Ron Paul runs - Ron Paul Wins!

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

You are right in that the definition of statist that you have provided does not apply to my beliefs.

Note, that was a dictionary definition, not just mine.

I shall attempt to further explain my position utilizing the following -
...
Government sole job and duty is to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (property)....and as such governments (political connections of people) are instituted (required) in order to protect the governed (in order for protection people combine or unite together for the common good/welfare). Unless you like going without toilet paper....

I'd say governments role is mainly to manage public property. As for protecting life, liberty and etc. it can be much better done by private players (see State or Private-Law Society).

In the course of this duty it has become necessary to break up market dynamics (monopolies)....

I have a news for you: monopolies do not exist in a Free Market. (see The Myth of Natural Monopoly) It is a myth invented by statist, and is false. Besides, in a Free Market, if someone produces a product people want at a cheep price, and thus capture a significant portion of the market, -- it is a good thing! They deliver better product at a better price! True monopolies exist only when government gets involved, and prevents entry into market by the immoral force of a wicked law. US post office is a good example of that. Many "utilities" are like that. It is GOVERNMENT that creates monopolies, NOT the Free Market. Exactly the opposite of what you believe. You've been taught a lie.

and everything is best not left to the free market (there is some need of constraints).

That is a lie, because free market is nothing but the cumulative expression of individual liberty. By denying free market, you violate private property, the fundamental principle of Liberty. This is what statists do, and they are wrong, because they violate the law of God which says: "Thou shall not steal." This is why I said all statists are thieves at heart. Hence my "closet" comment for you.

Because the reality at the end of the day is....there are major market players that determine or control prices and distribution (if left unchecked).

As well they should. The only way to "control" a free market is to provide a better product at a better price. It is like saying: "The reality at the end of the day is....people will do what they want (if left unchecked)." You bet 'ya! The only moral check on the use of property is not violating the property of others. All other laws are immoral and wicked.

We currently have a market nearly completely dominated by just a few major players....especially "commodities".

It is often the case because of government involvement. And if not, then it's a good thing, because they provide a better product at a better price. Get it?

Now in this current environment Ron Paul, via government force, would remove the capability of the people to provide for their own currency and shift to a globalized currency based on gold.

Wow! Do you even read what you write! It is like saying "You REMOVE government force BY government force!" Ron Paul wants to REMOVE government force monopoly on counterfeiting, by legalizing FREEDOM (not to mention the Constitution) and allowing Free Competition in Currencies. So he does not want to FORCE the people, but he wants to liberate the people by REMOVING government FORCE that created the immoral monopoly! It's like saying: "He FORCED people to be free." It is a contradiction of terms! Read what you write!

All dictated by the same central banks and key global financiers.

Wrong again! "Central banks and key global financiers" have this influence PRECISELY because of government forced monopoly. Remove the government FORCED monopoly, and their empire comes crashing down!

He also doesn't want to remove all taxes....just taxes on land or property.

Wrong again! He repeatedly stated he wants to abolish income tax too. Because ALL taxation is THEFT. (Or armed robbery, which ever you prefer).

their burden of debt (now denominated in gold which they don't have).

Wrong again! Ron Paul wants to WIPE OUT the debt, liquidate it, because it was dishonestly hoisted upon the people, and therefore is not valid!

The Bolsheviks gave out lots of promises of change (worker's revolution) once they got rid of the then current "oppressive oligarchy"...the Tsarist autocracy. Funny thing is....it just got worse.

Ron Paul wants to restrict and eliminate immoral government force. He has 30 years of VOTING record to PROVE IT. He wants to defend PRIVATE PROPERTY. Bolsheviks wanted to abolish it. As usual, your up is down, your black is white! Uncanny! It's like truth and falsehoods are reversed in your head! Wow!

[JasonI am a nobody!]

You are right in that the definition of statist that you have provided does not apply to my beliefs.

Note, that was a dictionary definition, not just mine.

I shall attempt to further explain my position utilizing the following -
...
Government sole job and duty is to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of Happiness (property)....and as such governments (political connections of people) are instituted (required) in order to protect the governed (in order for protection people combine or unite together for the common good/welfare). Unless you like going without toilet paper....

I'd say governments role is mainly to manage public property. As for protecting life, liberty and etc. it can be much better done by private players (see State or Private-Law Society).

In the course of this duty it has become necessary to break up market dynamics (monopolies)....

I have a news for you: monopolies do not exist in a Free Market. (see The Myth of Natural Monopoly) It is a myth invented by statist, and is false. Besides, in a Free Market, if someone produces a product people want at a cheep price, and thus capture a significant portion of the market, -- it is a good thing! They deliver better product at a better price! True monopolies exist only when government gets involved, and prevents entry into market by the immoral force of a wicked law. US post office is a good example of that. Many "utilities" are like that. It is GOVERNMENT that creates monopolies, NOT the Free Market. Exactly the opposite of what you believe. You've been taught a lie.

and everything is best not left to the free market (there is some need of constraints).

