Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Sun Jul 21, 2019 9:47 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2011 3:02 pm 
Offline
Major General

Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:56 am
Posts: 739
Likes: 54
Liked: 23
I AGREE BECAUSE THIS WOULD BE VERY DETRIMENTAL TO OUR CULTURE. IN MY AREA, METH ADDICTS HAVE BECOME MONSTERS PREYING ON THE WEAK.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2011 3:54 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:48 am
Posts: 970
Likes: 8
Liked: 19
Until they, by their actions, demonstrate an IQ larger than their shoe size, they need to remain in the donut shops. If I read just one more news story where they shoot grandpaw and the family dog, only to find they had the wrong address, My head is going to explode. Not to mention their final solution to the Meth lab thing was to remove an effective sinus medication from the market, only to replace it with a barely mediocre one. Now they make total fools of themselves by removing even the mediocre sinus medicine from the market too. I, like Doctor Ron Paul and his entire family, have never taken illegal drugs and never plan to. Wasn't it Rush who took dozens of Oxycontin a day who routinely condemns his brethren drug abusers?

And I don't even think legalization is necessary either, just ZERO TOLERANCE for enforcers who make needless deadly mistakes. After shooting grandpaw or the family dog or even the baby, only to find they goofed on the address, they should never ever again allowed to be so much as a night watchman. Furthermore they need the deterrent of knowing such actions will result in them doing years of hard time, along side hard criminals who have been made aware why they are there. And while they're at it, put an end to punishing law abiding citizens who have never taken an illegal drug, or legal drugs in an illegal manner like Limbaugh, by denying them a perfectly useful and safe medication (i.e. sinus pills).

_________________
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." ~ Ronald Reagan


You say "Conspiracy Theorist"?? Call me Agenda Analyst.



Post by melopa Liked by: christopher.wilkerson
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2011 4:26 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:41 pm
Posts: 2474
Location: Western Virginia
Likes: 368
Liked: 133
melopa wrote:
Until they, by their actions, demonstrate an IQ larger than their shoe size, they need to remain in the donut shops. If I read just one more news story where they shoot grandpaw and the family dog, only to find they had the wrong address, My head is going to explode. Not to mention their final solution to the Meth lab thing was to remove an effective sinus medication from the market, only to replace it with a barely mediocre one. Now they make total fools of themselves by removing even the mediocre sinus medicine from the market too. I, like Doctor Ron Paul and his entire family, have never taken illegal drugs and never plan to. Wasn't it Rush who took dozens of Oxycontin a day who routinely condemns his brethren drug abusers?

And I don't even think legalization is necessary either, just ZERO TOLERANCE for enforcers who make needless deadly mistakes. After shooting grandpaw or the family dog or even the baby, only to find they goofed on the address, they should never ever again allowed to be so much as a night watchman. Furthermore they need the deterrent of knowing such actions will result in them doing years of hard time, along side hard criminals who have been made aware why they are there. And while they're at it, put an end to punishing law abiding citizens who have never taken an illegal drug, or legal drugs in an illegal manner like Limbaugh, by denying them a perfectly useful and safe medication (i.e. sinus pills).


melopa, I also struggle with sinus problems and infections. I understand your frustration with the "war on drugs," but for your own needs I just want to be sure you know that you can still buy ephedrine products, only they are treated more like controlled substances now. I buy 12-hour time-release pseudoephedrine, and now Allegra-D, too, over-the-counter at the WalMart pharmacy. You have to show an ID, and sign for the products. It's true they are not available in every store now, but you can still get them. (I agree with you that the "substitute" drug they put on the shelves is worthless.)

_________________
"Never, Never, NEVER GIVE UP" Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2011 5:24 pm 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:48 am
Posts: 970
Likes: 8
Liked: 19
WhatsNotToLike? wrote:
melopa wrote:
Until they, by their actions, demonstrate an IQ larger than their shoe size, they need to remain in the donut shops. If I read just one more news story where they shoot grandpaw and the family dog, only to find they had the wrong address, My head is going to explode. Not to mention their final solution to the Meth lab thing was to remove an effective sinus medication from the market, only to replace it with a barely mediocre one. Now they make total fools of themselves by removing even the mediocre sinus medicine from the market too. I, like Doctor Ron Paul and his entire family, have never taken illegal drugs and never plan to. Wasn't it Rush who took dozens of Oxycontin a day who routinely condemns his brethren drug abusers?

