Libertarian...

Grammatical correction to my post above...

Reagan signed the amnesty bill (1986), which he later admitted was one of his biggest mistakes because he did not think the Ds were so unethical, with the agreement by the D Congress that they would pass a bill and apportion funds to monitor the southern border. Of course, this was never done.

Our current group of Rs, in case you haven't noticed, are a bunch of worthless progressives. They know more Americans on the dole will expand government, so they are for amnesty too. They do not care if a few years from now, when they are out of office, we become a one party nation.

Gip..I'm glad to see you loosen up a little on the war on drugs..dismal is an under-statement..

gipper..I heard that Cannibus College Graduates always pay back their loans. In cash.

Reagan is not the only POTUS duped by unethical and deceitful Democrats. In fact, Reagan was duped more than once. He agreed to a tax increase (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982) with the Ds promising to cut spending...later. Of course, the spending cuts never materialized. Daddy Bush got duped badly by the Ds when he agreed to raise taxes based on the D's word that they would reduce spending. Of course, the Ds word is worthless, as we know, they will lie to get what they want...the ends justify the means. Nixon gave America's word that we would support S. Vietnam, if the commies resumed hostilities...never realizing the Ds would renege on his promise, dooming millions of Asians to certain death and suffering.

I am sure if you did a little research, you would find many more examples of Rs getting duped by Ds.

God seems quite content to let Christianity exist within a system of gov that is socialistic, or capitalistic, or libertarian or whatever.

That being said I agree that libertarianism is quite consistent with Christianity. Even Ayn ran's position is consistent in that she did not say that people could not have moral positions just that they did not need to make their decisions based on moral positions (paraphrasing a lot).

Libertarianism respects individual rights and Christianity yearns for governments and people to respect them too. However, one's own individual rights are something that Christians are not supposed to consider too highly and should give up willingly for the glory of God. The rights of others should be championed by Christians. Forced collectivism is not consistent with Christianity but a voluntary collectivism could be.

Reagan raised income and business taxes–the largest tax increase in state history at the time. So many conveniently forget several facts. First, the total tax burden in California at that time was less than 6 percent of personal income, and the economy was booming. Today the total tax burden in California is close to 12 percent of personal income (a reflection of the runaway growth of government), and the economy is in the tank.

The story....http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/02/028319.php

a bit of both

In accepting a fully-libertarian philosophy, these are a few of the obstacles you'd face:

All government-enforced "responsibilities" now placed on citizens to care for others would have to be eliminated.

All remnants of "political correctness" would have to be eliminated, including many civil-rights' regulations.

Much of the case-law and many of the Supreme Court decisions to-date would have to be negated, and the Constitution would necessarily have to be adhered-to in the context of "original intent".

Communities would have to be empowered to conduct their local cultures as they see fit.

I'm not saying that libertarianism is a bad idea. I've said before here that such a philosophy would have been supported by many of our founders. I point out the dangers in accepting that philosophy without recognizing the obstacles that would be faced in doing so.

and Libertarians are also dumb enough to know that burning a cross on a black family's yard, or a Plastic flamingo...are not actually the same in any way.

I was thinking of those civil-rights' laws that allow for special protections/rights to one or another group that are not equally applied to other groups. Additionally, I was thinking of one of the earliest complaints lodged at civil-rights' laws because they stripped business owners and clubs of their historical option of serving only those customers they wished to serve. Again, there could easily be modifications to what would typically be a strictly libertarian government, and the examples in this paragraph are simply considerations that may need to be addressed in one way or another.

Exactly! For instance, if drug use was legalized, libertarianism would dictate that those whose health or ability to work were negatively effected by the use could not depend on the rest of the citizenry to pay for their healthcare and welfare. In a strictly libertarian culture, welfare paid to individuals by the general population should not exist.

With the qualification I made in my second comment above, your statement is correct.

Ther are a few problems with Libertarian Christians...A lot of Christian can’t support Ron Paul because of his statements on homosexuality, Abortion, and Gay marage. I’m not too far from that myself. But much of the rest of this stuff is nonsense. I’d say his candidacy is dangerous (though not all of his positions, statements, or actions are dangerous, of course — some are quite good, in fact!) because he doesn’t have a biblical understanding of the role of civil government, the authority of God’s Law, and the Kingship of Christ. I agree with some of his policies but in the the context of Ron Paul’s statements about his religious beliefs, which has to be seen as problematic by any honest standard of evaluation....
I openly acknowledge that RP has said and done some great things, and he’s more honest than your typical politician. I hope it doesn’t sound like I think his political opponents are any more acceptable.

IMO without the moral foundation of Christianity, individualism can easily and dialectically turn into its very opposite... We can be protected from moral relativism, political tyranny and anarchy, and we can provide moral justification for civil punishment and provide the concept of unchanging universal justice and provide a guarantee of individual liberty only by finding the source of civil law in God’s revelation of moral principles that reflect His own holy, unchanging character.

The liberty ideal must be supplemented with a specific and discriminating moral framework. If you do not have a moral framework within which the liberty ideal is propagated, it doesn’t mean anything at all. It ends up being the very opposite of liberty. The liberty ideal must be clarified. What counts as injury or harm or the violation of freedom and a person’s rights? It must be made consistent because every system of social justice eventually advocates at some point the restriction... … The fact is that there are values beyond liberty which are prized by moral men. And there are values for which men will to some degree forfeit their liberty — values like justice, or security, or life, or human dignity, or interpersonal integrity. … Men are going to curtail liberty for such concepts as these. … How can the liberty ideal make an exception to freedom of action, that is, you can do what you want except where your actions harm another or jeopardize his freedom, how can it do that without justifying the exception by reference to some moral system? Libertarianism always presupposes some framework of morality, and that’s why the liberty ideal taken outside the Christian framework can be a tool for depriving us of liberty, either in the form of a totalitarian strong state … or in the form of a voluntary state which creates a warlord society. … Where freedom should be granted and where freedom should be curtailed can be determined, IMO, only by brining to bear the principles of an underlying moral system. And I think Christianity alone provides that. … The fact of the matter is that no social theory can get by without a higher law. If we do not have a higher law by which our society is governed, we are left with despotism because laws become whatever the political sovereign imposes upon us.