That is a lie, because free market is nothing but the cumulative expression of individual liberty. By denying free market, you violate private property, the fundamental principle of Liberty. This is what statists do, and they are wrong, because they violate the law of God which says: "Thou shall not steal." This is why I said all statists are thieves at heart. Hence my "closet" comment for you.

Because the reality at the end of the day is....there are major market players that determine or control prices and distribution (if left unchecked).

As well they should. The only way to "control" a free market is to provide a better product at a better price. It is like saying: "The reality at the end of the day is....people will do what they want (if left unchecked)." You bet 'ya! The only moral check on the use of property is not violating the property of others. All other laws are immoral and wicked.

We currently have a market nearly completely dominated by just a few major players....especially "commodities".

It is often the case because of government involvement. And if not, then it's a good thing, because they provide a better product at a better price. Get it?

Now in this current environment Ron Paul, via government force, would remove the capability of the people to provide for their own currency and shift to a globalized currency based on gold.

Wow! Do you even read what you write! It is like saying "You REMOVE government force BY government force!" Ron Paul wants to REMOVE government force monopoly on counterfeiting, by legalizing FREEDOM (not to mention the Constitution) and allowing Free Competition in Currencies. So he does not want to FORCE the people, but he wants to liberate the people by REMOVING government FORCE that created the immoral monopoly! It's like saying: "He FORCED people to be free." It is a contradiction of terms! Read what you write!

All dictated by the same central banks and key global financiers.

Wrong again! "Central banks and key global financiers" have this influence PRECISELY because of government forced monopoly. Remove the government FORCED monopoly, and their empire comes crashing down!

He also doesn't want to remove all taxes....just taxes on land or property.

Wrong again! He repeatedly stated he wants to abolish income tax too. Because ALL taxation is THEFT. (Or armed robbery, which ever you prefer).

their burden of debt (now denominated in gold which they don't have).

Wrong again! Ron Paul wants to WIPE OUT the debt, liquidate it, because it was dishonestly hoisted upon the people, and therefore is not valid!

The Bolsheviks gave out lots of promises of change (worker's revolution) once they got rid of the then current "oppressive oligarchy"...the Tsarist autocracy. Funny thing is....it just got worse.

Ron Paul wants to restrict and eliminate immoral government force. He has 30 years of VOTING record to PROVE IT. He wants to defend PRIVATE PROPERTY. Bolsheviks wanted to abolish it. As usual, your up is down, your black is white! Uncanny! It's like truth and falsehoods are reversed in your head! Wow!

Just love these articles from Rockefeller funded Mises...from these professors that haven't worked a day in their lives....that form things like Property and Freedom Society...that have strippers perform and give lap dances at their annual conferences...and write such things as how democracies destroy wealth and that monarchies are much preferred.

So which private corporations are you going to hire for defense....the previously known Blackwater that became Xe and now Academi??? What happens if the opposition is a higher bidder???

Monopolies don't exist according to the organization funded by men who figured out how to create monopolies and make governments their slaves......nice real nice!

Better product at a better price? LOL....like Walmart maybe??? Or maybe the price that you are paying comes in multiple forms (taxes, pegged currency - lost jobs, etc) that you don't recognize???

Oh yeah....Ron Paul is all about "liberating" the people...how did the vote go on gays in the military again.....speaking of reading what you write....

Yeah how's he going to get rid of the Federal Reserve again that is operating under congressional mandate (people's representatives)? Wouldn't be by executive order would it? All in the name of liberating the people of course....

You have your history of government vs. corporate control structure backwards....anyways we could obviously go on forever without solving anything. I'll take King Benjamin's ultimate recommendation (righteous king) and you take the Rockefeller funded Mises brainwashing and we can go our separate ways....

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

Just love these articles from Rockefeller funded Mises...from these professors that haven't worked a day in their lives....that form things like Property and Freedom Society...that have strippers perform and give lap dances at their annual conferences...and write such things as how democracies destroy wealth and that monarchies are much preferred.

So which private corporations are you going to hire for defense....the previously known Blackwater that became Xe and now Academi??? What happens if the opposition is a higher bidder???

Monopolies don't exist according to the organization funded by men who figured out how to create monopolies and make governments their slaves......nice real nice!

Better product at a better price? LOL....like Walmart maybe??? Or maybe the price that you are paying comes in multiple forms (taxes, pegged currency - lost jobs, etc) that you don't recognize???

Oh yeah....Ron Paul is all about "liberating" the people...how did the vote go on gays in the military again.....speaking of reading what you write....

Yeah how's he going to get rid of the Federal Reserve again that is operating under congressional mandate (people's representatives)? Wouldn't be by executive order would it? All in the name of liberating the people of course....

You have your history of government vs. corporate control structure backwards....anyways we could obviously go on forever without solving anything. I'll take King Benjamin's ultimate recommendation (righteous king) and you take the Rockefeller funded Mises brainwashing and we can go our separate ways....

Well, this is the end of reason for "Jason." He cannot disprove any of the arguments, so he uses blanket denials equivalent to "na-ah." I accept your defeat in this debate.

