The Christian Vanguard

Some of my libertarians friends will say that whatever the state has the power to do, it is able to do so because it threatens to shoot you. This is too simplistic, and probably false.

I have this libertarian friend. Well, he was a friend. He's cut off contact with me recently. Readers of this blog know I am opposed to libertarianism. I had an exchange with this friend I want to talk about. He put up a video made by these two guys. They were driving and they pulled up to a check point. The police offer, in a polite and upbeat manner, asked them some standard questions. They remained silent. The police officer, not letting the rudeness get to him just keep asking questions, and politely. After silence from the two young men, they asked if they were free to go. The officer, probably a bit confused, called over a superior. After a few moments, they were on their way with no hostility or ominous  attitude. However, there was hostility and a kind of on edge attitude on part of the kids. So, seeing the discrepancy in attitudes, I asked my smart friend, and he is very smart, why didn't they say anything to the police officer? His response was, Because they did...

Libertarians want liberty. Or, the right to do something. The right to own a gun, to smoke pot, to have gay marriage. But this is wrong, if not incoherent. Rights are grounded in natural law. The 10th Amendment reflects this, the Declaration of Independence recognizes this, and St. Paul in his letter to Romans concerning homosexuality employs it. So, we have certain goods for our being. It is good to drink for that is necessary to stay alive. Hence, I'm entitled to water if I ever need it. Sure, you may also have the right to property, but your right to property is not so strong for it to be absolute, and in this case doesn't trump my right to your water if I'm dying of thirst, for it is wrong to die. So, if rights come from natural law, and natural law is that which is good, we cannot have a right to something that is bad. We can debate the merits of whether a thing is bad or not, but if it's the case that something is bad and contrary to the natural law, like suicide...

I had a discussion with a Libertarian recently. Though he was personally against abortion, he believed, as Libertarianism dictates, government should not force his particular moral beliefs upon others. So long as a choice is to be made, that choice should not be influenced by that government. I replied by stating that life has precedence over liberty. He quoted Patrick Henry. We all know the quotation, “Give me liberty or give me death!” This is to contradict me. According to the statement, liberty is more valuable than life, but it doesn’t mean that at all.

When it comes to picking winners, I never win. In the 2008 Presidential election, I voted for McCain-Palin. Obama won. In 2012, I voted Romney-Ryan. Obama won again, though by a smaller margin than his first election, which has never happened in the history of American Presidential elections, which indicates to me that he is nothing but hype. Even in the primaries, I wanted Rick Santorum over Romney, and before she dropped out, Michelle Bachman over Santorum. I did not vote for Scott Brown, I was shocked then terrified when Elizabeth Warren was reelected, I was almost in tears when Star Parker wasn’t elected, I was furious when Alan Lowenthal won the congressional seat, I rooted for the Lakers these last three seasons, and to top it all off, I’m a Raiders fan. I just can not pick them.