The Perversion of Libertarianism

[The Horn]

OK doser, the photo you posted is NOT what abortion looks like . It's highly misleading and emotion-laden propaganda . A tiny fetus is NOT a "baby ". It's a baby once born . But you anti-choicers couldn't care less if fetuses starve once out of the womb. Remember- a fetus is also helpless once born .

 

[Newman]

I agree with libertarianism on some things but not on others . I believe people should be free to do whatever they choose as long as they do not harm or kill others or create a public nuisance (not the same thing as abortion which is a woman's choice ) .
I believe the government MUST stay out of people's bedrooms and women's reproductive organs .
But I vehemently disagree with libertarianism about allowing total laissez-faire economic policies and privatization of everything , eliminating government programs to help those in need and
getting rid of all or most government regulations on business and environmental protection .
All this lack of regulation and elimination of taxes etc sounds great in theory but is catastrophic in practice for public health and safety .

So do you realize how logically inconsistent all of this is, or what?

If people should be free to make their own personal choices, why aren't they free to make their own choices with their own money? How is this not an arbitrary distinction?

You mention harming or killing others as a moral constraint on action, yet you advocate the killing of humans that happen to be inside their mother? How is this not an arbitrary distinction?

Side note--feel free to ignore: How can something be "great in theory" but "catastrophic in practice"? If truth is the set of things that exist (like your computer and this website and everything else) and the concepts which "make sense" (1+1=2 is also true), then how can something correctly deduced from sound premises (good theory) not comport with the set of things that exist ("in practice")? If you deduced 1+1=2 yet counted some things and found that 1+1=3, would you discard your theoretical conclusion or your empirical one, and on what grounds? It seems to me that any apparent incompatibility between theory and practice involves one of three problems: (1) the theory is wrong, (2) the theory is being inappropriately applied, or (3) the observation is wrong (faulty measurement, imprecision, etc.). Since you seem to agree with libertarianism somewhat and think it "sounds great in theory", then it must be either (2) or (3), and therefore libertarianism should be tried again for more and/or better data.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Boy Newman, that was quite a post. Instead of spending a lot a bit of time responding to the entire post, how about I pick out one point at a time? Let's start with the most important part, the role of civil government.

I appreciate your engagement.

Just because I'm being civil doesn't mean that I don't looooooooooathe the Libertarian movement and the people who are a part of it. Your leaders and their ideology of 'self ownership' (i.e. "It's my body and I can damn well do as I please with it!") are responsible for the death of 10's of millions of people. Your movement's ideology destroys lives, families, entire communities and nations. I hope and pray that justice will come to the leaders of your godless movement while they're here on earth and that they don't have to wait until they meet God to receive it.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Where did this basis ( "The role of government for any libertarian is to prevent and deal with violence, not instigate it.") come from? It most certainly didn't come from the Bible, as nowhere will you see that government was ordained by God solely do deal with violence.

It's a proposition, just like any other. Some propose an active government tasked with eliminating all risk in life, others propose a government that prohibits some things and not others, still more propose a government that redistributes wealth, and so on.

Such eloquent words for such a evil movement. Address the opening post that deals with the ideology of the Libertarian movement and what role government should take on issues such as homosexuality, abortion, prostitution, pornography, recreational drug use and suicide. While we can talk about zoning laws and the privatization of roads at another time, I've specifically started this thread to talk about the doctrine of 'self ownership":

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power...


1.1 Self-Ownership

Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life.
http://www.lp.org/platform

You've been through this drill many times before with me Newman. Use the terms "consenting adults", "victimless crimes" and "property rights" in your next post (should you choose to return) and let's get this debate started.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

OK doser, the photo you posted is NOT what abortion looks like . It's highly misleading and emotion-laden propaganda . A tiny fetus is NOT a "baby ". It's a baby once born . But you anti-choicers couldn't care less if fetuses starve once out of the womb. Remember- a fetus is also helpless once born .

Don't let people like Bunny boy Newman and ok doser fool you De Horn. You're all of the same sexual anarchist mindset, but they're despicably worse because they hide behind God, claiming to be Christians. Yet they completely ignore Jesus' greatest commandments.

 

[Rusha]

I agree with libertarianism on some things but not on others . I believe people should be free to do whatever they choose as long as they do not harm or kill others or create a public nuisance (not the same thing as abortion which is a woman's choice ) .

