If you can’t see that you don’t understant a great deal of reasons and justifications for the state of affairs.”

            I understand far more than you realize. Most of the state of affairs has zero to do with morals and everything to do with simple state self-interest and continuing that state’s existence—it cares not for morals and ethics.

            “Athiestic Libertarianism is a hollow ideology.”

            Nope. It simply uses logic and reason vs. the crutch of a religious deity that may not exist.

            “Libertarians rely on their creator as foundation for their rights and moral objectivity to anchor their position.”

            Nope. You need to talk to more libertarians, apparently.

            “Take away the creator you pull the rug out from under libertarians.”

            Again, no. Libertarianism as a political movement is irrelevant to any deity, because a deity that must rely upon a political movement for its support and operation isn’t very god-like. Libertarianism as a philosophy is irrelevant to any deity because it is based in respect for the individual, and deities tend (at least the Abrahamic ones, according to the texts of those deities) do not respect the individual, instead treating them as playthings and serfs.

            “The greatest atheistic philosophers have struggled to ascribe morality to a naturalistic worldview. Creation vs Evolution blah blah blah.”

            Go read Nichomachean Ethics by Aristotle and get back to us. He answered that struggle millennia ago, and he got it right.

            “This is about are you subject to a state who has right over you a glorious monkey or do you have rights endowed to you as a human being created to and sanctioned by your creator.”

            No, it about who owns you—you or the state? Deity is irrelevant to the situation. If you want to inject that into the equation, then you are substituting deity vs. the state in the struggle of control of you instead of self-ownerhsip vs. state ownership. (BTW, nice bias exposition there!–you really are kinda behind the curve on science, aren’t you?)

            “Also once you allow them to remove God from your ideology, the anchor to rights and laws, those words on that Constitution become couched in NOTHING.”

            Nope. Laws are based in FORCE, be it aggressive or defensive. Rights are based in existence. Laws are the force used to either defend or infringe upon rights.

            The whole “appeal to God” thing in the Declaration of Independence (not the Constitution, in which God is not mentioned except in a date reference in common use at the time) was there solely as poetic license to go over George III’s head since at the time the Divine Right of Kings nonsense was still in common thought.

            “Don’t you are what that means? It means that they are much easier to get rid of because the big bang or evolution or the world democratic solution will all subject you to the state and sacrifice you to the “greater good’”

            Got news for you, science has proven that our mortality is not dependent upon any deity, and if Joe Asteroid hits the planet and causes a mass extinction event, or if El Sol goes nova, there isn’t anything we can do about it. Our legacy is not based on deity either but on human record, assuming it survives that long. The state only views people as people reluctantly and when it has to; otherwise they are just serfs and expendable resources for its own ends. That’s the
            harsh reality, and the struggle of liberty is minimize and remove that attitude and serfdom as much as possible, and frankly, replacing the state with a deity in that struggle is anti-libertarian.

            The bottom line is that the libertarian movement has nothing to do with the existence or not of a deity, because that question is not only not in this plane of existence, but it is also irrelevant to the political struggle since there is zero evidence that any deity influences or even needs a government or state or any other artificial entity created by man. If a person wishes to believe in that sort of thing, then by all means, they can certainly do so, but to use that belief to impose it upon others or even as a justification for any kind of aggressive force in the state? That’s not libertarianism.

            Such is the reason why the GOP, if they are to be a party of truye freedom, needs to cast the theocons to the curb, because they are about power and control just like the liberals and just like the crony corporatist Rockefeller Republicans.

            Leave the deity stuff in the personal private belief realm and out of politics, period. Or go join the theocrats in their religious sideshow.

          • dannyboy

            A- Don’t tell me what I cn or can’t do with my beliefs in Politics Penn& Teller Libertarian
            Have you read the Bill of Rights? Can you tell me what it says about our inalienable rights? Morality as an extensionof naturalism is Social Darwinism, think about it. If man come up clawing and scratching he will fight and kill for what serves his self interestin spite of Justice or morality or ethics. Naturalism has no moral anchor, it has moral subjectivity, which is partly why we are in the conundrum we are in. Everybody decides their own truth, morals etc…
            It simply moves ethichs and morality out of the “religious shpere.” oh really and how is that? Our rights were created by men and their justification for never havening them removed is Deity, not self. Self isn’t goint work when they are ripped out of your hands, and you cry wait but I have those rights they are mine, says who? Self does… Well i’ll tell you the world democratic revolution, not to be confused with a Const. Republic. So howwill you backyour case for those rights afteryoudeny the deity thoserights werecouched in, and then form new ones?
            Also Libertarianism isn’t devoid of Deity, bc it’s closest to our founding fathers who couched our rights in Deity (or do you have a new science study that says different) , a uniting cause that transcends human greed and covorting. Rights given by a creator that a country believes cannot be take away withouta fight. Rights exist in this country are ENDOWED by him like it or not, at least in the US. When you remove that from the Constitution, which they will try, that self you find so precious left up to moral subjectivity will crumble at the feet of democracy who will vote for the State to govern the peoplebecause that will become the deity that dictates what is right and wrong and good for the plantet and peopl, and once they do you can kiss any chance of liberty good bye It will be a word synomous with terrorism.
            What some people under the terms you laid out may see as rights to self include protecting the environment or gun control etc and in a Democratic revolution majority wins.
            You seem to be blaming a lot on fundamentalism itself, more accurately bought leadership,and it’s role inside the GOP. I won’t argue there are misguided ignorant Christians who don’t know there Bible and follow losers. Like all of the morons who’ve voted for any President in this country has seen sicne Lincoln.
            You clearly are attemptingto relate me to a fundamentalist. Free will is somehthing the creator gave to us, he is not looking to make policy and anyone who attempts theocracy is doing that in vain of the Bible But I have a feeling you knew that and were just constructing a lil strawman. toburn to, IDK, try and be dismissive
            Science hasn’t proven a thing about our morality not being dependant on religion or a law giver, especially in the West. You cannot discount millenia of sociological and philosophical impact and especially here in the US. How does science provide a moral individual right framework for justice (link please genuinely interested)? Sam Harris just tried it and his book got absolutely PANNED by critics. The best athiestic scientific minds,Bertrans Russell, have yet to come up with a solution. Because evolution DIRECTLY contradicts that, Natural law means survival of the fittest andwhatever a person hasto do to better themselves if their is no God, is justifiable in a naturalistic framework. Its simply a display of what goes on in the wild, I mean after all we are only a stones throw away from them.
            Morality and Materialism is incompatible.
            provide me the link on the latest research addressing those naturalistic morals, bc I hate being a simpleton and behind the times. Especially with all those recent scientific-phiosophical breathroughs.