Good luck.

[JasonI am a nobody!]

Just love these articles from Rockefeller funded Mises...from these professors that haven't worked a day in their lives....that form things like Property and Freedom Society...that have strippers perform and give lap dances at their annual conferences...and write such things as how democracies destroy wealth and that monarchies are much preferred.

So which private corporations are you going to hire for defense....the previously known Blackwater that became Xe and now Academi??? What happens if the opposition is a higher bidder???

Monopolies don't exist according to the organization funded by men who figured out how to create monopolies and make governments their slaves......nice real nice!

Better product at a better price? LOL....like Walmart maybe??? Or maybe the price that you are paying comes in multiple forms (taxes, pegged currency - lost jobs, etc) that you don't recognize???

Oh yeah....Ron Paul is all about "liberating" the people...how did the vote go on gays in the military again.....speaking of reading what you write....

Yeah how's he going to get rid of the Federal Reserve again that is operating under congressional mandate (people's representatives)? Wouldn't be by executive order would it? All in the name of liberating the people of course....

You have your history of government vs. corporate control structure backwards....anyways we could obviously go on forever without solving anything. I'll take King Benjamin's ultimate recommendation (righteous king) and you take the Rockefeller funded Mises brainwashing and we can go our separate ways....

Well, this is the end of reason for "Jason." He cannot disprove any of the arguments, so he uses blanket denials equivalent to "na-ah." I except your defeat in this debate.

Good luck.

If that feels like a victory to you....more power to you comrade!!!

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

Reminder: Ron Paul Won Ohio Straw Poll with 53%

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

More evidence Ron Paul Won Main!

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

Ron Paul: When the Republic Returns

Wow!

[ktgcaptain of 100]

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

Ron Paul is the Choice of the Troops
March on the White House

[JasonI am a nobody!]

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

Jason, every time you post that video, you use it as evidence that Ron Paul is some kind of anarchist (lol). Each time I have responded by saying that if anyone watches it, they will learn that RP starts answering the question before the interviewer gets to the second part "rather than a return to the constitution"..

[JasonI am a nobody!]

Jason, every time you post that video, you use it as evidence that Ron Paul is some kind of anarchist (lol). Each time I have responded by saying that if anyone watches it, they will learn that RP starts answering the question before the interviewer gets to the second part "rather than a return to the constitution"..

There's a lot more to learn about in that video than just that little segment...if you want to learn about the anarchist side...just dive into the history of his mentor Murray Rothbard....

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

..if you want to learn about the anarchist side...just dive into the history of his mentor Murray Rothbard....

We already have been over this!

an·ar·chy
   [an-er-kee] Show IPA
noun
1. a state of society without government or law.

2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.

3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

Definitions 1, 2, and 4 are negative. Definition 3, is the very definition of Freedom. And it is the 3rd
definition of the word that applies to Rothbard. It is disingenuous of you to use the fact that the word anarchy has almost opposite definitions against Rothbard! It is sly and dishonest! Rothbard, and Paul, and I are for the rule of law. Free Market has VERY stringent laws in operation that say "Private property is sacred and is NOT to be violated." You know this, and still continue to peddle your "anarchy" manure.

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

Veterans for Ron Paul March on the White House

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

The VETERANS are for RON PAUL!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 7M21JlBM78

[JasonI am a nobody!]

..if you want to learn about the anarchist side...just dive into the history of his mentor Murray Rothbard....

We already have been over this!

an·ar·chy
   [an-er-kee] Show IPA
noun
1. a state of society without government or law.

2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control: The death of the king was followed by a year of anarchy.

3. a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.

Definitions 1, 2, and 4 are negative. Definition 3, is the very definition of Freedom. And it is the 3rd
definition of the word that applies to Rothbard. It is disingenuous of you to use the fact that the word anarchy has almost opposite definitions against Rothbard! It is sly and dishonest! Rothbard, and Paul, and I are for the rule of law. Free Market has VERY stringent laws in operation that say "Private property is sacred and is NOT to be violated." You know this, and still continue to peddle your "anarchy" manure.

#3 is a theory....do you know the definition of a theory??? Speaking of peddling manure....

A Republic...which is what the Constitution is designed to protect....is government based on law (read the Declaration of Independence)....not political ideals (of the masses). Free Market is also a theory...a false one at that. Without God and laws based on God's commandments....there is no liberty or freedom....or free market for that matter. Now ask yourself why Ron Paul voted in support of gays in the military...and ask yourself how God would have voted....

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

A Republic...which is what the Constitution is designed to protect....is government based on law (read the Declaration of Independence)....not political ideals (of the masses). Free Market is also a theory...a false one at that. Without God and laws based on God's commandments....there is no liberty or freedom....or free market for that matter. Now ask yourself why Ron Paul voted in support of gays in the military...and ask yourself how God would have voted....

Ok. Let's summarize: "Jason" is

1) Self-avowed Statist.
2) Asserts that Free Market is a false theory.

