Assuming you agree with this fellow's sentiment, which would be a logical assumption since he's correct in what he states about progressives and their desire to tie the individual to the state, how do you not see that candidates like Santorum (on the record as wanting to use government to push moral agendas) or Perry (on the record aiding and abetting tyranny for what he feels is right, like forcing STD vaccinations on girls) are dangerous in this regard and candidates like Paul (on the record as wanting to abolish the Dept of Education and promoting greater freedom from federal state tyranny) is the safest choice among the candidates.
To put it another way, when you have something evil, the wise have nothing to do with it or destroy it, they don't attempt to use it for good, because that will only serve to corrupt and in essence create a greater evil.
When the Israelites came upon the idols and worship places of the pagans, they were told to destroy them, not try to use them in the worship of the true and living God. In the same way, any candidate that thinks they should redirect tyranny to remake the country in their image, instead of working to destroy tyranny, is equally as wrong as the progressives that came before them. I think you understand this, but for some reason there is a disconnect for you when it comes to assessing the GOP candidates in light of this. Or do you actually prefer a right-wing tyranny over freedom from tyranny?
"Assuming you agree with this fellow's sentiment, which would be a logical assumption since he's correct in what he states about progressives and their desire to tie the individual to the state, how do you not see that candidates like Santorum (on the record as wanting to use government to push moral agendas)..."
i) I don't have a problem with gov't pushing a moral agenda. Neither did St. Paul: "For he [the civil magistrate] is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. " (Rom 13:4).
I only have a problem with gov't pushing an immoral agenda. Pretty elementary distinction.
ii) Moreover, downshifting from the federal gov't to state and local gov't doesn't stop gov't from pushing a moral agenda. It simply relocates the enforcement agency.
"Perry (on the record aiding and abetting tyranny for what he feels is right, like forcing STD vaccinations on girls)..."
i) There was an opt-out, so you're misrepresenting the issue.
ii) Infectious disease isn't a purely individual issue by any means. We are social creatures. We live in communities.
"...and candidates like Paul (on the record as wanting to abolish the Dept of Education."
Which requires Congressional authorization. So where has he been all these years? In Congress! All hat, no cattle.
"To put it another way, when you have something evil, the wise have nothing to do with it or destroy it, they don't attempt to use it for good, because that will only serve to corrupt and in essence create a greater evil."
Which is why I disassociate myself from his evil policies. And his evil policies corrupt his good policies. Thanks for illustrating my point.
"Your views are frightening and your twisting of my comment is quite evil in itself."
Hm, I don't find Steve is "twisting" your comments? Rather he seems to be taking the time to interact point by point with them. He respects you and your comments enough to respond to them.
If he is "twisting" them, then it'd be worthwhile to explain how he's doing so.
Also, I don't think he's behaving in an "evil" way at all. In fact, I'm afraid, I think it could be slanderous of you to say so without evidence.
Jacob's original comment seems to assume that the federal gov't (or perhaps gov'ts in general) do not push a moral agenda. Another, seemingly contradictory assumption might be worded as: "Even if gov'ts do push a moral agenda, they are part of the evil pagan world and we should do as the Israelites were commanded and destroy them."
If it is true that gov'ts "push" a moral agenda, then his comment falls flat. If he backs off the rest of the commandment to Israel to destroy all of the material goods and people of Canaan, then his comment falls flat.
I think that this is where Steve was going with his reply. Perhaps he'll correct me if I am wrong.
I also see no "twisting" in what Steve wrote.
Perhaps the problem is that Jacob has just come up against someone who doesn't share his assumptions and has posited a strong indirect challenge of them.
There is no neutral law. All law is based upon somebody's view of what is right and what is wrong. All law is therefore fundamentally religious in nature. Someone's god is calling the shots at all levels of government therefore.
So, yes, we'd all rather have government reinforcing the good rather than the bad.
But I think the Libertarian question is more narrow than that. Specifically, in a governing system which was created by, and swears at every level to uphold the US Constitution; is it "right" or "good" for that government to overstep its constitutional boundaries, even if it's for a good cause?
Or, if you've sworn to uphold the document, but you insist on making laws that violate the document, haven't you ruled out "good" right at the get-go? May we violate our oaths to do well? Can we do evil that good may come?