          • Tannim

            “A- Don’t tell me what I cn or can’t do with my beliefs in Politics Penn
            & Teller Libertarian”

            Why not? It’s my free speech.

            “Have you read the Bill of Rights? Can you tell me what it says about our inalienable rights?”

            No, I have it MEMORIZED. The term “inalienable rights” does not appear in there at all, but in fact is Jefferson’s terms from the Declaration of Independence, as has been explained previously.

            “Morality as an extensionof naturalism is Social Darwinism, think about it. If man come up clawing and scratching he will fight and kill for what serves his self interestin spite of Justice or morality or ethics. Naturalism has no moral anchor, it has moral subjectivity, which is partly why we are in the conundrum we are in. Everybody decides their own truth, morals etc…”

            As I said before, go read some Aristotle. You apparently do not understand that morality is a subjective value set that varies from person to person and as such is not objective fact. One man’s patriot is another man’s terrorist, and one person’s morality is another’s immorality.

            “It simply moves ethichs and morality out of the “religious shpere.” oh really and how is that? Our rights were created by men and their justification for never havening them removed is Deity, not self. Self isn’t goint work when they are ripped out of your hands, and you cry wait but I have those rights they are mine, says who? Self does… Well i’ll tell you the world democratic revolution, not to be confused with a Const. Republic. So howwill you backyour case for those rights afteryoudeny the deity thoserights werecouched in, and then form new ones?”

            You are ranting, as evidenced by your lack of spacing and your ignorance of the fundamental principles of rights and governance.

            “Also Libertarianism isn’t devoid of Deity, bc it’s closest to our founding
            fathers who couched our rights in Deity (or do you have a new science study that says different) , a uniting cause that transcends human greed and covorting. Rights given by a creator that a country believes cannot be take away withouta fight. Rights exist in this country are ENDOWED by him like it or not, at least in the US. When you remove that from the Constitution, which they will try, that self you find so precious left up to moral subjectivity will crumble at the feet of democracy who will vote for the State to govern the peoplebecause that will become the deity that dictates what is right and wrong and good for the plantet and peopl, and once they do you can kiss any chance of liberty good bye It will be a word synomous with terrorism.”

            This has been explained previously. You erroneously reject it. Moving
            on…

            P.S.: Survival is the ultimate greed and self-interest. It’s also instinct Sorry to break that eons-old news to you…

            “What some people under the terms you laid out may see as rights to self include protecting the environment or gun control etc and in a Democratic revolution majority wins. “

            Not at all. Rights begin with self-ownership, which means you own your life, your body, and your labor, and as such you also possess the right to trade those for other property, be it land, money, goods, or other people’s labor. The only restriction on that right is that you may not use your rights to infringe upon the rights of others to do likewise. So-called “environmnent protection” infringes upon that, as does gun control (denial of ownership of property), and the difference between democracy and republicanism is that in the latter the rights of the minority, from the 49.99% down to the single individual, are protected and respected.

            “You seem to be blaming a lot on fundamentalism itself, more accurately bought leadership,and it’s role inside the GOP. I won’t argue there are misguided ignorant Christians who don’t know there Bible and follow losers. Like all of the morons who’ve voted for any President in this country has seen sicne Lincoln.”

            I do, because religious fundamentalism is by definition repressive, statist, and contrary to the freedom that we are supposed to possess. (I would include the racist tyrant Lincoln in your assessment, too.)

            “You clearly are attemptingto relate me to a fundamentalist.”

            You have done that by your own words when you referred to man as a “glorified monkey,” which is classic fundamentalist rhetoric when addressing evolution vs. creationism.

            “Free will is somehthing the creator gave to us, he is not looking to make policy and anyone who attempts theocracy is doing that in vain of the Bible But I have a feeling you knew that and were just constructing a lil strawman. toburn to, IDK, try and be dismissive”

            You feel incorrectly. Free will exists as an ability to make choices and decisions, which is a process of the mind. Whether that process is a result of being created by a deity or evolving over time is irrelevant to the fact it exists. Your problem is that you are unable to separate the existence of the action from the assumed source, when the source doesn’t matter. The other problem is that the insertion of an artificial institution such as a church (and the belief system doesn’t matter, either) has this habit of diluting personal faith in favor of a weaker and less personal religion and theocracy, and that draws people away from the personal relationship with whatever deity they choose to believe in (or not).

            “Science hasn’t proven a thing about our morality not being dependant on religion or a law giver, especially in the West.”

            Again, go read Artistotle. He did it with pure logic long before either of us were born. Science has nothing to do with morality because it is the study of HOW things happen or exist, not WHY.

            “You cannot discount millenia of sociological and philosophical impact and especially here in the US. How does science provide a moral individual right framework for justice (link please genuinely interested)?”

            See above on how vs. why. Sociology is not science, and neither is philosophy, although one can use the science of reason (logic) to develop a philosophy, as has been done many times in the past.

            “Sam Harris just tried it and his book got absolutely PANNED by critics. The best athiestic scientific minds,Bertrans Russell, have yet to come up with a solution. Because evolution DIRECTLY contradicts that, Natural law means survival of the fittest andwhatever a person hasto do to better themselves if their is no God, is justifiable in a naturalistic framework. Its simply a display of what goes on in the wild, I mean after all we are only a stones throw away from them.”

