I don't live under the assumption that all of my ideas about compassion, justice, and morality will be the solution to society's ills. Living under the assumption that legislation will solve all of that is neither imaginative nor Christian. Libertarians do not believe complete economic freedom will “solve everything” because libertarians don't believe anything will “solve everything.” We live in a world where our ideal future is pursued under the banner of hope and liberty. That doesn't negate the need for laws and boundaries of moral order (hence a civil rights movement); rather, it gives meaning to rules and regulations: free people to do that which they believe is best for their own lives, and prevent people from aggressing one's neighbor (or punish them for doing it).

When the children of poor people are enslaved by the government to specific failing educational institutions, don't blame businesses or the “white man.” When the very little money poor people have is being taken from them and given to the wealthy by way of inflationary spending and wealth redistribution by the central bank, don't blame the free market. When their children are being sent to war because that's their “only way out” (thru the military scholarship promises), don't blame anybody but the government.

I don't live under the assumption that all of my ideas about compassion, justice, and morality will be the solution to society's ills. Living under the assumption that legislation will solve all of that is neither imaginative nor Christian. Libertarians do not believe complete economic freedom will “solve everything” because libertarians don't believe anything will “solve everything.” We live in a world where our ideal future is pursued under the banner of hope and liberty. That doesn't negate the need for laws and boundaries of moral order (hence a civil rights movement); rather, it gives meaning to rules and regulations: free people to do that which they believe is best for their own lives, and prevent people from aggressing one's neighbor (or punish them for doing it).

When the children of poor people are enslaved by the government to specific failing educational institutions, don't blame businesses or the “white man.” When the very little money poor people have is being taken from them and given to the wealthy by way of inflationary spending and wealth redistribution by the central bank, don't blame the free market. When their children are being sent to war because that's their “only way out” (thru the military scholarship promises), don't blame anybody but the government.

Next time you want to comment on my thoughts, maybe address what I actually say, rather than your angry government-worshipping rhetoric.

Perhaps the worst thing that progressives have inflicted on American society is the belief, as John Dewey put it, “Natural rights and natural liberties exist only in the kingdom of mythological social zoology.” Progressives altered the standard view held by Americans for generations that natural rights are a gift of God or nature. Instead they insisted that rights are derived from the government. The meaning of “freedom” was not something with which everyone was endowed and that the government was created to protect, but a gift from the state; freedom is a condition created by the government so that people can “effectively realize the potentialities that are theirs” (Dewey again). This belief relegated the idea of limited government to the dustbin and endowed the state with any power it needs to allow people to fully achieve their potential.

Of course, this silly game can go 'round and 'round. We can all name things that “progressives” and “conservatives” have supported or opposed throughout history that were beneficial or detrimental to our society. None of them are reason enough to support or dismiss something that a contemporary progressive or conservative is supporting or opposing. Writing that because progressives supported some things in the past that we generally view as favorable today doesn't mean we should support every idea progressives come up with.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U...

Regarding the raiding of the Social Security Trust Fund, US Rep Bart Stupak sums it up:

Madam Speaker, Congressional Republicans unveiled their own Social Security privatization plan last week [6/28/05], stating repeatedly that their proposal would protect the Social Security trust fund.

It is an interesting comment, considering the fact that Republicans have raided $670 billion from the Social Security trust fund over the last 4 years alone to help pay for their giant tax breaks for the wealthiest elite. The majority party seems to forget that during the Clinton years, we ensured Social Security Trust Funds were locked away so they could not be used by the Federal Government. That quickly changed after President Bush came to town, and now Congressional Republicans are being disingenuous by attempting to sell their Social Security proposal as a way to prevent the trust fund from being raided in the future.

Republicans are simply misrepresenting their proposal. When asked last week how the government would fund the programs now being funded by the Social Security trust fund money, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), Social Security Subcommittee chairman, said that the cash can still be used the way it is now. In other words, despite their rhetoric, Republicans would continue to raid the Social Security trust fund.

Americans should not be fooled by this latest privatization proposal. If the President and Republicans are serious about saving Social Security, let us pay back what we owe on Social Security now.

US Representative Bart Stupak, Congressional Record, 6/28/2005, Section 31.

Yes, Al Gore made a campaign promise to
place the SS Trust Fund in the famous “lock box”.
Unfortunately, Bush the Usurper didn't buy into the lock box concept.
But the rubber stamp Republican Congress ignored the inconvenient truth about their fiscal irresponsibility.

Keep your eye on the ball, NC77.

Even so, what is wrong to seek out what we believe is a “fantasy world”? Isn't that in part why Christians look forward to the Kingdom fully realized in the future? Does that not qualify as “fantasy”? Or have you no Christian hope?

Let me be clear again (since you enjoy putting words and ideas in my mouth): a “libertarian world” would not be free from sin, free from evil, and free from strife. But neither would whatever world you would rather shape. I simply believe that all humans deserve equal respect, equal dignity, and equal liberty. No exceptions. Somehow you seem to believe that some human beings aren't worthy or valuable enough to be free from the controls and power of others. In my book, it is Christian dignity that respect others, even when we don't agree with their own actions. It's one thing to protect somebody from the harmful actions of another. It's quite another to tell others how to live.

What really happened was the Pilgrims were rescued from starvation by a merciful, socialist native American tribe.

It appears the next wave of immigrants to America learned from the example of the Pilgrims:

Although Indians and Pilgrims joined together for a meal of thanksgiving in 1621, the Indians didn't fare so well at other thanksgiving observances. Many towns in New England held thanksgiving days to celebrate victories over the Natives. In 1641, a raid against the members of the Pequot tribe in Connecticut was very successful, and the churches declared a day of “thanksgiving” to celebrate. During this feast, the decapitated heads of Natives were kicked through the streets of Manhattan.

Was this the sordid beginning of Wall Street capitalism?

But you're joking, no?

In my opinion, the philosophical core of libertarianism is hypocritical selfishness.
Followers of libertarianism place themselves inside an impossible fantasy world which has never existed anywhere and can never be sustained in reality.

In reality I advocate massive reforms in our society. It just doesn't use government force to make people behave the way I'd rather them behave. To the contrary, it means giving individuals their due respect to make life decisions according to their own wishes.

What is it about others, justintime, that you can't stand they act in a way you don't approve of? What level of disrespect do you have for them?