A woman's *choice* to kill her unborn baby. Your claim is contradictory. You claim people should not be free to kill others and then claim a woman should be allowed the choice of abortion. Are you under some impression that the innocent, unborn baby LIVES through an abortion? The sole intention of abortion is for killing an unborn child.

I believe the government MUST stay out of people's bedrooms and women's reproductive organs .

Abortions (aka the method used to intentionally kill an unborn baby) isn't normally done in *people's bedrooms*. Once again, you pretend that someone is making women BECOME pregnant. Outside of rape, women (and men) have the option of not creating children. The time to make THAT *choice* is prior to conception, not after.

 

[ok doser]

OK doser, the photo you posted is NOT what abortion looks like . It's highly misleading and emotion-laden propaganda . A tiny fetus is NOT a "baby ". It's a baby once born . But you anti-choicers couldn't care less if fetuses starve once out of the womb. Remember- a fetus is also helpless once born .

you just keep telling yourself whatever lies you have to to allow yourself to sleep at night


and have fun burning in hell :wave2:

 

[Newman]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Such eloquent words for such a evil movement. Address the opening post that deals with the ideology of the Libertarian movement and what role government should take on issues such as homosexuality, abortion, prostitution, pornography, recreational drug use and suicide. While we can talk about zoning laws and the privatization of roads at another time, I've specifically started this thread to talk about the doctrine of 'self ownership":

Does this mean we've reached an agreement on everything I said, since you have not criticized the substance of any of it?

I intentionally made my earlier post (the other one you neglected to respond to most of) lengthy and substantive to give you an opportunity to criticize a "platform" that a real libertarian on this site holds. I think we've also already covered this in previous "debates": the LP is anathema to me.

I think you don't have any good arguments against what I've said and so you are deflecting and sensationalizing to try to spin this discussion into an emotional insult-flinging match. This is your M.O.

Why won't you engage the other points I've made?

 

[cellist]

Well, I'm still waiting for him to answer my points on self ownership. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Well, I'm still waiting for him to answer my points on self ownership. I'm not holding my breath.

I'd covered pretty much everything in your first post on page 1 in the other thread, but will so do again one plank at a time.

1) He has not answered whether he accepts the idea of self ownership, a central principle in liberty. As John Locke, the Christian philosopher said, "Every man has a property in his own person." aCultureWarrior says he has answered it but he confuses it with "free will". Free will is a completely different concept then self ownership. To make my point, I'm sure the "Great Leader" of North Korea believes his subjects have the "free will" or the choice to disobey him but we all know that the citizens of that country are treated no less than the "Great Leader's" property as he has sovereign control over them. Free will is not self ownership. BTW, when John Locke says "self ownership" he is not referring to one's rights as they pertain to God, but as they pertain to other people, especially governments.

As I'd shown in the Wallbuilders link, http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=106

you Libertarians are taking John Locke's words out of context, so please don't continue to make one of our highly respected Founding Fathers part of your godless cult.
Regarding self ownership/free will: Man is given free will by God to make decisions. Since man is given free will, he "owns" the choices he makes. Nowhere in Holy Scripture does God say that man is to make bad decisions. It's been established that the righteous role of government is 'to do good as seen through the Eyes of God'. Make your case why things such as homosexuality, abortion, incest, pornography, prostitution and suicide should remain or be legal (based on the Libertarian "self ownership" principle), but make it from a secular humanist perspective, because God abhors such things as does a righteous government that rules with His morals in mind.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Such eloquent words for such a evil movement. Address the opening post that deals with the ideology of the Libertarian movement and what role government should take on issues such as homosexuality, abortion, prostitution, pornography, recreational drug use and suicide. While we can talk about zoning laws and the privatization of roads at another time, I've specifically started this thread to talk about the doctrine of 'self ownership":

Does this mean we've reached an agreement on everything I said, since you have not criticized the substance of any of it?

Only if you agree that civil government has a responsibility to rule righteously, as seen through the Eyes of God. If so, then Libertarian so-called 'principles' (self ownership, consensual morality, etc.) are invalid.

I intentionally made my earlier post (the other one you neglected to respond to most of) lengthy and substantive to give you an opportunity to criticize a "platform" that a real libertarian on this site holds. I think we've also already covered this in previous "debates": the LP is anathema to me.

I think you don't have any good arguments against what I've said and so you are deflecting and sensationalizing to try to spin this discussion into an emotional insult-flinging match. This is your M.O.

Why won't you engage the other points I've made?

