Who Will You Vote For in 2012?

[estesbob]

So now the retreat begins to the ever popular position that anything that conservatives disagree with is not binding on the faithful.

I dont see anyone retreating. You are the one trying to twist Church teaching to support your political views. We have posted the statments of the pope, Bishops , Church documents, etc. your reply has only been to claim they dont say what they clearly say.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

Why do some of you support Libertarians? Is not the view of Libertarianism a more moderate form of Liberalism?

Depends on what you mean by “liberalism”. In America, the definition of liberal has actually changed. Originally, the term was used for those who believed in free and open markets, limited government, war only in self-defense and respect of private property. Today, it is now called “Classical Liberalism” or sometimes “Libertarianism”.

The other “liberal” is a “social liberal”, which came about after FDR’s New Deal programme. The term “liberal” today means government partnering with businesses, relatively high taxes, high government spending, huge public sector, etc.

Famous Classical Liberals were Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek.

Famous Social Liberals are Amartya Sen, Paul Krugman and John Maynard Keynes.

Politically speaking, classical liberals believe in what is called “negative freedom” and social liberals believe in what is called “positive freedom”. The following Wikipedia pages are useful:

Positive Freedom: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_freedom
Negative Freedom: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

I am a Libertarian/Classical Liberal

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[SwordandShield]

Depends on what you mean by “liberalism”. In America, the definition of liberal has actually changed. Originally, the term was used for those who believed in free and open markets, limited government, war only in self-defense and respect of private property. Today, it is now called “Classical Liberalism” or sometimes “Libertarianism”.

The other “liberal” is a “social liberal”, which came about after FDR’s New Deal programme. The term “liberal” today means government partnering with businesses, relatively high taxes, high government spending, huge public sector, etc.

Famous Classical Liberals were Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek.

Famous Social Liberals are Amartya Sen, Paul Krugman and John Maynard Keynes.

I am a Libertarian/Classical Liberal

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

That did not answer my question. Why do you vote Libertarian? It seems to me, that Libertarianism is a platform of complete separation of Church and State, cutting God out of the government, and, in effect, lifting Man’s laws higher than God’s Law.

Perhaps you can help me out here? According to the platform on 1.3, it is stated thus for Libertarians:

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the
government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption,
immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or
restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices
and personal relationships.

and 1.4:

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

The latter I take great issue with, but that is perhaps I do not understand it? From my view: It is the government’s responsibility to uphold and protect the rights of its citizens. One of those rights is the Right to Life, how then, can the government be kept out of an issue that deprives millions of just such a right?

 

[TMC]

I dont see anyone retreating. You are the one trying to twist Church teaching to support your political views. We have posted the statments of the pope, Bishops , Church documents, etc. your reply has only been to claim they dont say what they clearly say.

Pot, meet Kettle.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I’ve spoken nothing but the truth, and that is what is so heartbreaking.

You’re a new boy here and you haven’t read the Forum rules about slandering our Catholic hierarchy. Had you done so, you wouldn’t be attacking the Church that way.

You can’t testify to your own truthfulness, by the way.

 

[estesbob]

Pot, meet Kettle.

I assume that means you will not even attempt to reply to the multidue of quotes, douments, vatican statments, etc showing a Catholic can not support one who supports abortion? The problem with these discussions is on one side we present clea,r concise documents, quotes, etc-on the other side all we get is personal interpretion of what the documents , quotes “really” mean.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I have to ask this question, as I am not sure I truly understand the reasoning behind it. Let me be clear: I am not Republican, neither am I Democrat, neither am I Libertarian… I vote for the candidate that is most in line with primarily Pro-life, and then other issues that align themselves with Church Doctrine.

Why do some of you support Libertarians? Is not the view of Libertarianism a more moderate form of Liberalism?

Since Liberalism is an amorphous term that has no clear definition, its a hard question to answer.

Best answer, definately maybe, but not quite.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

That did not answer my question. Why do you vote Libertarian? It seems to me, that Libertarianism is a platform of complete separation of Church and State, cutting God out of the government, and, in effect, lifting Man’s laws higher than God’s Law.

The latter I take great issue with, but that is perhaps I do not understand it? From my view: It is the government’s responsibility to uphold and protect the rights of its citizens. One of those rights is the Right to Life, how then, can the government be kept out of an issue that deprives millions of just such a right?

First of all, Libertarians would be against abortion because it infringes upon the liberty of another human being. As Libertarians, we uphold that you are allowed to do whatever you wish, insofar as it does not infringe or damage the life and liberty of another person. And so because abortion does infringe upon someone else’s life (a baby), it is the government’s role to outlaw it or prosecute those who enable it to happen.

And yes, I believe in separation of Church and State, although it depends on what you mean by that exactly. For example, I believe that school prayers are to be allowed, and government offices can hang pictures of Jesus if they wish. On the other hand, I do not believe I should force Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and people of other religions to follow Catholic teachings (insofar as their own beliefs do not infringe upon someone else’s liberty). I wouldn’t, for instance, call for a ban on birth control. In short, I do not believe in theocracy. The Middle Ages demonstrate quite clearly that it is possible for popes to be corrupt.

Unfortunately, many Catholics here would want to see their religion rammed down people’s throats. It’s for that reason I’m very far removed from the cause of many Catholics here . I’m happy that I’m free to practice my religion, and I’m happy that others are free to practice theirs too.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[SwordandShield]

You’re a new boy here and you haven’t read the Forum rules about slandering our Catholic hierarchy. Had you done so, you wouldn’t be attacking the Church that way.

You can’t testify to your own truthfulness, by the way.

Where did I say I was attacking the Church? You say so.

I said members were wrong, in that THEY were attacking the Church. The Catholic Church is a body, should one arm start slapping the face, should we not take notice?