            Yes we are, and attempting discount the animal part of the human animal is a mistake that most people make. The key is to understand it and control it, not discount it. Humans developed “morals” in regards to interpersonal relationships as a matter of mutual survival back in the Stone Age as man developed agriculture and tools and learned that each one had different skills. That’s part of the acknowledgment and control of the animal side. Study some paleontology and you’ll see it rather clearly.

            “Morality and Materialism is incompatible. “

            Incorrect. One can be very materialistic and own as much property as one wants and be perfectly moral in their lives. Possession of property has nothing to do with morality, unless one thinks that all property is acquired by immoral and unethical means, and that’s insulting to people who honestly work to acquire all they have and do not make acquisition of property their primary motivation in life.

            “provide me the link on the latest research addressing those naturalistic morals, bc I hate being a simpleton and behind the times. Especially with all those recent scientific-phiosophical breathroughs.”

            Do your own research, and in doing so combine Greek philosophy, logic, paleontology, archaeology, real science (not religion), and above all, an open mind. P.S.: proofread, too.

            “Also the existenceof a deity hasn’t been proven, nor has it been disproven.”

            Never said it wasn’t disproven. I said (or at least implied) it cannot be
            proven by empirical means in these four dimensions. That may change in the future, who knows?

            “That aside our Western culture has been infuenced by the JudeoChristian belief sociologically and phiosophiclly has if he had so he DOES indeed havean enourmous impact on our society and more importantly worldviews. So your statement is false. Athiesm hasn’t been proven but a worldview has risen around it. “

            Yes, it has been so influenced, for both better and worse. However, you mistake a deity’s impact in the direct sense with the impact made (and maligned) indirectly through organized religion, which is more about power and control over people than the actual belief system. Wars have been fought because of group religion, not from individual faith. Belief is and should remain personal, separate from all collective dilution and perversion, including the state.

            “Are you a liberal? You never answered the question”

            You never answered mine first when I asked you to define what “atheistic libertarian” is. I’m a libertarian, and my faith (or lack thereof, note I never have said which) is irrelevant. You apparently, are a theocrat.

          • dannyboy

            Athiestic Libertarianism is the first I heard it mentioned on this thread so I thought I’d ask, I had no idead it it would be so offensive.

            I couldn’t disagree with you more and I’m not a theocrat, the idea is incompatible with my faith but Libertarians I though were closest to the ideals that would allow me to leas the life I want after studying history, (not the orthodox lies peddled at that great old indoctrination camp) after 15 years of unafilliated research I’m comfortable identiying with Libertarian to a degree but favor partisanship strictly to end the Dialectic trap we’re currently locked in. Unfortunately these moves get co opted quicly and it’s obvious this one is on the radar and more than likely next, but they soon will be co opted by the Hegelian sysytem to butt heads with Neo-liberalism and you never answered my querstion STILL, who knows why… My worldview and basis for morality comes from God now, before it hadn’t, before I was moderate and a morally subjective. Simply bc it allowed me to lead the life-style I wanted to and justified my screw others I’m out for me attitude.

            You say go read Aristotle and that will answer my qustion.. Okay I will I just wish I could read the sages he got his material from considering it was all burnt to the ground that will be quite hard.
            .

            Subjective moral attitudes in OTHER cultures doesn’t matter here in the WEST (western Church, where we get out name from), even you were to witness them sacrafice a child because that’s what their culture called for would that bother you? And why would it, in terms of you morality you find it offensive bc the childs free will was taken away? That’s what would bother you? Nothing more? I find it amazing that you can deny that our rights according to our Dec of Ind. aren’t endowed by out creator. Our Bill Of Rights weren’t written with Pagan Cannibals in mind now were they? If you don’t think our morality is based off our Judeo-Christian heritage in the West you’re flat out wrong.

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.– Liberty and my creator go hand in hand

            Going back to tribes of hunters and gathers to try and explain morality is nonsencial. Society devoid of morality would set up laws and rules to live by so they could flourish as a group. Those are simply laws that should drive no empathy. But how come when you hear of a Child being molestated it sickens you to the core, or raped, and tortured and killed, it sickens you to the core even if it happened to no one in your family or camp or even familiar to you. If a man in another group benefitted from that he is only practicing natural selection. There is a difference between a group of hunters and gathers coming up with laws and ethics to better govern society but that doesn’t account for morality.

            Morals doesn’t come from hunter and gatherer evolution, this hasn’t been “scientifically proven” by ANY means and science is at a loss for it, this is well known, and sociology last time I checked was certainly a well respected discipline and is a lot more adept at understanding cultural changes and zeitgeists than palentologists. Also while Philosophy may not be a “science” (something that can be measured empiracally), human thoughts, innovations, rationalizing the world, the rules of logic, and elevating man to understanding the larger things in life, we have a dearth of it right now, with the exception of a few, which is part of the problem. Science can’t answer everything and I’m sorry to inform you of that. Science itself is subject to politics, pressure, suppression, schools of thought not so easily challenged, notorious for ostracizing people who ask tough questions or who proffer dissenting views. Philosophy and sociology are the study of people and how they react to religion and to government and to policy. So when you talk about the rights of man and their relationship to a society, you’re talking about sociology and philosophy not science.

            Humans developed “morals” in regards to interpersonal relationships as a matter of mutual survival back in the Stone Age as man developed agriculture and tools and learned that each one had different skills. – Not to be crude and I apologize but this doesn’t make a lick of sense. Morals didn’t develop from a couple guys making rock hammers, come on, seriously. Man is inherrently evil and Morals are written on our hearts or taught to us by our parents or elder. People don’t dive in front of an on coming train to attempt to save a person or countless other dispalys of this or when you see starving children who don’t belong to your pack or herd or cave community and empathize with them or get so mad you want to do something about it. Naturalism doesn’t explain self-sacrafice and it doesn’t explain morality. I’m sorry, and of course people have different custums in different areas but their “subjective truths” are all “objective truths” to them. But here in the West on Morals come from the Judeo Christian faith whether you like it or not and I understand in this Gnostic/Kabbalistic moral relativistic society God and Jesus are curse words. I do. Actually seeing the public ridicule of Tim Tebow and wondering why Christianity was being attacked so voraciously made me investigate it.