And I don't even think legalization is necessary either, just ZERO TOLERANCE for enforcers who make needless deadly mistakes. After shooting grandpaw or the family dog or even the baby, only to find they goofed on the address, they should never ever again allowed to be so much as a night watchman. Furthermore they need the deterrent of knowing such actions will result in them doing years of hard time, along side hard criminals who have been made aware why they are there. And while they're at it, put an end to punishing law abiding citizens who have never taken an illegal drug, or legal drugs in an illegal manner like Limbaugh, by denying them a perfectly useful and safe medication (i.e. sinus pills).


melopa, I also struggle with sinus problems and infections. I understand your frustration with the "war on drugs," but for your own needs I just want to be sure you know that you can still buy ephedrine products, only they are treated more like controlled substances now. I buy 12-hour time-release pseudoephedrine, and now Allegra-D, too, over-the-counter at the WalMart pharmacy. You have to show an ID, and sign for the products. It's true they are not available in every store now, but you can still get them. (I agree with you that the "substitute" drug they put on the shelves is worthless.)


Thanks, I will check that out. I also found a natural supplement, antronex, made by a company called Standard Process, but I believe Standard Process products are only sold through Holistic doctors. It doesn't work quite as well, but is completely natural, and many times it is all I need for relief.

_________________
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." ~ Ronald Reagan


You say "Conspiracy Theorist"?? Call me Agenda Analyst.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2011 6:26 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
On a moral level, society legalizing drugs communicates that we do not care about those who are addicted. Just as with abortion, the idea that anyone is disposable, as far as society is concerned, is detrimental to all involved. Why would we want society to be any more callous or indifferent than it already is?

On a material level, the problem with legalizing drugs is that it makes them more available - which means that you will have more people using & more addicted. The pushers will still be murderous thugs; they'll just find a new "market" to work. Meanwhile, we will have enabled the addicts to get worse while creating new ones.

As a pharmacist, I have dealt with legal & illegal addicts; I assure you they are both equally dangerous (In fact, the scariest case I ever faced was a guy who had a legal Rx with refills as well as the money to buy it, but had been going thru the pills way, way too fast & was clearly stoned out of his mind).

Anyone desperate for a fix that they cannot get - for whatever reason: access, price or whatever - is dangerous. And then when they get their fix, THAT also makes them dangerous. It's a lose-lose.



Post by QuoVadisAnima has received Likes: 3 goalieman, justgrace, sandra
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2011 6:41 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
The bottom line is, the moment you give legal status to any questionable behavior, the more of it you will get. Once the stigma of breaking the law is removed from drug use, the only restraint left is a persons own moral prohibition of engaging in a given activity, and with the continued decline of morals in our society, God help us if currently illegal drugs become legal (God help us now with our current situation with drugs!).
:shock:
Myself being the king of sinus problems, I have no problem with getting my Sudafed from the pharmicist. Hardly that big of an inconvenience.

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....



Post by goalieman Liked by: QuoVadisAnima
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2011 7:35 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Posts: 1623
Location: Atlanta, GA
Likes: 177
Liked: 225
goalieman wrote:
The bottom line is, the moment you give legal status to any questionable behavior, the more of it you will get. Once the stigma of breaking the law is removed from drug use, the only restraint left is a persons own moral prohibition of engaging in a given activity, and with the continued decline of morals in our society, God help us if currently illegal drugs become legal (God help us now with our current situation with drugs!).
That's the key, isn't it? We've given government the power to make legal or illegal "questionable" behavior. You recognize the decline of morals, but do you conceive that it's possible that the decline is directly related to the state's restriction of liberty? When man fails to govern himself, the state steps in and sets the precedent in our minds that we must look to them, mommy and daddy, to tell us what is right and wrong. So now, the state tells us that certain types of vegetation is illegal, yet out-of-wedlock birth is legal. Which is more detrimental to society?
A person's own moral prohibition should be enough in a free society.



Post by christopher.wilkerson Liked by: melopa
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 09, 2011 9:42 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
Quote:
We've given government the power to make legal or illegal "questionable" behavior.

We are a representative democracy so effectively we ARE the govt making those decisions.

Quote:
A person's own moral prohibition should be enough in a free society.

It SHOULD in an ideal world, but that doesn't mean that people don't still steal, lie & commit murder, right? You wouldn't advocate that we legalize those behaviors, would you?

We have already discussed how not placing material consequences on the use (abuse) of drugs is detrimental to society - not conjectured, but known life & death consequences. How does restricting people's freedom to abuse drugs have a detrimental affect on society? Esp. an effect that is more detrimental than the former?