Assuming you agree with this fellow's sentiment, which would be a logical assumption since he's correct in what he states about progressives and their desire to tie the individual to the state, how do you not see that candidates like Santorum (on the record as wanting to use government to push moral agendas) or Perry (on the record aiding and abetting tyranny for what he feels is right, like forcing STD vaccinations on girls) are dangerous in this regard and candidates like Paul (on the record as wanting to abolish the Dept of Education and promoting greater freedom from federal state tyranny) is the safest choice among the candidates.
ReplyDeleteTo put it another way, when you have something evil, the wise have nothing to do with it or destroy it, they don't attempt to use it for good, because that will only serve to corrupt and in essence create a greater evil.
When the Israelites came upon the idols and worship places of the pagans, they were told to destroy them, not try to use them in the worship of the true and living God. In the same way, any candidate that thinks they should redirect tyranny to remake the country in their image, instead of working to destroy tyranny, is equally as wrong as the progressives that came before them. I think you understand this, but for some reason there is a disconnect for you when it comes to assessing the GOP candidates in light of this. Or do you actually prefer a right-wing tyranny over freedom from tyranny?
JACOB SAID:
ReplyDelete"Assuming you agree with this fellow's sentiment, which would be a logical assumption since he's correct in what he states about progressives and their desire to tie the individual to the state, how do you not see that candidates like Santorum (on the record as wanting to use government to push moral agendas)..."
i) I don't have a problem with gov't pushing a moral agenda. Neither did St. Paul: "For he [the civil magistrate] is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. " (Rom 13:4).
I only have a problem with gov't pushing an immoral agenda. Pretty elementary distinction.
ii) Moreover, downshifting from the federal gov't to state and local gov't doesn't stop gov't from pushing a moral agenda. It simply relocates the enforcement agency.
"Perry (on the record aiding and abetting tyranny for what he feels is right, like forcing STD vaccinations on girls)..."
i) There was an opt-out, so you're misrepresenting the issue.
ii) Infectious disease isn't a purely individual issue by any means. We are social creatures. We live in communities.
"...and candidates like Paul (on the record as wanting to abolish the Dept of Education."
Which requires Congressional authorization. So where has he been all these years? In Congress! All hat, no cattle.
"To put it another way, when you have something evil, the wise have nothing to do with it or destroy it, they don't attempt to use it for good, because that will only serve to corrupt and in essence create a greater evil."
Which is why I disassociate myself from his evil policies. And his evil policies corrupt his good policies. Thanks for illustrating my point.
Your views are frightening and your twisting of my comment is quite evil in itself.
ReplyDeleteI'd rather have Tim Tebow as President than Obama.
ReplyDeleteJacob said:
ReplyDelete"Your views are frightening and your twisting of my comment is quite evil in itself."
Hm, I don't find Steve is "twisting" your comments? Rather he seems to be taking the time to interact point by point with them. He respects you and your comments enough to respond to them.
If he is "twisting" them, then it'd be worthwhile to explain how he's doing so.
Also, I don't think he's behaving in an "evil" way at all. In fact, I'm afraid, I think it could be slanderous of you to say so without evidence.
Jacob's original comment seems to assume that the federal gov't (or perhaps gov'ts in general) do not push a moral agenda. Another, seemingly contradictory assumption might be worded as: "Even if gov'ts do push a moral agenda, they are part of the evil pagan world and we should do as the Israelites were commanded and destroy them."
ReplyDeleteIf it is true that gov'ts "push" a moral agenda, then his comment falls flat. If he backs off the rest of the commandment to Israel to destroy all of the material goods and people of Canaan, then his comment falls flat.
I think that this is where Steve was going with his reply. Perhaps he'll correct me if I am wrong.
I also see no "twisting" in what Steve wrote.
Perhaps the problem is that Jacob has just come up against someone who doesn't share his assumptions and has posited a strong indirect challenge of them.
There is no neutral law. All law is based upon somebody's view of what is right and what is wrong. All law is therefore fundamentally religious in nature. Someone's god is calling the shots at all levels of government therefore.
ReplyDeleteSo, yes, we'd all rather have government reinforcing the good rather than the bad.
But I think the Libertarian question is more narrow than that. Specifically, in a governing system which was created by, and swears at every level to uphold the US Constitution; is it "right" or "good" for that government to overstep its constitutional boundaries, even if it's for a good cause?
Or, if you've sworn to uphold the document, but you insist on making laws that violate the document, haven't you ruled out "good" right at the get-go? May we violate our oaths to do well? Can we do evil that good may come?