            I converted a lil over a year ago after 5 years of researching claims and I’m simply of the opinion. I’ve listened to quite a view quality debates and I’ve yet to hear an athiest answer that question. Maybe you should reach out to Harris and tell him all along that it was always in the writings of Aristotle, maybe that way he would have won that last debate.
            Thanks for the discourse I wish you well, we are clearly vastly at odds on any tenets except Libertarianism, I think, unless your a Socialist. Oh and your Theocrat comment couldn’t be further off, just because I hold a world-view doesn’t mean I want to see tha world-view be forced down everyones throats as Government. That would make me two things… a Liberal and No longer a Christian.

            Gotta run got someone on my inquisition rack in the basement, conversion quota is running low.

            And who knows thanks for the talk, didn’t realize that Libertarians were anti-Christian and since I only support parties in order to transcend bipartisanism maybe it’s time to look elsewhere considering the Libertarian leadership seems like a pack of phonies riding a tidle-wave like they did the Tea Party until they get sucked in and amalgamated.

          • Tannim

            “Athiestic Libertarianism is the first I heard it mentioned on this thread
            so I thought I’d ask, I had no idead it it would be so offensive.”

            It’s offensive because it is inaccurate. Libertarianism has absolutely zero to do with religion.

            “I couldn’t disagree with you more and I’m not a theocrat, the idea is incompatible with my faith but Libertarians I though were closest to the ideals that would allow me to leas the life I want after studying history, (not the orthodox lies peddled at that great old indoctrination camp) after 15 years of unafilliated research I’m comfortable identiying with Libertarian to a degree but favor partisanship strictly to end the Dialectic trap we’re currently locked in. Unfortunately these moves get co opted quicly and it’s obvious this one is on the radar and more than likely next, but they soon will be co opted by the Hegelian sysytem to butt heads with Neo-liberalism and you never answered my querstion STILL, who knows why… My worldview and basis for morality comes from God now, before it hadn’t, before I was moderate and a morally subjective. Simply bc it allowed me to lead the life-style I wanted to and justified my screw others I’m out for me attitude.”

            You want to leave the run-on sentence behind and try again? That rambled and was incoherent.

            “You say go read Aristotle and that will answer my qustion.. Okay I will I
            just wish I could read the sages he got his material from considering it was all burnt to the ground that will be quite hard.”

            http://www.amazon.com/Nicomachean-Ethics-Aristotle/dp/0872204642/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1394744650&sr=1-1&keywords=nichomachean+ethics+aristotle

            “Subjective moral attitudes in OTHER cultures doesn’t matter here in the WEST (western Church, where we get out name from), even you were to witness them sacrafice a child because that’s what their culture called for would that bother you? And why would it, in terms of you morality you find it offensive bc the childs free will was taken away? That’s what would bother you? Nothing more? I find it amazing that you can deny that our rights according to our Dec of Ind. aren’t endowed by out creator. Our Bill Of Rights weren’t written with Pagan Cannibals in mind now were they? If you don’t think our morality is based off our Judeo-Christian heritage in the West you’re flat out wrong.”

            I was actually beginning to make some sense of that run-on. Maybe I’m getting used to it. You missed the point completely. So to reiterate, one society’s morality is another’s immorality. By definition that makes it subjective and not objective. Simple case: Mormons consider polygamy to be acceptable, but other Christian sects do not (nevermind their Jewish roots had it). Simple case #2: Muslims consider females to be expendable chattel, most Christian sects do not (although some used to). It goes on. Remember, it was the Christians who called the Native Americans “barbarians” and worse because they had never seen a Bible and had their own spiritual path that worked just fine for them. As for the whole often-cited and easily-rebutted heritage argument, tell me why the originator of most of the concepts of this Republic was an ancient Greek in Solon??? Why is HE sculpted on the facade of the Supreme Court? He predated Christian beliefs by almost 600 years!

            “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.– Liberty and my creator go hand in hand”

            This has already been explained.

            “Going back to tribes of hunters and gathers to try and explain morality is nonsencial. Society devoid of morality would set up laws and rules to live by so they could flourish as a group.”

            And what is the morality basis of those laws and rules except to help each other survive and grow? Sorry, but the reality is that when laws and rules are developed devoid of morality, the result is not group flourishment bur group oppression. Ask Stalin or Mao about that. Or even the Crusade-era Vatican.

            “Those are simply laws that should drive no empathy. But how come when you hear of a Child being molestated it sickens you to the core, or raped, and tortured and killed, it sickens you to the core even if it happened to no one in your family or camp or even familiar to you.”

            Because that violates that child’s person by aggressive violence. That by itself is enough, and it doesn’t need a legal or religious basis. That’s morality, and it comes from principles that do not necessarily have to come from religion. *That’s the entire point you keep missing.*

            “If a man in another group benefitted from that he is only practicing natural selection. There is a difference between a group of hunters and gathers coming up with laws and ethics to better govern society but that doesn’t account for morality.”

            Yes, there is a difference. Law without morality is evil and oppressive. Law with morality is supportive and productive. But that’s not the point, either. The point is where morals come from. You claim religion. I have shown and indeed lived otherwise.

            “Morals doesn’t come from hunter and gatherer evolution, this hasn’t been “scientifically proven” by ANY means and science is at a loss for it, this is well known, and sociology last time I checked was certainly a well respected discipline and is a lot more adept at understanding cultural changes and zeitgeists than palentologists.”

            Sociology is well-respected? Would you like fries with that? Sorry, but the reason it hasn’t been scientifically proven is because there is no written evidence because they had no written language to write it down in! You can be smarter than that!

            “Also while Philosophy may not be a “science” (something that can
            be measured empiracally), human thoughts, innovations, rationalizing the world, the rules of logic, and elevating man to understanding the larger things in life, we have a dearth of it right now, with the exception of a few, which is part of the problem.”

            A dearth of knowledge is a problem? Is ignorance bliss, then, too? That’s simply absurd.

            “Science can’t answer everything and I’m sorry to inform you of that.”