Lovely. All of the above officially make you the enemy of Liberty! Congratulations! Wear it with pride! Just admit it: "I hate Liberty, and am an enemy to Liberty." Then you will be consistent.

Now back to your post. First you assert that Free Market is a false theory, then, magically, in the same paragraph, you say that with God and his laws you do have free market! How wonderful! You have outdone yourself. Your ability to have mutually exclusive ideas in your head is truly remarkable; actually it is truly Orwellian! Well, that makes you a good Statist, anyway. At least you are consistent at that.

Now about the commandments of God. Have you not read, "Thou shall not steal?" That is the definition of Free Market, my friend. Think about that. EVERY statist VIOLATES this commandment BY DEFINITION.

At least in one thing your are right. When God's law prevails, you WILL have Free Market, because Free Market IS Gods Law, because Free Market is nothing more than a cumulative expression of individual agency. Think about that. Private Property is Gods Law. Think about that too, as well about the Eternal commandment "Thou shall NOT STEAL."

As for gays in the military, Ron Paul simply voted to dis-empower the government from forcing confessions out of soldiers. And that was correct of him. Being wrong about things is another thing you seem to be consistent at! Keep it up .

[JasonI am a nobody!]

A Republic...which is what the Constitution is designed to protect....is government based on law (read the Declaration of Independence)....not political ideals (of the masses). Free Market is also a theory...a false one at that. Without God and laws based on God's commandments....there is no liberty or freedom....or free market for that matter. Now ask yourself why Ron Paul voted in support of gays in the military...and ask yourself how God would have voted....

Ok. Let's summarize: "Jason" is

1) Self-avowed Statist.
2) Asserts that Free Market is a false theory.

Lovely. All of the above officially make you the enemy of Liberty! Congratulations! Wear it with pride! Just admit it: "I hate Liberty, and am an enemy to Liberty." Then you will be consistent.

Now back to your post. First you assert that Free Market is a false theory, then, magically, in the same paragraph, you say that with God and his laws you do have free market! How wonderful! You have outdone yourself. Your ability to have mutually exclusive ideas in your head is truly remarkable; actually it is truly Orwellian! Well, that makes you a good Statist, anyway. At least you are consistent at that.

Now about the commandments of God. Have you not read, "Thou shall not steal?" That is the definition of Free Market, my friend. Think about that. EVERY statist VIOLATES this commandment BY DEFINITION.

At least in one thing your are right. When God's law prevails, you WILL have Free Market, because Free Market IS Gods Law, because Free Market is nothing more than a cumulative expression of individual agency. Think about that. Private Property is Gods Law. Think about that too, as well about the Eternal commandment "Thou shall NOT STEAL."

As for gays in the military, Ron Paul simply voted to dis-empower the government from forcing confessions out of soldiers. And that was correct of him. Being wrong about things is another thing you seem to be consistent at! Keep it up .

The personal attacks don't add to your credibility comrade!

Please describe how a free market can exist without obedience to divine commandments (enforced by government - established according to God's mandates)....

There is no such thing as private property....all property belongs to God (His property). You may obtain a stewardship over property...but it still belongs to the Creator!

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

Jason,

If there is no such thing as private property, why the commandment thou shalt not steal? Thou shalt not covet?

What you say sounds very highminded...but it doesn't fit. It doesn't ring true. I am not an anarchist - I am for the Constitution as intended by those who authored it...I believe even the Constitution was the beginning, not the end, and it needed perfecting. However, the Constitution is much more about restricting the federal government rather than making law, and in fact leaves most law making authority at the state, local or INDIVIDUAL level. Now I can bet you will read that as becoming a law unto themselves...let me just nip that in the bud.

Law has no business imposing on the individual as long as the individual harms no one else. Anarchy as you envision it would just be the law of the jungle, might makes right. Again let me reiterate - that is NOT what I believe in or support. But anything above stopping people from harming others or their property needs to be entered willingly by covenant, NOT by the tyranny of the majority. The LDS have already suffered at the hands of that tyranny, and a good many of those that participated FELT they were doing the right thing! The LDS were demonized just as the Muslims are now being demonized...Government do-goodism allows a few to manipulate the many with propaganda and results in a false democracy that is actually the mob being manipulated by the man with the biggest bullhorn and the most charisma. Not what the founders wanted!

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

Please describe how a free market can exist without obedience to divine commandments (enforced by government - established according to God's mandates)....

There is no such thing as private property....all property belongs to God (His property). You may obtain a stewardship over property...but it still belongs to the Creator!

It's getting better with every post!

Let's summarize some more. Comrade "Jason" asserts:

1) He is a self-avowed Statist.
2) Free Market is a false theory. And to top it all off
3) There is no such thing as private property!

Bingo! We have another closet socialist in our midst! Yep, comrade "Jason," thank you for being so honest and forthcoming about your actual beliefs! Most closet socialist don't have the guts to admit it, but you did, "comrade!" Now that we know who you really are at heart, let's answer your questions:

Please describe how a free market can exist without obedience to divine commandments

You are right, without obedience to God's commandments, including "Thou shall not steal," Free Market does not exist, because Free Market is the Law of God.

