Rand Paul: Libertarian Republicanism

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Very true. Remember, it would be hard for a libertarian (small "L") to gain traction in the very conservative Republican Party if he was perceived to be soft on homosexuality and/or drugs & crime. Republicans by and large still believe in a big brother government that regulates our private moral choices.

For me, I really relate to the Libertarian Party. However, I still believe in more government intervention than they do. And I definitely believe in more military intervention than they do. Lastly, I support a Flat Tax over a Fair Tax. So, while I really relate to much of the Libertarian Party... I'm drifting back towards the RNC, only with a libertarian bent.

Right, I am part of the Republican Party with a Libertarian bent, although I have been voting as an Independent. So, maybe we are just Independents.

Frankly, we're talking politics. Why would the Republican Party want to be perceived as the party that doesn't want gay voters voting for them? Why not support the rights of an interracial gay couple to marry and defend their tax free Marijuana smoke shop with automatic weapons??? lol!

Tax free? Why tax cigarettes and not marijuana?

How could a party that has it's basic foundation or planks as a Judeo-Christian belief system support gay marriage? Note that I say the planks of the party and not how many have represented us.

The Constitution Party has a much stronger stand on a religious basis than the Republican Party.

And before we get into a debate over our Constitution not being based on that belief system, I would refer back to John Adams quote - "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people."

Why can't Republicans truly believe in a smaller Constitutional government, personal liberties, private business, free market capitalism, low taxes, and gun rights?

Well, you probably have your answer if you worded your question as - Why can't the "Establishment" Republicans....? If you worded it that way, you wouldn't have to ask the question, really.

[Pressing-On]

I already answered to this. And now I have to run for a while.

Originally Posted by Originalist

You make laws that protect children. The local governments would still have the power to protect children from neglect and abuse. Local communities could still pass laws severely punishing those to allow their ability to function and parent to be impaired. It's not the drugs' fault, it's the parents fault. These laws would include punishing mothers who used drugs while pregnant. Make it hard and unpopular to use drugs. Allow private businesses to still discriminate and not hire drug users. Make people pay for bad choices. Just don't waste tax payer money locking them in cages if they are not depriving anyone else of life, liberty and property and don't line the pockets of cartels by making the price of drugs high through needless laws.

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

But there are "laws" concerning alcohol, and a parent can be charged for contributing to the delinquency of a minor if they aid a minor in breaking the law.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Right, I am part of the Republican Party with a Libertarian bent, although I have been voting as an Independent. So, maybe we are just Independents.

Maybe, it makes sense.

Tax free? Why tax cigarettes and not marijuana?

It was a joke. lol

How could a party that has it's basic foundation or planks as a Judeo-Christian belief system support gay marriage? Note that I say the planks of the party and not how many have represented us.

Judeo-Christians don't believe in liberty and justice for all??? Even if that person is not a Christian? Honestly, if a sinner can't trust Christians with their personal liberties... who can they trust???

The Constitution Party has a much stronger stand on a religious basis than the Republican Party.

True. I found the Constitution Party to be a threat to everyone's liberty but Judeo-Christians.

And before we get into a debate over our Constitution not being based on that belief system, I would refer back to John Adams quote - "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people."

I believe John Adam's point was that if a free people loses all sense of morality they will bring unrest to themselves and their communities. However, the Founding Father's repeatedly warned of the ever growing power of intrusive government too.

Remember, in a libertarian society there would still be churches. Churches could still preach morality. In fact, in a libertarian society school kids could pray openly at ball games. Liberty is indeed benefited by a moral people. And, if you do your research... those who stood on the side of liberty found that GOVERNMENT intrusion into our private lives when we are not endangering anyone else was immoral. In fact, we have a right to privacy with regards to our person (bodies), papers (documents), and effects (property).

Well, you probably have your answer if you worded your question as - Why can't the "Establishment" Republicans....? If you worded it that way, you wouldn't have to ask the question, really.

My point is... how can a party advance politically if it doesn't care about the rights of anyone else accept Christians???

I've come to the conclusion that it is Christians who should be the most vehement supporters of liberty... because liberty is holy even if men choose to sin with said liberty.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

I was reading that Amsterdam is trying to close the doors of these establishments during school hours if they are within 250 meters of a secondary school. Same thing we do here with alcohol.

In my opinion, that's common sense.

They also have laws that only allow legal residents of Netherlands to buy cannabis products in these coffee shops.

I'll have to ask her more about it. I know she participated when over there. It may not have been law then.

The Netherlands isn't a utopia on this issue and neither will we be.

Nobody is talking about creating a utopia. In fact, liberty is messy. But those who love liberty would rather deal with the pains of liberty... over the chains of intrusive government and statism.