            Nobody said it does except by your implication. However, it has conclusively rebutted religion time and time again. It is a process of
            discovery of knowledge.

            “Science itself is subject to politics, pressure, suppression, schools of thought not so easily challenged, notorious for ostracizing people who ask tough questions or who proffer dissenting views.”

            No, that would be the economics of research, not science itself.

            “Philosophy and sociology are the study of people and how they react to religion and to government and to policy. So when you talk about the rights of man and their relationship to a society, you’re talking about sociology and philosophy not science.”

            Science deals with facts, not emotive reactions. If you want to “study” emotive reactions, go study psychology and religion.

            “Humans developed “morals” in regards to interpersonal relationships as a matter of mutual survival back in the Stone Age as man developed agriculture and tools and learned that each one had different skills. – Not to be crude and I apologize but this doesn’t make a lick of sense.”

            It makes perfect sense. How on one hand can you go on about sociology and what it is and on the other hand reject that very premise because it happened several eons ago?

            “Morals didn’t develop from a couple guys making rock hammers, come on, seriously.”

            I am serious. Are you suggesting that mutual cooperation for survival developed amorally?

            “Man is inherrently evil and Morals are written on our hearts or taught to us by our parents or elder.”

            Here is where you rely on your religion far too much. “Evil” is a subjective term, as explained ad nauseum previously, and it is a learned behavior and attitude. People are not inherently evil; that’s a
            control mechanism placed in your Bible. People are inherently stupid, yes, but can and do work to overcome that. But stupid =/= evil.

            “People don’t dive in front of an on coming train to attempt to save a
            person or countless other dispalys of this or when you see starving children who don’t belong to your pack or herd or cave community and empathize with them or get so mad you want to do something about it.”

            What are you rambling about? That made no sense.

            “Naturalism doesn’t explain self-sacrafice and it doesn’t explain morality.”

            Who said anything about naturalism? I sure didn’t. People do the things they do ultimately out of self-interest almost all of the time, whether that self-interest is personal gain, survival, repaying a debt (real or imagined), or simply for the good feelings. That’s simply being human.

            “I’m sorry, and of course people have different custums in different areas but their “subjective truths” are all “objective truths” to
            them.”

            Yes, and they would be wrong, too.

            But here in the West on Morals come from the Judeo Christian faith whether you like it or not and I understand in this Gnostic/Kabbalistic moral relativistic society God and Jesus are curse words. I do. Actually seeing the public ridicule of Tim Tebow and wondering why Christianity was being attacked so voraciously made me investigate it.”

            This has been discussed elsewhere, and you are incorrect. I suggest you engage in some comparative culture and religion studies for better perspective.

            BTW, Tebow was ridiculed because he sucked at QB, not for his religion—at least by me. The fact he lived his faith on his sleeve didn’t bother me one bit, but it still didn’t help him fix his throwing mehcanics or read progressions at the line of scrimmage.

            “I converted a lil over a year ago after 5 years of researching claims and I’m simply of the opinion. I’ve listened to quite a view quality debates and I’ve yet to hear an athiest answer that question. Maybe you should reach out to Harris and tell him all along that it was always in the writings of Aristotle, maybe that way he would have won that last debate. “

            I have no idea who Harris is and frankly don’t care. I have yet to hear a Christian explain a lot of things in their religion, such as where the waters pre-creation came from, where Cain’s wife came from, and just exactly why Paul is held in such regard when most of what he says directly contradicts the words of the Christ. The Bible is no end-all be-all for religion, and certainly not or morality, and to claim otherwise is either ignorance or sheer lunacy. Calling it literal truth as some do is even more lunacy.

            “Thanks for the discourse I wish you well, we are clearly vastly at odds on any tenets except Libertarianism, I think, unless your a Socialist. Oh and your Theocrat comment couldn’t be further off, just because I hold a world-view doesn’t mean I want to see tha world-view be forced down everyones throats as Government. That would make me two things… a Liberal and No longer a Christian.”

            I’m no socialist, except in believing that it’s OK if people wish to voluntarily do so, and that’s their decision.

            Most theocrats are liberals, but they claim to be social conservatives. It’s good that you don’t want to force your world view on others; I applaud you for that.

            “Gotta run got someone on my inquisition rack in the basement, conversion quota is running low.”

            At least you have a sense of humor.

            “And who knows thanks for the talk, didn’t realize that Libertarians were anti-Christian and since I only support parties in order to transcend bipartisanism maybe it’s time to look elsewhere considering the Libertarian leadership seems like a pack of phonies riding a tidle-wave like they did the Tea Party until they get sucked in and amalgamated.”

            Libertarians are not anti-Christian.

            Libertarians stand for freedom of all religions and the ability to let people make up their own minds and make their own choices free of oppression by business, church, or state.

            This is why religion has nothing to do with libertarianism and never
            has. “Live and let live” transcends all religions, just like its close cousin, the Golden Rule.

            BTW, the libertarian movement predates the current “tidal wave” and predates the Tea Party as well. If you think otherwise, then you haven’t done your historical research.

            One last thing: I’m no leader in the libertarian movement. I’m just a person who speaks my mind. There are people in the so-called leadership of the Libertarain movement who know my real name, but
            not this name.

        • dannyboy

          Rights don’t exist simply because we exist. You need justification for these things. Something they are grounded in. I dare say your post couldn’t be more off. Are you a liberal, bc those are errors that liberals speak? If so please let me know bc I would be interested in further dialogue to apply to you rationally and philosophically. However if your a liberal, than we both know you have nothing but disdain and would explain comments like ‘rights… We just have them” NO WE DON’T just HAVE them, that statement is ignorant of history, sacrifice, philosophy, and ideology tho be quite honest. Naturalism CANNOT provide moral framework, this is admitted to by many atheists, including Bertrand Russel and Sam Harris’s latest book got destroyed attempting to develop that theory. With God you have no rights, once they remove God, the rights have no foundation and that’s simply truth. Bc once they attack those rights, currently underway, if they are not endowed by your creator….. You no longer can use that as a reason to defend individual sovereignty or collectivist values (ie what’s good for the state. By the best whee see all those macro-evolution transition fossils. Still not one and Darwin said, if his their were true we’d find thousands. Well they haven’t one foundone

          • Tannim

            See below. This has already been answered.