(enforced by government - established according to God's mandates)....

"Thou shall not steal" can be enforced by anyone: you, government, or any third party. God's mandates always agree with The Fundamental Principles of Liberty, because they are his principles; this is how Gods interact with each-other; these are the laws that exist among the Gods.

There is no such thing as private property....all property belongs to God (His property).

Well, you contradicted yourself again. First you said "There is no such thing as private property," and then, IN THE SAME SENTENCE, you say it is God's property. If it is "His property" then it must be his private property, therefore private property DOES exist! So you are wrong about that. Secondly, God makes you a steward over his property, therefore, for the purposes of this world it becomes your property, and you are his agent. God said "Thou shall not steal," and he means it! If you don't like it, you are fighting against God, and you WILL lose, because He will crash you.

[JasonI am a nobody!]

Jason,

If there is no such thing as private property, why the commandment thou shalt not steal? Thou shalt not covet?

What you say sounds very highminded...but it doesn't fit. It doesn't ring true. I am not an anarchist - I am for the Constitution as intended by those who authored it...I believe even the Constitution was the beginning, not the end, and it needed perfecting. However, the Constitution is much more about restricting the federal government rather than making law, and in fact leaves most law making authority at the state, local or INDIVIDUAL level. Now I can bet you will read that as becoming a law unto themselves...let me just nip that in the bud.

Law has no business imposing on the individual as long as the individual harms no one else. Anarchy as you envision it would just be the law of the jungle, might makes right. Again let me reiterate - that is NOT what I believe in or support. But anything above stopping people from harming others or their property needs to be entered willingly by covenant, NOT by the tyranny of the majority. The LDS have already suffered at the hands of that tyranny, and a good many of those that participated FELT they were doing the right thing! The LDS were demonized just as the Muslims are now being demonized...Government do-goodism allows a few to manipulate the many with propaganda and results in a false democracy that is actually the mob being manipulated by the man with the biggest bullhorn and the most charisma. Not what the founders wanted!

Isn't that Korihor's argument??? Define harm....

I agree with the covenant....as well as against the tyranny of the majority....a Republic is a government based on law. Democracy enters in (the majority) in terms of representation. Again it is only as good as the people (the majority at least - so they can enforce God's law on the minority - think Captain Moroni putting people to death) choose to constrain themselves to the law (which will only survive and prosper if based on God's law)....

[JasonI am a nobody!]

Please describe how a free market can exist without obedience to divine commandments (enforced by government - established according to God's mandates)....

There is no such thing as private property....all property belongs to God (His property). You may obtain a stewardship over property...but it still belongs to the Creator!

It's getting better with every post!

Let's summarize some more. Comrade "Jason" asserts:

1) He is a self-avowed Statist.
2) Free Market is a false theory. And to top it all off
3) There is no such thing as private property!

Bingo! We have another closet socialist in our midst! Yep, comrade "Jason," thank you for being so honest and forthcoming about your actual beliefs! Most closet socialist don't have the guts to admit it, but you did, "comrade!" Now that we know who you really are at heart, let's answer your questions:

Please describe how a free market can exist without obedience to divine commandments

You are right, without obedience to God's commandments, including "Thou shall not steal," Free Market does not exist, because Free Market is the Law of God.

(enforced by government - established according to God's mandates)....

"Thou shall not steal" can be enforced by anyone: you, government, or any third party. God's mandates always agree with The Fundamental Principles of Liberty, because they are his principles; this is how Gods interact with each-other; these are the laws that exist among the Gods.

There is no such thing as private property....all property belongs to God (His property).

Well, you contradicted yourself again. First you said "There is no such thing as private property," and then, IN THE SAME SENTENCE, you say it is God's property. If it is "His property" then it must be his private property, therefore private property DOES exist! So you are wrong about that. Secondly, God makes you a steward over his property, therefore, for the purposes of this world it becomes your property, and you are his agent. God said "Thou shall not steal," and he means it! If you don't like it, you are fighting against God, and you WILL lose, because He will crash you.

LOL...oh so now I've progressed from statism to socialism....fantastic! By the way have you read this article....because it fits you to a literal "T"...
http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php

What's the Law of Consecration??? Is God a socialist (no poor among them)??? After Jesus visits -

And they taught, and did minister one to another; and they had all things common among them, every man dealing justly, one with another.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne ... ang=eng#18

...and later they quit...

And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more common among them. And they began to be divided into classes..

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/4-ne ... ang=eng#24

...of course the libertarian fraud is just as applicable here as we have this running of the mouth for private property while at the same time stealing private intellectual property....no surprise why we have Ron Paul supporting gays in the military....

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

No, Korihor's argument was that whatever a man did was no evil.

I'm not saying men can do whatever they want and it is not evil. I am saying that men have the right to choose either good or evil and accept the consequences as long as they do not harm another's person or property. That's not even a fine distinction, it is as different as black and white.