[Aquila]

The problem, as I see it, is that the Republican Party, in some degree, marginalizes gay voters, women voters, minority voters, green voters, and libertarian/independent voters. How can a political party win elections if it marginalizes a significant number of voters? In doing this the Republican party is essentially handing the nation over to the socialist statists. If the Republican Party wants to win and further the cause of individual liberty and free market capitalism, it has to actually embrace the principles behind the notion of individual liberty. It has to actually address issues that women, gays, minorities, and social libertarians find important.

America is a melting pot. Today we have all kinds of different religious and social groups. So the Republican Party has to appeal to these individuals if it wants to win with an overwhelming majority. Sadly, so many people equate the Republican Party with Right Wing Christianity... they either don't vote, vote third party, or vote Democratic. There are many wealthy business oriented people in each of these groups that would vote Republican if the Republican Party wasn't beholden to a Right Wing Christian agenda. The fact that political races are so close indicates that if the issues these constituents face were addressed within the Republican Party... the Republican Party would win by a landslide.

Many then ask... but what about our religious VALUES and our society???

We have to ask ourselves...

Do we REALLY want to have a GOVERNMENT that legislates according to religious values?

Why do I ask this? Because nothing is static. The fastest growing religion in the United States is... Islam. If we open the door for legislating religious values... in just a couple generations we'll have a sizeable Muslim constituency just ready to introduce their religious values into our political system. Do we really want that? The best thing we can do to prevent this is to keep GOVERNMENT secular and keep it focused on liberty and justice for all.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

The problem, as I see it, is that the Republican Party, in some degree, marginalizes gay voters, women voters, minority voters, green voters, and libertarian/independent voters. How can a political party win elections if it marginalizes a significant number of voters? In doing this the Republican party is essentially handing the nation over to the socialist statists. If the Republican Party wants to win and further the cause of individual liberty and free market capitalism, it has to actually embrace the principles behind the notion of individual liberty. It has to actually address issues that women, gays, minorities, and social libertarians find important.

America is a melting pot. Today we have all kinds of different religious and social groups. So the Republican Party has to appeal to these individuals if it wants to win with an overwhelming majority. Sadly, so many people equate the Republican Party with Right Wing Christianity... they either don't vote, vote third party, or vote Democratic. There are many wealthy business oriented people in each of these groups that would vote Republican if the Republican Party wasn't beholden to a Right Wing Christian agenda. The fact that political races are so close indicates that if the issues these constituents face were addressed within the Republican Party... the Republican Party would win by a landslide.

Many then ask... but what about our religious VALUES and our society???

We have to ask ourselves...

Do we REALLY want to have a GOVERNMENT that legislates according to religious values?

Why do I ask this? Because nothing is static. The fastest growing religion in the United States is... Islam. If we open the door for legislating religious values... in just a couple generations we'll have a sizeable Muslim constituency just ready to introduce their religious values into our political system. Do we really want that? The best thing we can do to prevent this is to keep GOVERNMENT secular and keep it focused on liberty and justice for all.

I don't see the Republican Party as excluding anyone. They do stand on the principle of one-man and one-woman as defining marriage. If they set that aside, they would be setting aside their principles. That's pretty untenable.

In the Federalist papers No. 10, James Madison addresses how we should guard against "factions". He argued that a larger republic would be better than a smaller republic. His view is mainly that in a smaller republic, it would be a lot easier to communicate and unite self-interest or prejudice.

He, in effect, is promoting diversity, i.e. freedom of thought, choice, occupation, talent, etc.

He goes on to line out the purpose and principle of representation - “refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice, will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.” - Madison, Federalist No. 10, in Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, The Federalist Papers, p. 76.

He also understood - "enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." - Madison, Federalist No. 10, in Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, The Federalist Papers, p. 75.

That is why it is, especially, a tenuous position to take that the Republican Party should set aside it's Christian principles.

You say that liberty is messy. It certainly is and becoming more messy. As the gay movement becomes more vocal, our religious rights are being violated. Now, IMO, as a result of this, the pendulum appears to be swinging in the other direction. In a recent Pew poll, public opinion appears to be leveling out. Today, 50% view homosexuality as sin, which is up from 45% a year ago.

To all of this, I would like to point out, as you well know, if a strong, principled, Republican came forth to stand on the side of the American people - someone like Ted Cruz - whom people across the nation are not as yet familiar - wouldn't give a rip about what party he represents.

I started a thread to follow a website that was promoting Ted Cruz for President. I am following his bold moves and posting updates that I feel are important not to miss. As far as I can see, and I hope it lasts, he is exactly what this country needs. I can see the "Establishment" is already lining up against him. But, he is different. He will stand strong, patiently, correcting their politically corrupt pigsty style of politics.

[Aquila]

Pressing-On... I'm not sure if you are understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that unless the Republican Party begins to actually represent the people it is called to serve... they will reject it. By not representing a broader vision of America, Republicans stand a chance of losing more elections. In doing so... they virtually hand the country over to liberal socialists.