            The existence of any deity has not been proven; it rests in the arena of faith and assumption and has no basis in the four dimensions we live in. A such, it has zero place in politics, which exists entirely in those four dimensions.

            P.S.: Your understanding of Darwinism, evolution, and science is severely lacking. I suggest you hit some real, non-creationist apologist books for the facts and learn some real science. In the meantime, leave the religious nonsense in the churches and out of politics. True deity, if it exists, neither needs nor wants the state–it relies upon individual relationships, not collectives of church or government.

          • Jona

            You sound like the typical philosopher of a junior college….. and Bill Nye. You are religious my friend. You have your dogmas, your “church” which is your established science realm of “men” and”apologist” ( Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Bertrand, Nietzsche), your faith in origins, your presuppositions ( which by definition are taken by faith since they are axioms and not provable), your set of morality….

          • Tannim

            I never said I didn’t have my own dogmas (everyone does). But you really have no real idea what you’re talking about otherwise. Apologist live in the religious world, and my morality was arrived at by means beyond your comprehension (because you weren’t there) or understanding (since you clearly lack the knowledge to comprehend).

          • Jona

            I do
            base my beliefs in reason. I deduce logically my inferences based on my
            premises which are derived from Scripture. I am not an empiricist. I am a
            Christian rationalist. Logic is given to us by God because God thinks logically.
            We are created in the His image, therefore we ought to think logically. I think
            you are confusing the other guy dannyboy with Jona. I am Jona and not dannyboy.
            Dannyboy does have some issues in grammar. Lol. Im glad you are a Libertarian.
            We have some things in common. However, I do respect your views and hopefully
            you will get a different perspective on Christianity from the mainstream
            Christian circles. You did not answer any of my objections, you also committed the
            fallacy of petition principia at least four times, and you also didn’t give me
            your epistemology. It also sounds like you have this view of the Bible that is
            typical from atheist. Just call it evil because that it what the atheist
            community has said even though you haven’t read the Bible besides a few verses.
            Besides that point, what is evil in the atheistic worldview and how do you know
            that? I understand and know where you got your understanding. I know you
            potential of intellectualism and think logically because you are also created
            by God in His image. I know you know morality because God put it in your heart.
            ( Romans 2:15)

          • Tannim

            “I do base my beliefs in reason.”

            Not when you rely on the Bible as the source of that reason.

            “I deduce logically my inferences based on my premises which are derived from Scripture. I am not an empiricist.”

            Then you are not using logic or reason. Scripture tends to contradict itself repeatedly. For a Christian to be intellectually honest in their Biblical studies, they will approach it from the atheistic POV. For an atheist to do the same, they will approach it from a Christian POV. As a former Catholic and a PGK who has moved on from Christianity, I have done both, as well as studied the massive parallels in multiple religions over time, which is something most people simply either have not done or refuse to do.

            “I am a Christian rationalist.”

            There are some of those, but not many. Most Christians are dogmatic to the point of lunacy. The question is, do you rationalize, or do you reason?

            “Logic is given to us by God because God thinks logically.”

            If God thought logically as we understand it, then he would not rely upon man to misinterpret his thoughts in the manner they have over time, at the expense of millions of human suffering that was not only avoidable but unnecessary. Attempting to personify the Christian God into man’s image is the fundamental mistake most Christians make.

            “We are created in the His image, therefore we ought to think logically.”

            Only according to the Bible, and there is zero outside evidence to that, which would require evidence of God’s image to compare. Otherwise it’s a giant case of “because I said so.” IIRC in Exodus God’s image was a burning bush, yet we humans weren’t created like that, or the tiniest whisper as referenced elsewhere. In fact, the Genesis myth puts that whole line in there to create a link and bond to the Hebrew God, in the same way other religions do the same.

            “I think you are confusing the other guy dannyboy with Jona. I am Jona and not dannyboy. Dannyboy does have some issues in grammar. Lol.”

            Maybe I am. If so, I apologize.

            “Im glad you are a Libertarian. We have some things in common. However, I do respect your views and hopefully you will get a different perspective on Christianity from the mainstream Christian circles.”

            What’s a mainstream Christian circle? I was raised half-Catholic, half-Protestant, and I moved on from both when I had my own spiritual awakening courtesy of a combination of a Native American Ghost Dance and John’s vision in Revelations. Can’t get much more mainstream than that, can it? I moved beyond organized religion because I saw its major shortcomings were not for me, and I moved beyond Christianity because I saw the inconsistencies, contradictions, and outright falsities in their Bibles.

            “You did not answer any of my objections, you also committed the fallacy of petition principia at least four times, and you also didn’t give me your epistemology.”

            Sorry, but it is not begging the question when the question is invalid in the first place. My epistemology is far beyond a mere Bible as it encompasses a comparative study of world religions both present and past, and a study of philosophies and reason that go back to ancient Greece and to the present in modern logic, mathematics, and science.

            “It also sounds like you have this view of the Bible that is typical from atheist.”

            As I stated above, I have studied it from both a believer’s and a skeptic’s perspective. I found the skeptic’s perspective more persuasive.

            “Just call it evil because that it what the atheist community has said even though you haven’t read the Bible besides a few verses.”

            On the contrary, I have no less than four versions of the Bible in my extensive library and I have read all of them end to end. They sit right next to my books on Confucianism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Hinduism, the Koran, Bullfinch’s mythology, and the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and down the shelf from Aristotle, Locke, Smith, Paine, Emerson, and Thoreau et al. I do not call the Bible evil, just inconsistent and limited. I call those who exploit it for their own power and control over people to be evil.

            “Besides that point, what is evil in the atheistic worldview and how do you know that?”

            Ask an atheist. For me, evil is infringing upon my freedom to be self-sufficient and self-responsible and my ability to properly exercise my free will.

            “I understand and know where you got your understanding.”

            Since you stated above that you didn’t know my epistemology, that would be impossible.