Adultery DOES harm other individuals. If a person grows marijuana on their own property, does not attempt to sell it to a minor, does not steal or otherwise harm others to acquire it - then it is no one else's business, and no justification for law enforcement against it. I'm not saying it is not evil, I am saying that is something within their own agency which we have no right to use our "servant" the government to enforce. Same with activities between consenting adults where no breach of a marriage covenenant is occuring. Same with a good many things. Evil, yes, but agency REQUIRES both a good and bad choice. That's not Korihor, that is Plan of Salvation 101.

I do believe that communities should have the right to set higher standards that are entered into by covenant and contract. Such communities do have the right to regulate activities based on their own system of belief.

[JasonI am a nobody!]

No, Korihor's argument was that whatever a man did was no evil.

I'm not saying men can do whatever they want and it is not evil. I am saying that men have the right to choose either good or evil and accept the consequences as long as they do not harm another's person or property. That's not even a fine distinction, it is as different as black and white.

Adultery DOES harm other individuals. If a person grows marijuana on their own property, does not attempt to sell it to a minor, does not steal or otherwise harm others to acquire it - then it is no one else's business, and no justification for law enforcement against it. I'm not saying it is not evil, I am saying that is something within their own agency which we have no right to use our "servant" the government to enforce. Same with activities between consenting adults where no breach of a marriage covenenant is occuring. Same with a good many things. Evil, yes, but agency REQUIRES both a good and bad choice. That's not Korihor, that is Plan of Salvation 101.

I do believe that communities should have the right to set higher standards that are entered into by covenant and contract. Such communities do have the right to regulate activities based on their own system of belief.

What if the person grows marijuana on their property and smoke it....minding his own business....but the neighbor kids watch him get high...then sneak over the fence and try it out for themselves? Was their harm? What about when Satan gets control of his mind?

So physical activities between consenting adults under no contract....do not harm? Why would God give us a law concerning such behavior if there was no harm involved?

Good expose on Korihor here -
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... pts/?id=45

...not too long of a shot from many Libertarian articles....

[Original_Intentcaptain of 1,000]

The first example is an example of reducio ad absurdum....you are creating a ridiculous scenario to make your case...all individuals agency needs to be curtailed because someone might make a mistake...sounds familiar...

Should people not be allowed to have swimming pools because some kids might wander in and drown...much more plausible than the scenario you depict...Cars should be outlawwed, thousands are killed in them every year..c'mon Jason, you can do better.

Sure those activities do harm to the individuals and yes that is why God provided a law with those consequences...that doesn't mean that the rest of us have a right to enforce....what's next - My overeating obviously harms me so "the rest of you" have the right to enforce a dietary regiment on me in accordance with the Word of Wisdom (God's law) - or maybe the appropriate thing is mind your own business and I will deal with the consequences of violating God's law (which is inescapable.)

You are justifying codification of every law of God into the legal code and the ability to enforce it by government force...sorry but the label "statist" fits if that is what you believe, and the label "socialist" fits if you believe there is no private property, that is straight out of the Communist Manifesto....don't try using the Law of Consecration as an argument - how can you consecrate something you don't own...?

[JasonI am a nobody!]

The first example is an example of reducio ad absurdum....you are creating a ridiculous scenario to make your case...all individuals agency needs to be curtailed because someone might make a mistake...sounds familiar...

Should people not be allowed to have swimming pools because some kids might wander in and drown...much more plausible than the scenario you depict...Cars should be outlawwed, thousands are killed in them every year..c'mon Jason, you can do better.

Sure those activities do harm to the individuals and yes that is why God provided a law with those consequences...that doesn't mean that the rest of us have a right to enforce....what's next - My overeating obviously harms me so "the rest of you" have the right to enforce a dietary regiment on me in accordance with the Word of Wisdom (God's law) - or maybe the appropriate thing is mind your own business and I will deal with the consequences of violating God's law (which is inescapable.)

You are justifying codification of every law of God into the legal code and the ability to enforce it by government force...sorry but the label "statist" fits if that is what you believe, and the label "socialist" fits if you believe there is no private property, that is straight out of the Communist Manifesto....don't try using the Law of Consecration as an argument - how can you consecrate something you don't own...?

Well the point was....its all in the definition of "harm"...whether ridiculous or not....and more appropriately...who makes the definition and how ridiculous or one sided they get.

Good question...how do you consecrate something you don't own???

For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?

And behold, even at this time, ye have been calling on his name, and begging for a remission of your sins. And has he suffered that ye have begged in vain? Nay; he has poured out his Spirit upon you, and has caused that your hearts should be filled with joy, and has caused that your mouths should be stopped that ye could not find utterance, so exceedingly great was your joy.

And now, if God, who has created you, on whom you are dependent for your lives and for all that ye have and are, doth grant unto you whatsoever ye ask that is right, in faith, believing that ye shall receive, O then, how ye ought to impart of the substance that ye have one to another.