Post by QuoVadisAnima has received Likes: 2 goalieman, sandra
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2011 1:48 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
christopher.wilkerson wrote:
goalieman wrote:
The bottom line is, the moment you give legal status to any questionable behavior, the more of it you will get. Once the stigma of breaking the law is removed from drug use, the only restraint left is a persons own moral prohibition of engaging in a given activity, and with the continued decline of morals in our society, God help us if currently illegal drugs become legal (God help us now with our current situation with drugs!).
That's the key, isn't it? We've given government the power to make legal or illegal "questionable" behavior. You recognize the decline of morals, but do you conceive that it's possible that the decline is directly related to the state's restriction of liberty? When man fails to govern himself, the state steps in and sets the precedent in our minds that we must look to them, mommy and daddy, to tell us what is right and wrong. So now, the state tells us that certain types of vegetation is illegal, yet out-of-wedlock birth is legal. Which is more detrimental to society?
A person's own moral prohibition should be enough in a free society.


With all due respect, I think you have the scenario of declining morals in the reverse order. If people retsrained themselves from illicit behavior, there would be no need for any government intervention of any kind. It's only due to the declining morals of the individual (i.e. the turn away from judeo/chrsitian ethics) that has led to more laws, more police, etc. etc.

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2011 2:39 am 
Offline
Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:16 am
Posts: 149
Location: Collinsville, IL
Likes: 30
Liked: 45
However, there is another principle our founders understood which has often been lost in our modern era. They repeatedly warned, in no uncertain terms, that our nation would only succeed as long as our citizens voluntarily governed themselves by the solid moral principles of Christianity.

In a speech to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia in 1778, James Madison declared:

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

John Adams wrote on October 11, 1798:

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Joseph Ashby expounded on Adam’s statement in a 2009 article entitled, “Is Religion Necessary?”

“Self governance cannot function without morality. As morals decline, laws expand and freedoms necessarily contract.

This dilemma is systemic. Misuse of guns induces public fervor to violate the Second Amendment. Neglectful parents lead to laws that destroy the right to parental prerogatives in raising and educating children. Corrupt politicians provoke expression demolishing restrictions on speech and campaign donations. The immoral use of rights is a precursor to laws that infringe upon those rights.

The only Constitutional solution to these problems is to depend on citizens’ sense of morality. In the absence of a “moral and religious people,” the rights enumerated in the Constitution are “wholly inadequate” in creating a well-ordered society.”

As Benjamin Franklin wrote on April 17, 1787:

“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.”

Our Founders were loathe for their descendants to be forced to submit to the ever increasing hand of government merely because we were incapable of self-restraint.

They urged the importance of religion and morality in raising the next generation of responsible citizens, knowing that without self-governance, posterity would inevitably succumb to the tyranny of a Nanny State.

Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution, wrote in his letter “In Defense of the Bible in all schools in America”:

“I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them…we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible; for this Divine Book, above all others, constitutes the soul of republicanism.” “By withholding the knowledge of [the Scriptures] from children, we deprive ourselves of the best means of awakening moral sensibility in their minds.”

In the preface to the American Dictionary of the English Language in 1828, Noah Webster wrote:

“In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed…No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”

As George Washington exhorted us in his 1796 Farewell Address:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity…And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”


I think this fits the discussion at hand.

Found at http://www.redcounty.com/content/religi ... e-supports

_________________
I LIKE MIKE, I STILL LIKE MIKE, I WILL LIKE MIKE.

Follower of Christ,Husband to Julia,
Father of Ezekiel, Grace and Nehemiah,
Pastor of Pathway Church
Bus Driver at First Student



Post by HuckyinKentucky has received Likes: 3 jcpender, justgrace, sandra
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2011 9:38 am 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:40 pm
Posts: 596
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Likes: 1
Liked: 24
Other than popping in from time to time, I dont really listen to Beck anymore. Its sad he did so much for this country when we needed a voice to stand up against this adminastration. Now he just seems to be imploding.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2011 6:15 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Posts: 1623
Location: Atlanta, GA
Likes: 177
Liked: 225
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
We are a representative democracy so effectively we ARE the govt making those decisions.
Quote:
It SHOULD in an ideal world, but that doesn't mean that people don't still steal, lie & commit murder, right? You wouldn't advocate that we legalize those behaviors, would you?