Everyone is up in arms about gay marriage. However, the Constitution says nothing about marriage. And because of this, marriage is largely viewed as a state level issue (see the 10th Amendment). This requires each state to choose for itself as to if it desires to recognize same gender marriages. Each state therefore becomes an experiment in representative democracy wherein the people govern themselves. Marriage should remain a state level issue, Federal involvement essentially violates the Constitution.

Early in America there were no marriage licenses. Marriage was largely viewed as being a private contract under common law. Yes, common law marriage predates civil marriage and marriage licensing. Early Christian communities such as the Quakers resisted attempts of governmental intrusion as it related to marriage licensing. For this reason, Quakers traditionally solemnized marriages among their members through self-officiated declaration on behalf of the couple before the meeting to establish witnesses. For early Americans, a man and woman giving themselves to one another in marriage (in the present tense) constituted a valid marriage. The churches merely blessed these marriages. As states began to require licensing for marriage (to deny mixed couples marriage) marriage became increasingly regulated by the state. Then came Social Security and survivor's benefits. The states began to require all couples to seek state licensing. The state had taken over marriage. Soon Quakers and others who believed in no state involvement in marriage were forced to seek state license for marriage... or have an entirely private marriage. Many Quakers and other Christians still embrace and bless private unions even if they are not licensed as civil marriages.

The point is... GOVERNMENT has taken over marriage. The state has already redefined it legally to the point wherein there isn't even any need for grounds when filing for a divorce. Assets are divided equally, regardless as to who would be found at fault. Attorney's and the courts essentially rack up fees for every measure taken in a divorce. It's become a money making racket for the legal system.

Government involvement has essentially ruined marriage. More and more couples are opting out of civil marriage because they don't want the GOVERNMENT meddling in their private relationships. Basically, more and more people want their unions to be more and more private.

With all of that being said... a more libertarian view would be that GOVERNMENT shouldn't be meddling in marriage to begin with. It's a private matter dependent upon the couple's religious tradition.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Pressing-On... I'm not sure if you are understanding what I'm saying. I'm saying that unless the Republican Party begins to actually represent the people it is called to serve... they will reject it. By not representing a broader vision of America, Republicans stand a chance of losing more elections. In doing so... they virtually hand the country over to liberal socialists.

Everyone is up in arms about gay marriage. However, the Constitution says nothing about marriage. And because of this, marriage is largely viewed as a state level issue (see the 10th Amendment). This requires each state to choose for itself as to if it desires to recognize same gender marriages. Each state therefore becomes an experiment in representative democracy wherein the people govern themselves. Marriage should remain a state level issue, Federal involvement essentially violates the Constitution.

Early in America there were no marriage licenses. Marriage was largely viewed as being a private contract under common law. Yes, common law marriage predates civil marriage and marriage licensing. Early Christian communities such as the Quakers resisted attempts of governmental intrusion as it related to marriage licensing. For this reason, Quakers traditionally solemnized marriages among their members through self-officiated declaration on behalf of the couple before the meeting to establish witnesses. For early Americans, a man and woman giving themselves to one another in marriage (in the present tense) constituted a valid marriage. The churches merely blessed these marriages. As states began to require licensing for marriage (to deny mixed couples marriage) marriage became increasingly regulated by the state. Then came Social Security and survivor's benefits. The states began to require all couples to seek state licensing. The state had taken over marriage. Soon Quakers and others who believed in no state involvement in marriage were forced to seek state license for marriage... or have an entirely private marriage. Many Quakers and other Christians still embrace and bless private unions even if they are not licensed as civil marriages.

The point is... GOVERNMENT has taken over marriage. The state has already redefined it legally to the point wherein there isn't even any need for grounds when filing for a divorce. Assets are divided equally, regardless as to who would be found at fault. Attorney's and the courts essentially rack up fees for every measure taken in a divorce. It's become a money making racket for the legal system.

Government involvement has essentially ruined marriage. More and more couples are opting out of civil marriage because they don't want the GOVERNMENT meddling in their private relationships. Basically, more and more people want their unions to be more and more private.

With all of that being said... a more libertarian view would be that GOVERNMENT shouldn't be meddling in marriage to begin with. It's a private matter dependent upon the couple's religious tradition.

The Government would argue that states have a right to define marriage, but that it (the gov't) also have a right to become involved in marriage as it provides incentives and benefits in order to promote stable families. I suppose we can loosely define what "stable" really means in the political arena.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The Government would argue that states have a right to define marriage, but that it (the gov't) also have a right to become involved in marriage as it provides incentives and benefits in order to promote stable families. I suppose we can loosely define what "stable" really means in the political arena.

Has government involvement really brought more stability to the modern family?

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Has government involvement really brought more stability to the modern family?

The argument remains at the legal point on the marriage issue.

However, we know that pure religion matters and is what makes our society stable.