Agree with what the righteous role of government is when it comes to moral issues such as homosexuality, abortion, incest, pornography, prostitution and suicide without turning it into a War and Peace novel. After that, we can move onto your next point.

 

[Newman]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Such eloquent words for such a evil movement. Address the opening post that deals with the ideology of the Libertarian movement and what role government should take on issues such as homosexuality, abortion, prostitution, pornography, recreational drug use and suicide. While we can talk about zoning laws and the privatization of roads at another time, I've specifically started this thread to talk about the doctrine of 'self ownership":



Only if you agree that civil government has a responsibility to rule righteously, as seen through the Eyes of God. If so, then Libertarian so-called 'principles' (self ownership, consensual morality, etc.) are invalid.



Agree with what the righteous role of government is when it comes to moral issues such as homosexuality, abortion, incest, pornography, prostitution and suicide without turning it into a War and Peace novel. After that, we can move onto your next point.

So you didn't read any of it, then? Because I made my position clear on all of this. I believe a legitimate, righteous government would have prohibitions against these, and that all of the citizens subject to this government (or whatever you want to call the organization that enforces these rules on behalf of 100% of the citizenry) would have to agree to such a code of conduct. This is not controversial, is it? We abide by rules we agree to but not ones we have not agreed to. Do you follow Sharia Law? No, because you have not consented to follow those rules. Do you follow US law? Yes, because you have consented to following those rules. If you violated Sharia Law in Seattle, what would happen? Nothing. If you violated US law in Seattle, what would happen? You would be subject to the consequences you yourself have either explicitly or implicitly consented to.

You mentioned earlier (or maybe in another thread) that you have encountered people smoking marijuana in public in your state, where it is "legal". You said you encouraged them not to smoke, and cited some science or whatnot to back up your position. You did not say you pointed a gun at their face to make them stop. You did not grab the joint (or whatever) and throw it on the ground and stomp on it. Why?

This is an important question, because your answer to this question is (or at least should be) the same answer I give for contractual laws and rules, instead of making people behave the way we want them to by force. And that answer is: we do not have the authority to make people do what we want them to do. If we do not have this authority, we cannot delegate it to an organization calling themselves the government.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Plank #2 (from page 1)

2) I put forward a philosophical argument that self ownership is axiomatic. Self ownership fits the bill well to be an axiom because one cannot argue against it without presupposing it. If aCultureWarrior argues against self ownership, for example, he is in essence affirming his ownership over his own mind (i.e. self ownership).

I've acknowledged all along that man has self ownership (free will) to make decisions. Libertarianism states the following:


1.1 Self-Ownership

Individuals own their bodies and have rights over them that other individuals, groups, and governments may not violate. Individuals have the freedom and responsibility to decide what they knowingly and voluntarily consume, and what risks they accept to their own health, finances, safety, or life.
http://www.lp.org/platform

Make your case as to why a righteous civil government should not "violate the rights" of those who engage in homosexuality, incest, (you already acknowledged in another thread that incest is acceptable as long as it's consensual, but I want to hear it again) pornography, prostitution, recreational drug use and suicide.

Plank #1 and #2 are pretty much the same, so try to combine them.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Agree with what the righteous role of government is when it comes to moral issues such as homosexuality, abortion, incest, pornography, prostitution and suicide without turning it into a War and Peace novel. After that, we can move onto your next point.

So you didn't read any of it, then? Because I made my position clear on all of this. I believe a legitimate, righteous government would have prohibitions against these, and that all of the citizens subject to this government...

Congratulations Newman, all of these years of me hounding you about 'consensual morality' has paid off. You've been officially "un-Libertarianized" for acknowledging that government does have a righteous role, and that is to rule as seen through the Eyes of God, not moral relativist man.

...You mentioned earlier (or maybe in another thread) that you have encountered people smoking marijuana in public in your state, where it is "legal". You said you encouraged them not to smoke, and cited some science or whatnot to back up your position. You did not say you pointed a gun at their face to make them stop. You did not grab the joint (or whatever) and throw it on the ground and stomp on it. Why?

This has absolutely nothing to do with what the righteous role of government is. I could no more legally physically restrain an adult (here in WA State where it's legal) from smoking dope than I could legally physically restrain a woman going into an abortion clinic, a man going into a pornography shop, or a homosexual going into a 'gay' bathhouse.

If government were to fulfill their righteous role, these morally confused people would be getting the help that they so desperately need.