            “I know you potential of intellectualism and think logically because you are also created by God in His image. I know you know morality because God put it in your heart. ( Romans 2:15)”

            Nobody is ingrained with morality any more than anyone is ingrained with bigotry and racism. Both are learned beliefs and behaviors. People are generally bright in knowledge but poor in reasoning, and my experience has shown me just how religion hurts both. We can split the atom and explore its parts but we can’t figure out how to move past evil. We can devise technology to kill people more efficiently that ever but we cannot help our fellow man move past greed, oppression, hunger, and homelessness. Instead I see religionists waste time and energy and resources working against their own beliefs, complaining about people loving each other just because of gender even though the Christ never said a thing about gender restrictions, complaining about unborn being killed in a world of overpopulation and with an argument that science rebuts, and most of all, continually attempting to use their belief system through the state as a forced club upon others instead of living by example and letting people make up their own minds. When faced with that reality, of course I’m cynical. Politics
            is about power and control of people, and as a libertarian, my desire is to turn that power and control against itself so that it self-destructs and people can exercise their own power and control over themselves, including the ability to believe what one wishes.

        • Jona

          “It presupposes rights for the individual.”

          I agree. Rights are presupposed. These presuppositions are given to me by the ideas revealed in scripture. I have a foundation of my ideas. I start off with the ideas in the Bible. All men are evil (Romans 3:23). Politicians, laymen, pastors, church members, atheist, etc are men. Therefore, Politicians, laymen, pastors, church members, atheist etc. are evil. Since all men are evil, I cannot trust politicians who have more potential for evil since they have more power. Stealing is prohibited by God. (Lev 19:11, Ephesians 4:28). Stealing is taking the property of another by force when the person has not violated any person’s rights or committed any crime. Obamacare is taking the private property of an individual without the person committing a crime or giving it voluntarily. Therefore Obamacare is stealing is wrong and evil. What is the atheistic foundation? Where do you get your presuppositions from? Please explain.

          “Because “health care”(more appropriately called “health care insurance” is a product and a service, not a right. “Health” is a right, a subset of Life, and “health care” is a responsibility that each individual has in order to have their health.”

          How do you know “health” is a right? Where do you get these rights from? “Health” is not a right. Health is a responsibility. Health care
          insurance is a service. None of these two is a right. I am not responsible for another person’s health. If I chose to help, then my reward is great. I believe God will bless me not the state.

          “Because it violates the property rights of others.”

          Giving a definition of stealing is not given the reason why its
          wrong. This is a perfect example of begging the question. ( e.g why is
          violating the property rights of others wrong because it is stealing. Why is stealing wrong because it violates the property rights of others)

          Why is tyranny wrong?”

          This another example of begging the question. Please explain why tyranny ( which by your definition is violating the overall rights of others which I think is an incomplete definition of tyranny) is wrong. Don’t give me your definition then say it is wrong.

          “Yes, because that’s how free markets and capitalism work.”

          No, free market does not work that way. It might be an effect
          with greedy corporations but it is not how it works. The Bible says we are here to glorify God by loving God and our neighbor. Laissez faire capitalism is the only market that allows the individual to do this without violating Scripture regardless if it works for society or not. A good example of Laissez-Faire Capitalism is ( Genesis 23: 3-17) Abraham freely negotiated with a man to buy a land to bury Sarah. Even though the land was offered for a low price and at one time for free, Abraham decided to pay what he thought was worth it and agreeable. No government involved. Two individuals bargaining.

          “When the Christian “faith” is practiced as the Christ taught
          it, yes”

          No, the reason is because any other system violates Scripture.

          “Stealing is wrong because it is unethical and immoral to take
          that which is not yours, regardless of your religion.

          Yes, it is wrong stealing regardless of your religion. Again, why is wrong according to an atheistic worldview. Wow, you love committing this fallacy (begging the question)

          “Murder is wrong because it is unethical and immoral to take a
          life which is not yours, except in self-defense, regardless of your religion.”

          Why is murder wrong according to your presupposition and
          atheistic worldview. (Begging The Question again)

          “Not really, unless one has no idea what rights really are. Most
          people don’t, though, which is why they call “health care” a right when it
          isn’t.”

          What is a right then and where do we get these rights from? Do
          we get them from government, the majority of people, nature, race, our “wallets” or money prestige?

          “By whom” is irrelevant as they exist because we exist”

          This is funny! I wonder what your epistemology is. Are you an
          empiricist, rationalist, or an irrationalist? If I was to say “ God exist
          because we exist” would you agree with that statement or reject it?

          “That’s your perspective; however, it would be incorrect. We have rights because we exist, and whether we exist because of Creationist nonsense from a third-rate Hebrew war god, the Big Bang, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is irrelevant to the fact we have them, which is what matters.

          No, it does matter. The God of the Bible is the only explanation why anyone ought to be a “Libertarian” or a “Minarchist”. Let me ask you this and please explain. How many rights do we have? If we have more than 5, please let me know at least 3 of them. You did say we have “rights”. By the way, I am not going to give the reason why the Bible is true. What I am trying to show is that I am being consistent with my worldview. I am trying to show that you have to give up your atheism and jump into a theistic worldview to explain your “rights” theory.

          • Tannim

            Yawn. Escape your Bible and embrace reason over fairy tales. The Hebrew war-god is a fickle dictator according to your Bible.

      • dannyboy

        reformedlibertarian.com, I would be interested in checking it out, however I don’t do Calvinism and typically reformed implies Calvinism. Is that the case?

    • TheGuyinCharge

      Totally. Hysterical web comments on obscure sites are moving us toward a bright future. How dare these people try to associate themselves with a political juggernaut like you.

      • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

        Me? No, they HATE me. They only want what I REPRESENT. What I personify. So they can USE IT to CONTINUE moving us toward that bright future of republican/democrat UNCONSTITUTIONAL Central Government Planning.

        … and you’re… NOT… hysterical?

        • dannyboy

          Who is a candidate? It’s got to be third party or obscure? Not that it will ever wrok, the game is in too deep and the only way to turn back now is REVO. Because anyone in position to win is going to need Pac and Caucus money. Once they take that they are beholden. The game is rigged until lobby is removed.