And if ye judge the man who putteth up his petition to you for your substance that he perish not, and condemn him, how much more just will be your condemnation for withholding your substance, which doth not belong to you but to God, to whom also your life belongeth; and yet ye put up no petition, nor repent of the thing which thou hast done.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/mosiah/4?lang=eng

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

Law has no business imposing on the individual as long as the individual harms no one else.

Isn't that Korihor's argument??? Define harm....

Violation of private property is harm. Korihor's argument was: "whatsoever a man did was no crime." (Alman 30:17)

That is in sharp contrast to Fundamental Principles of Liberty, which can be stated: "Whatsoever a man does is no crime, AS LONG as he is not violating the property of another." Key difference.

[JasonI am a nobody!]

If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function. Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics. And like Marxism, it has its historical myths and a genius for making its followers feel like an elect unbound by the moral rules of their society.

The most fundamental problem with libertarianism is very simple: freedom, though a good thing, is simply not the only good thing in life. Simple physical security, which even a prisoner can possess, is not freedom, but one cannot live without it. Prosperity is connected to freedom, in that it makes us free to consume, but it is not the same thing, in that one can be rich but as unfree as a Victorian tycoon’s wife. A family is in fact one of the least free things imaginable, as the emotional satisfactions of it derive from relations that we are either born into without choice or, once they are chosen, entail obligations that we cannot walk away from with ease or justice. But security, prosperity, and family are in fact the bulk of happiness for most real people and the principal issues that concern governments.

Libertarians try to get around this fact that freedom is not the only good thing by trying to reduce all other goods to it through the concept of choice, claiming that everything that is good is so because we choose to partake of it. Therefore freedom, by giving us choice, supposedly embraces all other goods. But this violates common sense by denying that anything is good by nature, independently of whether we choose it. Nourishing foods are good for us by nature, not because we choose to eat them. Taken to its logical conclusion, the reduction of the good to the freely chosen means there are no inherently good or bad choices at all, but that a man who chose to spend his life playing tiddlywinks has lived as worthy a life as a Washington or a Churchill.

Furthermore, the reduction of all goods to individual choices presupposes that all goods are individual. But some, like national security, clean air, or a healthy culture, are inherently collective. It may be possible to privatize some, but only some, and the efforts can be comically inefficient. Do you really want to trace every pollutant in the air back to the factory that emitted it and sue?

Libertarians rightly concede that one’s freedom must end at the point at which it starts to impinge upon another person’s, but they radically underestimate how easily this happens. So even if the libertarian principle of “an it harm none, do as thou wilt,” is true, it does not license the behavior libertarians claim. Consider pornography: libertarians say it should be permitted because if someone doesn’t like it, he can choose not to view it. But what he can’t do is choose not to live in a culture that has been vulgarized by it.

Libertarians in real life rarely live up to their own theory but tend to indulge in the pleasant parts while declining to live up to the difficult portions. They flout the drug laws but continue to collect government benefits they consider illegitimate. This is not just an accidental failing of libertarianism’s believers but an intrinsic temptation of the doctrine that sets it up to fail whenever tried, just like Marxism.

Libertarians need to be asked some hard questions. What if a free society needed to draft its citizens in order to remain free? What if it needed to limit oil imports to protect the economic freedom of its citizens from unfriendly foreigners? What if it needed to force its citizens to become sufficiently educated to sustain a free society? What if it needed to deprive landowners of the freedom to refuse to sell their property as a precondition for giving everyone freedom of movement on highways? What if it needed to deprive citizens of the freedom to import cheap foreign labor in order to keep out poor foreigners who would vote for socialistic wealth redistribution?

In each of these cases, less freedom today is the price of more tomorrow. Total freedom today would just be a way of running down accumulated social capital and storing up problems for the future. So even if libertarianism is true in some ultimate sense, this does not prove that the libertarian policy choice is the right one today on any particular question.

Furthermore, if limiting freedom today may prolong it tomorrow, then limiting freedom tomorrow may prolong it the day after and so on, so the right amount of freedom may in fact be limited freedom in perpetuity. But if limited freedom is the right choice, then libertarianism, which makes freedom an absolute, is simply wrong. If all we want is limited freedom, then mere liberalism will do, or even better, a Burkean conservatism that reveres traditional liberties. There is no need to embrace outright libertarianism just because we want a healthy portion of freedom, and the alternative to libertarianism is not the USSR, it is America’s traditional liberties.

Libertarianism’s abstract and absolutist view of freedom leads to bizarre conclusions. Like slavery, libertarianism would have to allow one to sell oneself into it. (It has been possible at certain times in history to do just that by assuming debts one could not repay.) And libertarianism degenerates into outright idiocy when confronted with the problem of children, whom it treats like adults, supporting the abolition of compulsory education and all child-specific laws, like those against child labor and child sex. It likewise cannot handle the insane and the senile.