This is an important question, because your answer to this question is (or at least should be) the same answer I give for contractual laws and rules, instead of making people behave the way we want them to by force. And that answer is: we do not have the authority to make people do what we want them to do. If we do not have this authority, we cannot delegate it to an organization calling themselves the government.

See my point above regarding government. Add the fact that the family and Church play a huge part in God-fearing society as well (when people are taught morals and abide in them, the need for government is very limited).

 

[aCultureWarrior]

If and when Newman and cellist come back to the thread to address my latest posts, I want them to address this question as well:

Why did God set the standard for human sexuality so early on in The Bible? (Genesis 2:24)

I'll give you a guys' a hint: It wasn't a coincidence.

 

[Newman]

Congratulations Newman, all of these years of me hounding you about 'consensual morality' has paid off. You've been officially "un-Libertarianized" for acknowledging that government does have a righteous role, and that is to rule as seen through the Eyes of God, not moral relativist man.

Not so fast--you've removed my claim from its context. I'm libertarian because I believe any rules should be determined by contract and the owner of whatever property you are standing on or using. You want to enforce the same rules on people who have not consented to be subject to said rules. Do you see the difference? It's quite profound.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what the righteous role of government is. I could no more legally physically restrain an adult (here in WA State where it's legal) from smoking dope than I could legally physically restrain a woman going into an abortion clinic, a man going into a pornography shop, or a homosexual going into a 'gay' bathhouse.

But why? Surely you have the authority to do so as granted to you by God to be His enforcer here on Earth... right? If not, then you could not delegate this authority to an individual or organization calling themselves "government".

If government were to fulfill their righteous role, these morally confused people would be getting the help that they so desperately need.

Agreed, but I doubt they would want to live in the society/area/neighborhood that has chosen (100% of the citizenry) to enforce these rules.

See my point above regarding government. Add the fact that the family and Church play a huge part in God-fearing society as well (when people are taught morals and abide in them, the need for government is very limited).

See my many points you have chosen to ignore.

 

[Newman]

If and when Newman and cellist come back to the thread to address my latest posts, I want them to address this question as well:

Why did God set the standard for human sexuality so early on in The Bible? (Genesis 2:24)

I'll give you a guys' a hint: It wasn't a coincidence.

God's standards are holy because he is holy. His design is perfect, and only corrupted by the sinful actions and desires of humans. Jesus's sacrifice is the only way we can once again be reconciled to God.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Congratulations Newman, all of these years of me hounding you about 'consensual morality' has paid off. You've been officially "un-Libertarianized" for acknowledging that government does have a righteous role, and that is to rule as seen through the Eyes of God, not moral relativist man.

Not so fast--you've removed my claim from its context. I'm libertarian because I believe any rules should be determined by contract and the owner of whatever property you are standing on or using. You want to enforce the same rules on people who have not consented to be subject to said rules. Do you see the difference? It's quite profound.

First of all let's keep this conversation limited to what the righteous role of civil government is. It's been established that it is to "do good as seen through the Eyes of God", not as seen through the thoughts and actions of moral relativist man.

In a constitutional republic such as ours, the populace "consents" when men and women are voted into political office and push their agenda through legislation, i.e. we're all subject to said rules whether we like it or not. If we don't like it, then we do our best to elect people who will legislate our morals.

If you're backtracking on your previous stance and are now saying that people have some kind of "right" to engage in homosexuality, abortion, incest, pornography, prostitution, recreational drug use and suicide because those acts are taking place on private property, then make your case. If you're claiming that the Libertarian doctrine of "self ownership" ("It's my body and I can damn well do with it as I please!") takes precedent over a righteous government that embraces godly values, then say so.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
This has absolutely nothing to do with what the righteous role of government is. I could no more legally physically restrain an adult (here in WA State where it's legal) from smoking dope than I could legally physically restrain a woman going into an abortion clinic, a man going into a pornography shop, or a homosexual going into a 'gay' bathhouse.

But why? Surely you have the authority to do so as granted to you by God to be His enforcer here on Earth... right? If not, then you could not delegate this authority to an individual or organization calling themselves "government".

As an individual I have no authority either by God or man to write and enforce legislation, in fact there's a law that prohibits me from restraining someone that is doing a lawful act (even if it is an immoral act on their part).

Unlawful imprisonment.
(1) A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment if he or she knowingly restrains another person.

(2) Unlawful imprisonment is a class C felony.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.40.040

If you don't believe that government does have that authority, (to arrest, prosecute and imprison law breakers) make your case (I'll then call you an "anarchist").

