I am glad to see you had enough time to respond in length to this political debate, when you didn't have enough time for a religious one
I was very interested in your perspective that you promised to share on biblical authority and inspiration.
Before I reply to the latest posts, I must point out the difference in our perspectives on politics (this is mainly in response to JC's comment).
1. I am speaking as a current taxpayer and voter (which many of you are not at this point).
2. I am old enough to remember a couple of presidents back, not just our current president. This is important when making blanket statements about the way the political system works.
3. My goal is to get you all thinking more, not so much winning you to any side. I have confidence in MOST of your abilities to think for yourselves and to come to a respectable decision
(Even though many of you on this forum do not have to pay taxes and vote, your opinions/ perspectives are still valid and worthwhile. Someday soon you will be acting on these informed conclusions and that will be far better than a lot of people's voting practices (unfortunately many young voters only vote straight ticket toward the party they were raised to support
).
Now on to my replies...
Ben, I am surprised to see you use a religious argument. That would be presumptuous and assume a couple of things: 1. that we all believed the bible was true and inspired by God
2. that we did not agree with the separation of church and state that is currently being practiced (and I guess... setup by God?).
I also do not see how those verses support a Libertarian perspective. Aren't small radical political parties opposing the government that has been placed "in power" by God - as you pointed out? (I am encouraged to see God's Word fresh in your mind and that it is an important authority for you in political discussions
)
To the prison network list I would also like to add the farting preacher (not the edited version either, that would be too fun)... (Isn't it awful that I have forgotten his real name.)
I guess we disagree on a major issue here... the ability for the common public to make an informed decision on major (and often quick) decisions. Even if we had the time to devote to hearing and processing all of the factual data (and it would first have to be made available to us) - we would not be able to tally any kind of poll in a timely enough manner to act punctually on the matter. This would never happen anyway, because there is no way we could give out that kind of info to the mass public, that would be a huge security risk given all of the anti-American "guests" in our country. There are also elements, such as relationships and perspectives of other nation's leaders, etc. that are not within our grasp but still a large part of the picture.
Would you like to see a daily poll of the entire nation on every "important" decision? Who would decide what issues are important enough to go to the masses with? How would that group/ or person be elected? Would we have to vote on every little thing then, since there would be no way to keep that system from becoming any less corrupt? How much money should be budgeted for toilet paper at the White House?
Churches run into this same dilemma. Small church members like to have a say in everything (including TP budget issues). I know from experience. (We used to go down through the church phone records at every board meeting, call-by-call.) As a church gets larger, these day to day operations increase exponentially and it becomes impossible and unpractical for the membership to make an informed decision. When it comes to larger issues, they also are unable to see the larger picture due to the diverse population represented by the whole body and the larger (more complex) issues that they have never had to personally deal with in life. They then revert to a democracy model. They place a lot more importance on the choosing of their leadership and give them the freedom to make the decisions for the whole church. This is the same principle used in our own government.
I guess we could all give up our day jobs and become politicians, devoting all of our time to voting more wisely on every little decision, or we can continue as we have (or we could become a dictatorship or communist nation).
"You¡'re last sentence is probably the most intriguing and probably the most confusing. Very few people are concerned with Saddams or Kims out there "blowing up the world"... "
I would like to know how you came to this conclusion, I certainly am concerned with this. JC certainly does by his post about Iraqi nukes and Iran's threat to us. That's 2 so far that have posted a reply in this thread alone. Are we the only ones? How can you speak for the entire population? That isn't very Libertarian of you.
Ever seen Red Dawn? or Terminator? or any of the hundreds of other post apocalyptic movies out there today? There is a market for them for a reason.
(The Libertarian comment, about spreading it to the far corners of the world, was sarcastic - obviously the world could care less.)
I guess I am still at a loss on what the Libertarians answer is? Without offering any answers, it just comes across as whining. If the current action is not the best, what should we do? To do nothing and just live the American dream in a bomb shelter is not an answer. If we are to do anything, there are only two alternatives I can see, try do what we are currently (maybe tweaked a little for the better) or spend immense amounts of money in another Star Wars program to defend against all the radical nations out there that would love to destroy us and other less fortunate countries. I know that the Libertarians are not satisfied with current procedures and that they are even more dissatisfied with the national debt, so what is their answer for national security and world peace?
"The intelligence community was under tremendous pressure from the warhawks in our government to find "evidence" that would support an invasion of Iraq. The decision to invade was made before the intelligence was gathered and the evidence gathered was not as conclusive as the president would have us believe."
Where did this "intelligence" of yours come from? I hope it wasn't the media...
The reality is that the way things are operating now with the intelligence from the government under tighter wraps due to the threats within our own country and the twisted/ faulty information coming out from the media, most peoples "facts" are unreliable. This cannot lead them to an intelligent decision on the state of the war, the American opinion, or the reasons for the war in the first place.
"As far as Libertarians go... Yes, there are many college students who are libertarians. It's those same college students who will go on to be professors, CEOs and (hopefully) public officials who will shape the direction our country is heading. Don't discount us because we are in college."
Who is going to hire/ elect these professors, CEOs, and public officials? Any group that tries to stand on its own will fall. We must have the progressive thoughts of those younger and the wisdom of those that are older to survive. You can bet that just as the Libertarian party arose out the bowels of the collegiate system
, soon another party will also rise that opposes it... and another after that. Those groups will quote the same lines and find the same results. It is a cycle we are all in that has repeated itself many times. Perhaps the Libertarian party has already served its purpose in this process by causing people to think more about these issues, than they would have on their own.
I was in college once too (two of them actually). I remember those same feelings. Reality shifts a little after college, when full-time jobs become necessary, there are other little ones depending on you, and so on. There is a reason why new parties like the Libertarians start largely in college settings. It has happened before and will happen again. This is not to discourage the intellectual thought that is starting to mature at that level, but to encourage it and remind you that you have a lot left to learn, as do we all. (And now I really sound like my parents - yuck! You will too in time
"There are some radical libertarians who would go the extreme of espousing anarchy, but they are the minority of the minority."
It has been my experience that the radicals of any party end up with a lot more influence than most people would like. We must take the extremists of every party into consideration, as they give us the scope of the party's influence (and possible direction for the future). The party I usually support is not always perfect, but I dislike its extremes far less than the other parties. (Please don't assume or inquire about this party's name, as it isn't important for your own conclusions.)
Now a salute to our founding fathers. If only they were still here. Things would certainly be different. I wonder how they would respond to our current issues. I bet if they could speak to us from beyond the grave, they would tell us that they are glad they didn't have to face issues like cloning, gay marriages, and nuclear war. How times have changed, but then again, if you believe in the bible, you view this in a different light. Even though the future looks bleak, there is hope in understanding that this is an inevitable step before the return of Christ. If you believe the end is near, then it is going to get worse before it gets better. That doesn't mean we give up trying to make things better, the fact that we know in advance where things are going should make us try even harder to prepare for the impending war of all wars before us.
"Our objective is not to dominate, our goal is to influence, either through changing the current parties or, God willing, getting elected to office."
All the Libertarians I know (that really isn't a lot
question a lot of God's Word and put politics on a higher priority than their faith, I wouldn't be so sure that God is going to bless that...
It might help to think of political parties like denominations. Maybe we should give our allegiance to the beliefs and principles themselves, rather than the institutions that are "supposed" to act on them. Seeing some of you identify yourselves with a party is a little worrisome and goes against the principle that led some of you to those parties in the first place.