We have already discussed how not placing material consequences on the use (abuse) of drugs is detrimental to society - not conjectured, but known life & death consequences. How does restricting people's freedom to abuse drugs have a detrimental affect on society? Esp. an effect that is more detrimental than the former?
Yes, but in this case of 'we the people' making the law, it remains an unjust law. Stealing, lying, and murdering are completely separate classes of crime, which directly do harm unto others. These crimes deprive others of their rights to life, liberty, and property. You can't say that about someone choosing to chemically alter their perception. And like alcohol, where do you draw the line between abusing and using responsibly? (I think both drugs and alcohol are vices that should be avoided, and I would teach my children this)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2011 6:24 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:49 am
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Liked: 14
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
On a moral level, society legalizing drugs communicates that we do not care about those who are addicted. Just as with abortion, the idea that anyone is disposable, as far as society is concerned, is detrimental to all involved. Why would we want society to be any more callous or indifferent than it already is?


I believe this to be false.

On a moral level, society legalizing drugs means that you value freedom and personal responsibility.

The money spent fighting the black market drug trade could be better spent on educating our youth.

Let people make their own educated choices.

Freedom vs Govt Control

Quote:
On a material level, the problem with legalizing drugs is that it makes them more available - which means that you will have more people using & more addicted.


How do you make the conclusion that there will be more people using them, and thus, more addicted?

Would you suddenly start using dangerous drugs if they were legal?

Quote:
The pushers will still be murderous thugs; they'll just find a new "market" to work. Meanwhile, we will have enabled the addicts to get worse while creating new ones.


What market would they work?

Quote:
As a pharmacist, I have dealt with legal & illegal addicts; I assure you they are both equally dangerous (In fact, the scariest case I ever faced was a guy who had a legal Rx with refills as well as the money to buy it, but had been going thru the pills way, way too fast & was clearly stoned out of his mind).

Anyone desperate for a fix that they cannot get - for whatever reason: access, price or whatever - is dangerous. And then when they get their fix, THAT also makes them dangerous. It's a lose-lose.


And if they commit a crime, they should be punished for it.

Step back for a second and think about some of the arguments being made. They are the same type of thought patterns used by liberals to keep limiting our freedom.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 10, 2011 6:25 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Posts: 1623
Location: Atlanta, GA
Likes: 177
Liked: 225
goalieman wrote:
With all due respect, I think you have the scenario of declining morals in the reverse order. If people retsrained themselves from illicit behavior, there would be no need for any government intervention of any kind.Like Hucktown!


I postulate that the two phenomena are intertwined and cannot be separated. More government regulation and tyranny leads to a collapse of morality.
Quote:
It's only due to the declining morals of the individual (i.e. the turn away from judeo/chrsitian ethics) that has led to more laws, more police, etc. etc.
This is our failure in self-governance. Instead of building better people by changing them from the inside, we gave up and built a corporate state to externally force people to do what we want, at the barrel of a gun.

Gov. Huckabee wrote:
Hucktown has no crime. People get to work early, work hard, and stay late if necessary. No one gets drunk or uses drugs. The divorce rate is zero and all the children are raised in stable, two-parent families. No one litters and no one speeds or runs Stop signs. Kids all love to learn, get their homework done, and come home from school each day to do chores. No one in the business community cheats a customer or an employee.

"OK, so Hucktown doesn't exist, but if it did, it wouldn't cost much to live there. In fact, most of us couldn't live there because we'd mess up a good thing. But the point is obvious: without the need for lots of services, taxes and insurance rates can be low, but wages and property values would be really high. Hucktown is cheap but priceless."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 1:14 am 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
To answer WinningGuys question of "would you use drugs just because they were legal", the answer is, when I was young and stupid, YES, I would have used them! Knowing that I could get in big legal trouble if I got caught with an illegal substance was a motivating factor in never buying or possessing any of thoses substances. Yet I did drink beer and other libations (love that word!) with vigor between the ages of 18 and 21 before I stopped (finally dawned on me how stupid a thing to do it was). One was legal, one was not and guess which of the two I pertook of? I think you get the point.

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 1:32 am 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:19 pm
Posts: 1044
Likes: 8
Liked: 208
I have spoken in other threads about my desire to better understand libertarian thinking. I know that when it comes to areas like the legalizing of drugs that they are wrong and their premises are fundamentally flawed. What I'm wrestling with is understanding why.

I want to put out the following as a potential hypothesis.

Libertarians believe that man is basically good and left to his own devices will most often choose the responsible thing to do.

Christians believe in the depravity of man and left to his own devices will most often choose to do what is wrong.

I'm currently reading a book by Garrett Ward Sheldon titled "The political philosophy of James Madison." He talks about how Madison studied under John Witherspoon at Princeton and was very influenced by the theology he was taught. It is why he went to such great lengths to limit the power of Fedederal Government and put so many checks and balances into the system to make it much harder for man to use power for their own benefit.