 

[irishpatrick]

So now the retreat begins to the ever popular position that anything that conservatives disagree with is not binding on the faithful.

No…try using the entire quote–not just the portion you do not like. Beyond that, for both os us, that statement is NOT binding on the faithful and you know that is true, neither portion.

Yet, it seems no matter how many times I call you to use the entire quote, you won’t because you know that the second part of that quote negates your argument.

I really get frustrated when people stubbornly stay attached to an opinion the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

 

[estesbob]

No…try using the entire quote–not just the portion you do not like. Beyond that, for both os us, that statement is NOT binding on the faithful and you know that is true, neither portion.

Yet, it seems no matter how many times I call you to use the entire quote, you won’t because you know that the second part of that quote negates your argument.

I really get frustrated when people stubbornly stay attached to an opinion the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

Single sentence voters. it would be funny if the stakes were not so high.The rest of the paragraph clearly show that we can NOT vote for a pro-abortion canidate. Yet they wave the single ,out of context sentence around like it is the only pronouncement the Church has ever made on the issue

 

[irishpatrick]

First of all, Libertarians would be against abortion because it infringes upon the liberty of another human being. As Libertarians, we uphold that you are allowed to do whatever you wish, insofar as it does not infringe or damage the life and liberty of another person. And so because abortion does infringe upon someone else’s life (a baby), it is the government’s role to outlaw it or prosecute those who enable it to happen.

And yes, I believe in separation of Church and State, although it depends on what you mean by that exactly. For example, I believe that school prayers are to be allowed, and government offices can hang pictures of Jesus if they wish. On the other hand, I do not believe I should force Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and people of other religions to follow Catholic teachings (insofar as their own beliefs do not infringe upon someone else’s liberty). I wouldn’t, for instance, call for a ban on birth control.

Unfortunately, many Catholics here would want to see their religion rammed down people’s throats. It’s for that reason I’m very far removed from the cause of many Catholics here .

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

I know of no-one on this forum that wants general citizens to have to follow Catholic teachings. The issue of abortion is not only a Catholic issue.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Single line voters.

Single letter voters. They look for the D so they know which circle to color in.

 

[irishpatrick]

Single line voters.

Exactly…extract the line you like, and pound away, and if you cannot find a ling you like, then invent one, and if you cannot invent a line, then obfiscate until the arguing opponent ceases…but win no matter what and no matter the cost because conservatives are pure evil.

 

[Bohm_Bawerk]

I know of no-one on this forum that wants general citizens to have to follow Catholic teachings. The issue of abortion is not only a Catholic issue.

I understand that. But my fear is if abortion was banned, where will the Pro-Life movement look towards to next? No doubt they will be calling for a ban on birth control.

Abortion is wrong even from a purely logical perspective. Genuine libertarians are against it. Even more so, because we recognize the seen and unseen in economic phenomenon (you might be interested in a libertarian philosopher called Frederic Bastiat who often spoke about consequences which were not visible to human eyes).

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

 

[SwordandShield]

{save-space}

If we completely sever Church from State, which law, then reigns over the other? In the eyes of the common man it would be the state, or Man’s laws, correct? So we should leave our morals out of our decision making in Government basing our decisions, instead, on our experiences with the world?

Does that not exclude God and therefor reject Him? I am asking to know, not to bash you.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I understand that. But my fear is if abortion was banned, where will the Pro-Life movement look towards to next? No doubt they will be calling for a ban on birth control.

Abortion is wrong even from a purely logical perspective. Genuine libertarians are against it. Even more so, because we recognize the seen and unseen in economic phenomenon (you might be interested in a libertarian philosopher called Frederic Bastiat who often spoke about consequences which were not visible to human eyes).

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

The Law of Unintended Consequences

And look what happened with the evangelical fundamentalists and prohibition and all of the hell it caused in this country from banning a perfectly legitimate substance by a special interest group.

 

[irishpatrick]

I understand that. But my fear is if abortion was banned, where will the Pro-Life movement look towards to next? No doubt they will be calling for a ban on birth control.

Abortion is wrong even from a purely logical perspective. Genuine libertarians are against it. Even more so, because we recognize the seen and unseen in economic phenomenon (you might be interested in a libertarian philosopher called Frederic Bastiat who often spoke about consequences which were not visible to human eyes).

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk

I think if Catholics went after birth control, it would NOT be to ban it, but to remove the third active element in the drugs. The third element is the one that causes a newly conceived life to not be able to implant in the wall of the uterus–that is chemical abortion and it is the taking of a new life.

Catholics would try to stand in the way of a non-Catholic regulating or preventing births in their own chosen method so long as that method does not kill new life. The contracepting person or couple must then handle that between themselves and God.

Of the many hundreds of issues, Catholics really only concern themslves (in terms of laws) with two majors: abortion and marriage.

Notice that the Church tells Catholics we cannot use condoms, but it does not say that to non-Catholics.

 

[irishpatrick]

If we completely sever Church from State, which law, then reigns over the other? In the eyes of the common man it would be the state, or Man’s laws, correct? So we should leave our morals out of our decision making in Government basing our decisions, instead, on our experiences with the world?

Does that not exclude God and therefor reject Him? I am asking to know, not to bash you.

The separation of Church and State is a myth created by the left in order to control Churches and people of faith. No such wall was ever intended and no such wall exists in the constitution. If anything, the wall could be said to be one way: the state cannot infringe on faith.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Where did I say I was attacking the Church? You say so.

I said members were wrong, in that THEY were attacking the Church. The Catholic Church is a body, should one arm start slapping the face, should we not take notice?

You said that a growing number of our bishops are not real Catholics. That is slander. And WHO ARE YOU to judge the loyalty of the hierarchy to the Pope and the Church?