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
If government were to fulfill their righteous role, these morally confused people would be getting the help that they so desperately need.

Agreed, but I doubt they would want to live in the society/area/neighborhood that has chosen (100% of the citizenry) to enforce these rules.

The criminal element I would imagine rarely agrees to the laws that they're breaking (unless they're the victim of criminal actions). Your point is irrelevant because not all people are going to agree between what is morally right and morally wrong. That's why our laws must have unchangeable basis of morality (Biblical) behind them.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
See my point above regarding government. Add the fact that the family and Church play a huge part in God-fearing society as well (when people are taught morals and abide in them, the need for government is very limited).

See my many points you have chosen to ignore.

Once I get you to acknowledge that a righteous government has authority over immoral individual behaviors, then we can move on.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
If and when Newman and cellist come back to the thread to address my latest posts, I want them to address this question as well:

Why did God set the standard for human sexuality so early on in The Bible? (Genesis 2:24)

I'll give you a guys' a hint: It wasn't a coincidence

God's standards are holy because he is holy. His design is perfect, and only corrupted by the sinful actions and desires of humans. Jesus's sacrifice is the only way we can once again be reconciled to God.

Could it be that He set the standard for human sexuality (one man, one woman, united in matrimony) so early in Holy Scripture because He knew of the temptation that men and societies at large would possess when it comes to sexual matters?

It's not a coincidence Newman that for close to 2,000 years Judeo-Christian based societies had laws against such things as an unmarried romantic male and female cohabitating together. Laws against adultery, homosexuality, incest, prostitution and pornography. God designed human sexuality for specific purposes (enjoyment of each other as husband and wife, procreation, etc.), and it is the duty of a righteous government that acknowledges God's Wisdom to enforce such laws (along with cultural mores' that frown upon things like out of wedlock sex).

 

[Newman]

First of all let's keep this conversation limited to what the righteous role of civil government is. It's been established that it is to "do good as seen through the Eyes of God", not as seen through the thoughts and actions of moral relativist man.

Agreed. But what about people outside the jurisdiction of this righteous, Godly government? Does this government you are proposing even have limits on its jurisdiction?

If something is sinful inside the boundaries of this government, then it's sinful outside. What are the limits to what this government can do, if any?

In a constitutional republic such as ours, the populace "consents" when men and women are voted into political office and push their agenda through legislation, i.e. we're all subject to said rules whether we like it or not. If we don't like it, then we do our best to elect people who will legislate our morals.

I would strongly disagree here. Voting =/= consent. If my neighbor comes up to my door and asks if I want to take part in the discussion all my neighbors are having over at his house, and they are discussing whether or not to burn my house down, then I would go try to convince them not to do it, but I wouldn't be consenting to the process or the outcome.

Besides, this means that you have incriminated yourself. If voting = consent, and you have voted, then you are guilty of all of the heinous crimes of the US government.

If you're backtracking on your previous stance and are now saying that people have some kind of "right" to engage in homosexuality, abortion, incest, pornography, prostitution, recreational drug use and suicide because those acts are taking place on private property, then make your case. If you're claiming that the Libertarian doctrine of "self ownership" ("It's my body and I can damn well do with it as I please!") takes precedent over a righteous government that embraces godly values, then say so.

Please clarify the jurisdiction of this righteous government.

As an individual I have no authority either by God or man to write and enforce legislation, in fact there's a law that prohibits me from restraining someone that is doing a lawful act (even if it is an immoral act on their part).

Unlawful imprisonment.
(1) A person is guilty of unlawful imprisonment if he or she knowingly restrains another person.

(2) Unlawful imprisonment is a class C felony.
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.40.040

If you don't believe that government does have that authority, (to arrest, prosecute and imprison law breakers) make your case (I'll then call you an "anarchist").

Sure you do! If you are a homeowner, you make the rules for your house, right? Suppose you invite some guests over, and they begin to behave in a way that displeases you. Don't you have the authority to kick them out? If you own a business, don't you have the authority to set terms for your customers? If they violate your rules, can't you impose consequences on the customer?

You do not, however, have the authority to enforce rules on people that have not agreed to follow the rules, either by stepping on your property or signing some contract with you.

It seems we are in agreement here, in terms of who has what authority. This is all it takes for you to call yourself libertarian.

The criminal element I would imagine rarely agrees to the laws that they're breaking (unless they're the victim of criminal actions). Your point is irrelevant because not all people are going to agree between what is morally right and morally wrong. That's why our laws must have unchangeable basis of morality (Biblical) behind them.