Post by WalterCan Liked by: miracleshappen
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 3:25 am 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
WalterCan wrote:
I have spoken in other threads about my desire to better understand libertarian thinking. I know that when it comes to areas like the legalizing of drugs that they are wrong and their premises are fundamentally flawed. What I'm wrestling with is understanding why.

I want to put out the following as a potential hypothesis.

Libertarians believe that man is basically good and left to his own devices will most often choose the responsible thing to do.

Christians believe in the depravity of man and left to his own devices will most often choose to do what is wrong.

I'm currently reading a book by Garrett Ward Sheldon titled "The political philosophy of James Madison." He talks about how Madison studied under John Witherspoon at Princeton and was very influenced by the theology he was taught. It is why he went to such great lengths to limit the power of Fedederal Government and put so many checks and balances into the system to make it much harder for man to use power for their own benefit.


Under the socialist ideals of President Obama, his czars and cronies, we the people need to be protected from those who would love to over-regulate, over-tax, and over-spend. In his effort to re-organize America into a socialist state and remove our basic Constitutional freedoms, we do need to stand against tyranny. But that does not mean we can abandon law. Just stand against a form of government that takes power from the people and puts it in the hands of an elite that wants unlimited power over us.

The ideals of our freedom under our Constitution stand upon the ideals of goodness and selflessness espoused in the Bible.

If we were perfectly good, we could be trusted to make the right choices. However, because mankind is sinfully flawed, we need laws and at least limited government. The more Christlike we can become, the less we will need others to monitor our behavior, for we will have the law written on our hearts. However, many people do not subscribe to moral law (or to following Christ Jesus) and basically live life to see what they can get for themselves. Libertarianism in the hands of such people is dangerous.

We cannot force people to love the Lord and obey him, but to some extent we can protect the citizens from the effects of those who have no such law written in their hearts. We will always need laws to protect the innocent from those who live only to please self. This is where freedom runs up against selfishness, and it is why we need the God-ordained institution of government. When the people are good and understand their own need to regulate their behavior, they will require only limited government. On the other hand, the worse people are are at controlling their own selfish and rebellious behavior, the more we will need laws and regulations.

The "innocent" and weaker deserve the protection by government and by law from those who would destroy or harm them. Those weaker and more innocent include our children, born or unborn. Also, the poorer and the less powerful need protection. Our nation as a whole needs to be defended from enemies from within and without. Law 101. I do not see unlimited drug access as protecting the innocent or being good for any of us.

_________________
Image



Post by justgrace Liked by: WalterCan
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 3:59 am 
Offline
Lieutenant General
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:19 pm
Posts: 1044
Likes: 8
Liked: 208
I should probably clarify that by dividing up Libertarian and Christian I did not mean to imply that you cannot be both. I was just putting forth what I believed to be a possible difference between those two world-views and philosophies.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 7:21 am 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Posts: 1623
Location: Atlanta, GA
Likes: 177
Liked: 225
WalterCan wrote:
Libertarians believe that man is basically good and left to his own devices will most often choose the responsible thing to do.

Christians believe in the depravity of man and left to his own devices will most often choose to do what is wrong.
I don't think I believe in either extreme. I believe that man is constantly faced with two options- righteousness (the divine) or animal instincts (base selfishness). If someone chooses to intoxicate himself, it's selfish. But it's not a crime under natural law.

My feeling is that the path to becoming Christlike, or the road to Hucktown is not paved with more laws and a bigger government, even when they are for "our own good". We'll never get there that way.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 11, 2011 9:41 am 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:49 am
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Liked: 14
goalieman wrote:
To answer WinningGuys question of "would you use drugs just because they were legal", the answer is, when I was young and stupid, YES, I would have used them! Knowing that I could get in big legal trouble if I got caught with an illegal substance was a motivating factor in never buying or possessing any of thoses substances. Yet I did drink beer and other libations (love that word!) with vigor between the ages of 18 and 21 before I stopped (finally dawned on me how stupid a thing to do it was). One was legal, one was not and guess which of the two I pertook of? I think you get the point.


No offense, but that probably has more to do with how you looked at your parents. For some reason, you respected the law more than you respected your parents during those crazy years.

I believe that is largely a fault of government acting as a parent.

Society at large has shifted its responsibility to the government. And when things are allowed by the government, we've assumed that we don't need to sit our kids down and have real and uncomfortable talks with them about things like alcohol.

But if you, as an adult, still make bad decisions. That's on you. You'd have the opportunity to learn from your mistakes. But at least you'd be free to do so.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY