[fastpat]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
I was actually really curious about the libertarian platform and thought that it would represent a lot of what I think. I was right, on the economic issues. Many of the libertarian ideas on economics I think are dead on. I am for a flat tax and I would completely agree with getting rid of the IRS.

A flat tax does not end the immoral demand that you reveal your private finances to the government(s). Further, I know of no schemes involving a flat tax wherein it's restricted and set up to decline in size to reduce government in any meaningful way. In short, it solves nothing.

I just got very stuck when it came to the "civil liberties" position. The libertarians are too far left with that for me. Granted, I am a conservative Christian which makes me a nutbag in the eyes of many, but I do still think that it is the responsibility of government to provide some regulation of people's actions in this country. Calling everything a civil liberty just doesn't wash in my book. It seems like most of the arguement for libertarians centers around legalizing drugs. I don't think that legalizing drugs is in the best interests of our country.

Civil liberties are those granted by government, like voting. Intrinsic liberties are those that belong to each of us, because we own ourselves. Self ownership is a bedrock position of libertarianism. Intrinsic rights are the right of self defense (with any tool), freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of and from religion, freedom of travel, and many others.

You must come up with a method to teach your Christian values that does not involve government force. Jesus himself would have been horrified to know that his teachings were being used to justify government violence.

If you really look at it, of course the government regulates morality and no one would say that the government regulating morality is wrong.

No, government cannot regulate morality, no government is equipped to do so, and cannot do so. In fact, to associate ones religion, as routinely done by Jerry Falwell and much of the Catholic hierarchy, with government sullies religion. There are few, if any, entities as immoral and corrupt as government.

How about murder? That is against the law and I don't think anyone would say that someone should have the civil liberty to murder someone else, or rob a bank or drive drunk. All of these things are considered morally wrong in our world. Now you may say these things are done TO someone else and that is the difference. I would say you would be partially right.

There is no one that says murder is a civil, or more importantly, an intrinsic right. I am completely confortable with someone shooting a thug dead when said thug is harming or threating harm to them, their families, or their property. I am not comfortable with authorizing the state to kill someone who it has determined committed a crime. The state cannot be trusted with that act.

I think that drug use does hurt other people besides the drug user. It hurts the user's family, friends, employer and the country as a whole given the increased rates of crime and illness among drug users.

Can you show, in any meaningful or moral way, that making some drugs (determined by the state) illegal has reduced harm to society? No, you cannot. Can you show that these laws have harmed many more in our society than would otherwise have not been harmed, yes very easily. Drug laws are both unethical and immoral. If you really are a Christian, you would not support a single drug law. Supporting a drug law is not the same as supporting a Christian teaching to not use drugs.

Perhaps a better example would be cannibalism. Cannibalism is illegal in this country and considered immoral. There are several tribes in South America who still practice cannibalism of their dead family members as a show of honor. It is neither illegal nor immoral in their society. So is this a civil liberty as well? Where does it stop?

Since, as a healthcare professional, I know cannibalism to be dangerous to those who practice it; I'd advise teaching that to these folks, if I could. I have no interest in authorizing the state to track them down and put them in jail. Such an authorization would be immoral.

As to your question of where does it stop, the answer is that it stops where my activities interfere with yours; and if we disagree then we must work out a mutually acceptable solution voluntarily.