Libertarians argue that radical permissiveness, like legalizing drugs, would not shred a libertarian society because drug users who caused trouble would be disciplined by the threat of losing their jobs or homes if current laws that make it difficult to fire or evict people were abolished. They claim a “natural order” of reasonable behavior would emerge. But there is no actual empirical proof that this would happen. Furthermore, this means libertarianism is an all-or-nothing proposition: if society continues to protect people from the consequences of their actions in any way, libertarianism regarding specific freedoms is illegitimate. And since society does so protect people, libertarianism is an illegitimate moral position until the Great Libertarian Revolution has occurred.

And is society really wrong to protect people against the negative consequences of some of their free choices? While it is obviously fair to let people enjoy the benefits of their wise choices and suffer the costs of their stupid ones, decent societies set limits on both these outcomes. People are allowed to become millionaires, but they are taxed. They are allowed to go broke, but they are not then forced to starve. They are deprived of the most extreme benefits of freedom in order to spare us the most extreme costs. The libertopian alternative would be perhaps a more glittering society, but also a crueler one.

Empirically, most people don’t actually want absolute freedom, which is why democracies don’t elect libertarian governments. Irony of ironies, people don’t choose absolute freedom. But this refutes libertarianism by its own premise, as libertarianism defines the good as the freely chosen, yet people do not choose it. Paradoxically, people exercise their freedom not to be libertarians.

The political corollary of this is that since no electorate will support libertarianism, a libertarian government could never be achieved democratically but would have to be imposed by some kind of authoritarian state, which rather puts the lie to libertarians’ claim that under any other philosophy, busybodies who claim to know what’s best for other people impose their values on the rest of us. Libertarianism itself is based on the conviction that it is the one true political philosophy and all others are false. It entails imposing a certain kind of society, with all its attendant pluses and minuses, which the inhabitants thereof will not be free to opt out of except by leaving.

And if libertarians ever do acquire power, we may expect a farrago of bizarre policies. Many support abolition of government-issued money in favor of that minted by private banks. But this has already been tried, in various epochs, and doesn’t lead to any wonderful paradise of freedom but only to an explosion of fraud and currency debasement followed by the concentration of financial power in those few banks that survive the inevitable shaking-out. Many other libertarian schemes similarly founder on the empirical record.

A major reason for this is that libertarianism has a naïve view of economics that seems to have stopped paying attention to the actual history of capitalism around 1880. There is not the space here to refute simplistic laissez faire, but note for now that the second-richest nation in the world, Japan, has one of the most regulated economies, while nations in which government has essentially lost control over economic life, like Russia, are hardly economic paradises. Legitimate criticism of over-regulation does not entail going to the opposite extreme.

Libertarian naïveté extends to politics. They often confuse the absence of government impingement upon freedom with freedom as such. But without a sufficiently strong state, individual freedom falls prey to other more powerful individuals. A weak state and a freedom-respecting state are not the same thing, as shown by many a chaotic Third-World tyranny.

Libertarians are also naïve about the range and perversity of human desires they propose to unleash. They can imagine nothing more threatening than a bit of Sunday-afternoon sadomasochism, followed by some recreational drug use and work on Monday. They assume that if people are given freedom, they will gravitate towards essentially bourgeois lives, but this takes for granted things like the deferral of gratification that were pounded into them as children without their being free to refuse. They forget that for much of the population, preaching maximum freedom merely results in drunkenness, drugs, failure to hold a job, and pregnancy out of wedlock. Society is dependent upon inculcated self-restraint if it is not to slide into barbarism, and libertarians attack this self-restraint. Ironically, this often results in internal restraints being replaced by the external restraints of police and prison, resulting in less freedom, not more.

This contempt for self-restraint is emblematic of a deeper problem: libertarianism has a lot to say about freedom but little about learning to handle it. Freedom without judgment is dangerous at best, useless at worst. Yet libertarianism is philosophically incapable of evolving a theory of how to use freedom well because of its root dogma that all free choices are equal, which it cannot abandon except at the cost of admitting that there are other goods than freedom. Conservatives should know better.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/ ... /14/00017/

[JasonI am a nobody!]

Law has no business imposing on the individual as long as the individual harms no one else.

Isn't that Korihor's argument??? Define harm....

Violation of private property is harm. Korihor's argument was: "whatsoever a man did was no crime." (Alman 30:17)

That is in sharp contrast to Fundamental Principles of Liberty, which can be stated: "Whatsoever a man does is no crime, AS LONG as he is not violating the property of another." Key difference.

Did Captain Moroni violate private property?

[LoveIsTruthcaptain of 1,000]

What's the Law of Consecration??? Is God a socialist (no poor among them)???

The key difference between the Law of Consecration and socialism is the point of a gun. One is VOLUNTARY, the other is FORCED. (You will remember in the prexistence there was a one who wanted to force everyone. You are following in his footsteps). The difference is FORCE.

...of course the libertarian fraud is just as applicable here as we have this running of the mouth for private property while at the same time stealing private intellectual property....no surprise why we have Ron Paul supporting gays in the military....

You are a demagog. And a dishonest one at that. You appeal to emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people, but you have not a shred of reason or truth on your side. Only blanket and false accusations of an ignorant would be tyrant. (I mean this in the best possible sense).