In 2003, I was graduated with a Bachelors in American History from UC Berkeley, where I was the president of the Cal Libertarians for two years.
I love a lot of books, a lot of music, a lot of movies, a fair number of TV shows, and a lot of food.
I care about all political and social issues. War is probably the most important issue to me, followed by civil liberties and the free market, but I see all these as related and connected and was enthusiastic about Ron Paul's agenda of nonintervention, personal liberty, free markets and sound money.
There's a debate and a poll at the Economist about a government effort to grandstand on behalf of privacy in telecommunications -- even as that same government attacks our privacy in a million ways, including online. To stand up to the hypocrisy, go to the site and vote no.
Typical misleading question: either the pollster is an shallow thinker or the pollster is deliberately trying to imply that the State is always necessary.
Has the DMV taken your thumbprint yet? They're building the database. Can or will the State of CA or your State protect our information from the Federal Gov.?
Although many believe that either rightwing warfarism or leftwing welfarism is tied up in Christian ethics, this is a tragic contradiction and logical fallacy. See David Theroux's fascinating three-part series on the relationship between Christian natural law theory and liberty, using the work of C.S. Lewis as a focus of discussion. Just as cold utilitarianism leads to authoritarianism, faith and morality solidly point to human freedom as a first principle. Part 1 begins:
For decades, some Christians, both "conservative" and "liberal," have unfortunately embraced an ill-conceived "progressive" (i.e., authoritarian) vision to wield intrusive government powers as an unquestionable and even sanctified calling for both domestic and international matters, abandoning the Christian, natural-law tradition in moral ethics and economics. In contrast, the Oxford/Cambridge scholar and best-selling author C. S. Lewis did not suffer such delusions, despite the gigantic and deeply disturbing advances and conflicts of total war, the total state, and genocides that developed during his lifetime.
Lewis's aversion to government was clearly revealed in 1951 when Winston Churchill, within weeks after he regained office as prime minister of Great Britain, wrote to Lewis offering to have him knighted as "Commander of the Order of the British Empire." Lewis flatly declined the honor because he, unlike the "progressives," was never interested in politics and was deeply skeptical of government power and politicians, as expressed in the first two lines of his poem "Lines during a General Election": "Their threats are terrible enough, but we could bear / All that; it is their promises that bring despair" (in Poems, p. 62).
Lewis had held this view for many years. In 1940, he had written in a letter to his brother Warren, "Could one start a Stagnation Party -- which at General Elections would boast that during its term of office no event of the least importance had taken place?" He further stated, "I was by nature ‘against Government'" (Letters of C. S. Lewis, p. 179).
There are several threads on these exact issues, of Natural Law, Christianity and Atheism in the C4L forums right now. I highly recommend people check them out, as the discussions are quite interesting.
You know Christianity has been responsible for more tyranny and genocide than anything else in history. Even today, especially in Africa, Christianity's influence gets even children killed. We should base our morality on liberty and not religion.
I agree with this. What the teachings of Jesus did more than anything was to tell people that their salvation comes from him and nothing else. This made people dependent on their own inner selves for their spirituality rather than the collective masses. In my opinion, it was a liberating moment in human history when someone said 'judge less ye be judged' since it freed people from the fear of condemnation of others thus freeing their own minds to explore their own morality.
Maverick...I think I must disagree with your comment....It seems to me that communism, fascism, and Islam have all been responsible for more tyranny and genocide than Christianity.
So far as modern Africa goes, it is Islam and tribalism which are killing the most children not Christianity.
As a matter of fact, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Hitler, and Stalin each individually killed more persons than all those who were killed by the institutional church over a period of two thousand years. Each of these individuals had victims which numbered well into many and even uncounted millions.
Christianity has never been responsible for tyranny or genocide. Anyone that suggests that it has simply doesn't know the first thing about Christianity. In Christianity, man is created in the image of God - that gives the individual worth and elevates him over the State. Christianity and freedom/liberty are two sides of the same coin.