  • Abe

    Rand left a fecal taste in my mouth when he supported rummy instead of his dad!

    • dannyboy

      Didn’t he support Romney when there was no coming back, I mean I was upset too but politics plays it’s role.
      What about the Romney threat that was perceived to be soooo damaging to the Paul’s? Any merit to that?

      • Abe

        Everything from the primaries and caucuses to the convention in Tampa was rigged. I didn’t see any difference between Barry or Romney. I think the Coup-De-Gras was when the Pauls got felt up by TSA when they left Tampa. I voted for Gary Johnson. Lost cause or not, I’ll alway vote with my concious. Really got a kick out of Boehner ready off the teleprompter the ayes have it when that was clearly not the case. The Dems pulled the same thing.

  • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

    70′s REPUBLICAN LIE:
    The Battle For The Heart Of The Republican Party: Conservatives
    RESULTS:
    Bigger UNCONSTITUTIONAL government, LOST liberties.

    80′s REPUBLICAN LIE:
    The Battle For The Heart Of The Republican Party: Reagan Conservatives
    RESULTS:
    Bigger UNCONSTITUTIONAL government, LOST liberties.

    90′s REPUBLICAN LIE:
    The Battle For The Heart Of The Republican Party: Christian Conservatives
    RESULTS:
    Bigger UNCONSTITUTIONAL government, LOST liberties.

    00′s REPUBLICAN LIE:
    The Battle For The Heart Of The Republican Party: Compassionate Conservatives
    RESULTS:
    Bigger UNCONSTITUTIONAL government, LOST liberties.

    2010 REPUBLICAN LIE:
    The Battle For The Heart Of The Republican Party: Tea Party
    RESULTS:
    Bigger UNCONSTITUTIONAL government, LOST liberties.

    2012 REPUBLICAN LIE:
    The Battle For The Heart Of The Republican Party: Anybody But Obama (and Ron Paul)
    RESULTS:
    Bigger UNCONSTITUTIONAL government, LOST liberties.

    2014 REPUBLICAN LIE:
    The Battle For The Heart Of The Republican Party: Libertarian
    RESULTS:
    Bigger UNCONSTITUTIONAL government, LOST liberties.

    • dannyboy

      Who’s your candidate? Just curious

      • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

        I dare not say, lest the LEFTIST republican party target them for CO-OPTING.

        • dannyboy

          Well then who are we supposed to get behind? Plus the mucks in congress know a lot more about potential candidates than they are given credible for. So aside from the Corporate dogs like Christie and the absolute lia faux- Cruz. Who is your libertarian front-runnerk? No name no momentum

  • Kent

    I do not agree that Rand is “not libertarian leaning”. He is almost certainly the most libertarian leaning Senator, and the most libertarian leaning presidential hopeful that is not a libertarian. He does not claim to be a libertarian. Also, I do not believe being pro amnesty is a non libertarian quality. I personally believe a human has a right to go wherever they have the most opportunity to lead a quality life. I believe it is a natural right. In fact one of the most fundamental. I do not care if it is not enumerated in the constitution. Does libertarianism end at adherence to the constitution and just laws of the United States? Or is it adherence to natural law and rights that no government can take from any man?

    I do not see Rand as the “lesser of two evils” candidate. Could he get into the White House and be an establishment shill? Of course he could, and if he does get elected it likely means he is.

    All of this ignores the most important issue. If we don’t clean house in the congress and bureaucracy then no president is going to be able to do much about the state of affairs in Washington. If the apple is rotten to the core replacing the stem doesn’t make it wholesome.

    So is Rand perfect? Of course not. If you are waiting for a perfect man to be president you will be waiting till the second coming.

    • Kent

      By the way if you paid attention Ron Paul seemed to support amnesty. He mostly diverted and talked about how we draw illegals through welfare. I could be wrong but I do not think he ever condemned amnesty.

    • TheGuyinCharge

      Sure, people can go wherever they want. I bet you have three or four Mexicans lounging around your living room right now because they like your nice house and big TV.

      The flip side of the libertarian argument is that people must also be able to band together and exclude those who they don’t feel improve the general quality of life.

      An open door for low IQ, low skill, low education third-worlders, with no option of closing the door, isn’t any libertarian utopia, or even any function of a free market. A market takes all factors into account, and civilized, high IQ groups, if allowed to discuss matters and act freely–i.e., make uncoerced economic choices–would rule out importing the third world tomorrow.

      That said, I’m pulling for Rand. We get freedom back and have an open debate, we can isolate the third world elements and try to rebuild.

      • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

        Gracias por su voto.
        ~ ethnocentric, lawless, violent, third-world Illegal alien

    • Tannim

      “Also, I do not believe being pro amnesty is a non libertarian quality.”

      Pro-amnesty is anti-property rights, because it rewards criminal trespassing. It’s the one area where libertarians get it philosophically wrong.

  • Mag

    Ted Cruz is not Libertarian minded. Still big govt and pro banksters

  • Allan Elliott

    According to Abby Martin Rand Paul tried to have her fired from RT. Ted
    Cruz is being bank rolled by Wall Street according to Open Secrets.org

  • Where’s the Birth Certificate?

    Reading the comments, I can’t help but think of the old cliché, about people arguing over how the deck chairs are arranged on the Titanic.
    Ron Paul would have been good for America. If by the grace of God he had been elected, he could have done some real good, if he wasn’t assassinated first.
    Rand Paul is not going to make any real difference. He is just a faint shadow of his father and he is not going to be elected President anyway.
    It would be nice to see people thinking of ways to get Obama out of the White House instead of arguing over which sellout is less of a criminal.

  • r3VOLution IS NOT republican

    UH OH!!!!!!!!!!!!! Adam Kokesh does RPAC:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDpTwdQ9N-0

    I’ve got a feeling the NARRATIVE-STEERING republicans… oooops… er… I mean the (cough, cough) “Libertarians”… are gonna have their REPUBLICAN propaganda WRECKED!