We have cases of 100% agreement all the time. Whenever you engage in any voluntary interaction with anybody, there is 100% agreement. Whenever you step foot on somebody's property, you consent to follow the property owner's rules, so there is 100% consent. Whenever somebody moves into an HOA, they must sign a contract saying they will follow certain rules, therefore 100% agreement. You and your employer have a contract--100%. You and TOL.com have a contract--100%. Anybody driving on public roads must agree to follow traffic rules first--100%. Etc., etc., etc.

100% is far easier to achieve than you imagine. Of course, if you want governments the size of the current United States, this would be tough. But if that's a condition for you to have your righteous government, good luck. I would rather have the rules/laws I want enforced in my area. People in other areas are outside the jurisdiction of my area, and while I would want them to live God-honoring lives and set up a government-type organization similar to mine, I cannot force them to do so. Just like you can't force Ethiopians, Oregonians, or even unconsenting Seattleites to do your bidding.

Once I get you to acknowledge that a righteous government has authority over immoral individual behaviors, then we can move on.

Once you clarify the jurisdiction of this government and admit that one can only delegate authority that originates in the one doing the delegating, then I will agree.

 

[cellist]

I'd covered pretty much everything in your first post on page 1 in the other thread, but will so do again one plank at a time.



As I'd shown in the Wallbuilders link, http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=106

you Libertarians are taking John Locke's words out of context, so please don't continue to make one of our highly respected Founding Fathers part of your godless cult.

You are still evading. The point I am making isn't that John Locke is a libertarian per se, as I already mentioned. My point is that he affirmed self ownership and so on that point, among many others, we agree. The issue is what is the application of self ownership as it pertains to civil government. Locke made his own applications and I am capable of making my own applications, even if the disagree with John Locke. If it is in fact true that John Locke supported the idea that one cannot be a citizen of Carolina unless he is a member of a church - and there is not proof of that in the article since one can assist in drafting the constitution without necessarily agreeing with everything in it - then I would argue that John Locke is not consistent with his own arguments. And if that is true, that Locke supported the idea that one cannot be a citizen without being a member of a church, then I would say he is not reliable at all in his application of the principle of self ownership, given this view.

Regarding self ownership/free will: Man is given free will by God to make decisions. Since man is given free will, he "owns" the choices he makes. Nowhere in Holy Scripture does God say that man is to make bad decisions. It's been established that the righteous role of government is 'to do good as seen through the Eyes of God'. Make your case why things such as homosexuality, abortion, incest, pornography, prostitution and suicide should remain or be legal (based on the Libertarian "self ownership" principle), but make it from a secular humanist perspective, because God abhors such things as does a righteous government that rules with His morals in mind.

No and no again. Free will is not self ownership. This is not difficult aCultureWarrior. Ownership has to do with who is allowed ultimate control of a particular object or, in this case, their own person. Just think of owning a car. You can do what you like to your own car. It isn't illegal if you decide to take a sledge hammer to it. You can change the oil as much as you like or not. You can leave it in your garage or outside. Why? Because you OWN it. Think of what OWNING something means. OWNERSHIP means sovereign control over an object or, in the case of slavery, a person. We are saying that no other person or institution can claim ownership over another person because that amounts to slavery - period.

Your definition of the role of government is so broad ('to do good as seen through the Eyes of God') that anyone can make it mean whatever they want, including Locke. The government should IN FACT punish people for evil, namely, the evil of denying another the right to self ownership and ownership of their own property. So murder, rape, stealing, fraud, vandalism, polluting, assault, trespassing, etc. would all be punishable. Your verses say nothing about which sins should be punishable by law - and I think we can both agree that every sin should NOT be punishable by law - and so really are not proof texts against what I and other libertarians are saying. These verses need application and that is where we differ, not on what the text itself is saying.

Just tell me how your list of sins to be illegal is not arbitrary when there are many other sins as well. Maybe saying "Raca" to another person should be illegal, since Jesus said that earns hell. Maybe going to a Jehovah Witnesses "church" should be illegal since God abhors religions that deny the Deity of Christ. Maybe losing one's temper should be illegal since that is also a sin. Maybe it should be illegal to be irresponsible at work, trying to pick up a woman to have sex, seeing an R rated movie, dressing "sexy", a mother pursuing a career instead of staying home with the kids etc, etc...It's starting to sound like Sharia law, isn't it? Or maybe the Taliban. Your list of pet sins is completely arbitrary.