And, "judge not...." does not mean to check your brains at the door.
Islam on the other hand - well that is another story.
But history does show acts in the name of Christianity and you are welcome to look for yourself as I am not here to discredit Christianity or Religion but there is defiance's that existed amongst Christianity and of Islam both.
These are not alone as many acts have taken place on behalf of religions in the name righteousness and domination.
It’s actually very barbaric and makes you wonder about God fearing people and choice.
If I claim to be a Christian and I take a 57 mm recoiless rifle and go through the neighborhood and kill a couple of hundred people would you in your wisdom blame Christianity??
I didn't think so. As an intelligent individual you would resort to Christian teaching and realize very quickly that killing people is not in accordance with that teaching.
On the other hand, Muslims are taught to kill anyone teaching Christianity to other Muslims. That is their belief system. So, killing ten medical personnel on that basis is OK. But if Christians killed Muslims for teaching Islam that would go contrary to our belief system and would not be OK.
I will leave it to you to figure out if one system sounds more reasonable than the other.
Our constitution gives freedom of religion and one important part is our state will not sponsor religion. The arbitrary law of gangs, states, church, or any other factions that intrude upon liberty of human life is not part of our constitution. The consecration of the last supper and death of Jesus was an awakening that church and states power was the obvious, “lust of dominance” as Jesus could not lust. Jesus anguished over people to save us belong our comprehension. The state with no conscious soul and without our constitution is without reality of any spiritual awakening or in touch with individual liberty. Christians with a healthy understanding of religions and states, is it any wonder some fear their belief.
A transpartisan coalition to legalize marijuana, called "Just Say Now," including iconoclastic lefty Jane Hamsher and our very own Bruce Fein, is underway. Can the anti-neocon right and anti-establishment left agree that marijuana prohibition is a statist excess we cannot afford in this time of recession? Yes, I believe we can.
I hate the word 'legalize' since the prohibitive drug laws of the central government are unconstitutional. And I hate the incremental approach with marijuana. The laws just need to go. And, the prisons need to be emptied.
I like the way Vin puts it when he says cocaine should be sold in five pound bags in the grocery store. Just be sure it is not confused with sugar.
I would feel really bad for the criminals if we got rid of the drug laws. Poor babies might have to find a job.
Here Dr. Paul talks on the House floor about the horribly unjust and inequitable drug war, and an effort to stem some of the greatest sentencing abuses. It's a good start, but does not go far enough, Paul concludes.
Very well said Ron Paul, I am still laughing because it is so damn true.
Here we have these managers to manage and they don't have any experience managing in any other format other than Government. None of their decision making is measured by the results, so they have no basis in which to manage.
The statistics of Government in states and on the federal level is very poor at best because they have not realized how to sustain themselves with out steeling from the work force. This only builds resentments and does nothing to bring about prosperity.
The drug war you speak of is one of the many examples of failure on a large scale and this is not put into the decision process, they just keep making it bigger and the mess keeps getting bigger. When do we ask, when is a mess too big? Because they grow it bigger doesn’t fix it, it complicates it and with these results alone we could start a course on how to salvage stupid because we are going to need it. Stupid is by far our biggest growing asset in this country, at this rate we are going to be overrun by the stupid and stupid doesn't manage anything. If you cannot manage yourself you cannot possibly manage any other.
Yes, government intervention creates more problems for the government to intervene in. This cycle inevitably leads to the diminishing of liberties and the growth of the nanny state. Cheers to Ron Paul. It is unfortunate that he is one of but a few of Congress who are actually qualified to represent the people rather than personal interest.
I like how Mr. Paul seemed rather pissed at the end of his statement. Check out the way he walked off. I think he is started to grow tired of the way things are going. Ron is always a calm, collective guy but, I think once the primaries roll around, he is going to start getting a little more blunt with quite a few individuals. I'm hoping he points out numerous flaws with the way that Republicans and Democrats both have been running the show.
Disclaimer: This website has moved. Please visit campaignforliberty.org
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
RSS feed
