Re: [RC] a tale of two Libertarians

[David R. Block]

Title: ORourke54.htm

The elder Paul is 75, so we can probably outlast him. :-) Being in Texas, he does not have open borders as a position. Talk about political suicide.... He may be crazy, but he ain't THAT crazy. David "There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head."--P. J. O'Rourke On 12/21/2010 11:48 PM, bil...@aol.com wrote: OK, I think I see the problem now. What it boils down to for old man Paul is that he is essentially clueless about what the Qur'an says and even why the Qur'an is a crucial text  --because all Muslims believe it not only "contains" the words of Allah, but in a real sense, IS Allah on Earth. So, when the Qur'an says kill anyone who resists Islam during a jihad, any serious Muslim who is able, does so and thinks it is holy to do so.   The elder Paul is, about Islam, seriously uninformed.   I kinda get the idea, especially considering his age, that Paul only takes law and economic issues seriously because , in the Cold War, that was pretty much the ball game. The problem is, "how do you teach old dogs now tricks ?"   This still leaves one other issue of consequence ( for me, for someone else there may be 5 others ), namely open borders. You know how much I think that is such a hot idea, viz, about as hot as Antarctica in Winter.   Billy         message dated 12/21/2010 9:32:48 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, david.r.bl...@verizon.net writes: The obvious answer is number 2. Geller and Paul are operating under the umbrella of Libertarianism, but both got there from very different paths. Pamela Geller is a Jewess, if I remember right, so all of the inflammatory verses in the Koran towards her race leads her to the rather obvious conclusion that they cannot be reasoned with and are bent on the destruction of Jews. She proceeds accordingly, knowing that since they will not leave her alone, she cannot reasonably leave them alone, either. Ron Paul is a problem. For whatever reason, he sees the Ground Zero Mosque, for one thing, as a case of property rights. The owners of the property should be able to do with it as they see fit so long as the end use of the building is not criminal in nature (and he's not going to go around criminalizing a religion due to "slippery slope" issues and his reading of the First Amendment). His son, incoming Senator Rand Paul, disagrees with his father. You could compare this to two people who came to the pro-life side of the abortion problem with one coming through the standard religion argument and the other coming to realize that infants being born at 5 months gestation are now surviving, so that maybe the old Roe standard of abortion being OK in the second trimester is indeed murder after all. One is based on religion and the other on a more scientific basis. Geller is acting on the "leave me alone" principle and knows that they will not leave her alone, and she is therefore free to agitate. Paul is acting on the principle that one ought to be able to do with ones property whatever he wishes unless it is illegal. That being said, there are other things that Ron Paul has written (and that his supporters have written) that are problematic concerning Islam, and I'm not staying up all night to find them and determining why he thinks the way he does. David    "There is no virtue in compulsory government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money -- if a gun is held to his head."--P. J. O'Rourke On 12/21/2010 7:45 PM, bil...@aol.com wrote:   When a football team is losing at half time what does the coach say ? Pick one : ( 1 ) the other team is rotten and bad and horrible, or ( 2 ) here is what our mistakes have been, and here are my ideas for fixing the problems   Seems to me if the Republicans are to stop being wimps in congress they need to fix the problems they have.   It also seems to me that there are at least two kinds of Libertarians. Actually there may be more like 22 kinds, but to keep it simple--   Not exactly a secret that I think Very Highly of the work Pamela Geller is doing on her site, Atlas Shrugs, which I regard as one of the top 3 or 4 sites which are critical of Islam. Can't exactly deny that her viewpoint is Libertarian. OK, she also is a Randist, but Randism is a version of Libertarianism. Anyway, whatever kind of Libertarian she is, Libertarianism motivates her in the best possible way to stand up against Islam.   About Ron Paul, his approach to Islam is 180 degrees the opposite. This would not matter if the issue was, say, Theosophy, which may be wrong about X, Y, and Z, but is no threat to anyone.   Islam, however, IS a major threat and you can even argue that we either already are at war with Islam, or we soon will be, that this is 1940 even if it isn't quite 1941.   Yet Paul is not concerned about Islam except insofar as some individual Muslims are naughty characters and blow people up now and then. Certainly he isn't concerned enough to actually study much of anything about Islam to find out, as Geller knows in spades from a helluva lot of research, that the Qur'an itself promotes violence and aggression. All of that flies over Paul's head.   But Geller, alas, is pro-homosexual. She is all in favor or degenerate rights. She makes a big issue out of this every once in a while. On purely Libertarian grounds. I don't know what Paul's views on this issue are, so for now I cannot comment, but here we have a Libertarian arguing that homosexuality is perfectly OK.   How can a Christian, or a Buddhist for that matter but letting Buddhism pass for now, agree with Libertarianism on this issue ?  How is it remotely possible ? The Biblical\ view is completely different, and it is for Jews also, not just Christians.   I really don't see how the Mormons reconcile their moral views with Libertarianism and I now wonder how actual Christians can do so .   These are  the cruxes of the matter. First, how to make sense of two diametrically opposite approaches to Islam by two outspoken Libertarians, and Second, how can Christian faith be reconciled with Libertarianism when on moral issues it takes an altogether different stand ?   perplexed Billy                                 -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org