Samantha,

I did like the part about Abraham being an anarcho-capitalist. I can see he and Murray Rothbard together now, discussing private court systems, although I'm picturing both wearing bow ties. I am not quite sure, however, what you are driving at by saying nine folks at the Philadelphia convention were from Princeton. It seems your original post indicated the children of Abraham had a rather libertarian society in the time of the judges, which I believe was not a Christian society. Is the Catholic Church libertarian? I do believe it qualifies as Christian.

I agree you can use Christian principles to represent the underpinnings of libertarianism. My only point was you can do that with any religion that has a basis in "do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you", which is to say, essentially all major religions.

I also think it is not necessary to have a religious basis to understand the principles of libertarianism as it can be approached from a completely secular background as well. Thomas Jefferson, in "A Bill For Establishing Religious Freedom" (1779) asserted natural rights of mankind, which serve as an excellent basis for libertarianism.  I think this ability to address the relationship of the individual to society and government regardless of the cultural context is the beauty of libertarianism.

I would be extremely careful when saying God is any particular political persuasion. If you can make that case, someone else can make just as valid a case that God is some other political persuasion. Even if God is a libertarian, some of the things that have been done in God's name have not been libertarian.

The morals that come to actions of government have to come from individuals, for the government has no morality unto itself. It is not that our present government is immoral, but that those directing the actions of government do not have the proper perspective on the relationship of government to the individual that is the problem.

The form of government doesn't really matter. Democracies or republics can be quite oppressive and monarchies can be saintly depending on who is running the show. I guess my question is why do you think it is special that a republic was established in Philadelphia by Christians?

Mik Robertson
 

The underlying fabric of our society is individual rights, not religion or religious values.

> It is unfathomable that our Founding Fathers would be happy with governments and ACLU lawyers fighting to make citizens take down nativity scenes and the like.

Why? They are the ones who wrote the separation of church and state rule anyway.

> Phrases in the Delcartion and Constitution such as "Creator", and "Year of of Lord" were not objectionable and at minimum show elements of the effects that Christianity had on our Founding Fathers.

There were part of the common parlance at the time, just as we instead now say 'God', and have no greater significance.

Private citizens should be allowed to display whatever they want. Local governments should be able to authorize private citizens to place religious scenes on public property if the local population has no objections to it. If you are not from a town I don't necessarily see where you have a right to demand that people who pay taxes to a municipality must bow down to you and remove something you find objectionable. Maybe you just shouldn't visit that town.

Show me the phrasing seperation of church and state in the Constitution. It isn't there. That was a letter written by Thomas Jefferson that was trying to state that the government's ability to influence a church should be restricted. Basically he was reiterating that the government has no right to restrict speech in a church.

http://www.allabouthistory.org/separation-of-church-and-state.htm

It has been misinterpreted by many. But if you want to know what the founding fathers thought it meant... it was a protection for religion, not the state.

By that regard then you are in agreement that the seperation of Church and state is to keep government out of the church, not necessarily to state that the church is not allowed to influence government?

As far as public/private property is concerned... If an entire town was populated by truthers, who paid taxes to their local truther government, you feel it is inapropriate for them to use public property to express their message? They paid for it. If some local municipality wants to put up a cross on public property, and no one who is a taxpayer in that municipality is against this, then what is the issue? I don't see this as an issue. What right do you, as an outsider, have to tell these people that they are not allowed to run their local government as they see fit? Do you, as an outsider, know what is better for these people? Do you want to set regulations upon them because it offends you? I use religious symbols because they bring the most fire to the argument. But it could be as simple as an advertisement for Coca Cola on public property.

Let me ask you this, should I be able to speak freely or express my opinion freely on public property?

People get so wrapped up on these religious issues. Who cares if they put a cross on public property. Ever been to a national cemetary? I am amazed that we haven't had to go and get rid of all of those. It is ridiculous.

We can put up a sign about a fair in town that is being held at some park but don't you dare hang a sign up that says there is going to be a fair at a church.

All I am saying is that if you don't want it in your backyard, fine. But don't tell other people what is best for them. Then you start to sound like our federal government.

Perhaps they chose to create a local government so that they could have a collective use of property. Perhaps the people of this collective got together and purchased property to have it for public use. They may have chosen to live in this manner. Isn't that how many towns and cities in this country first started? Is that wrong? It certainly does not affect you unless you choose to become a member of this community. There can be such a thing as public property without restriction.

Lets say that a community wants to create a new playground and recreation facility. They want to seek donations for the building of these facilities. In exchange for a certain donation level either a brick or a plaque is placed with the name of the group or individual donating the money. We cannot allow a church to donate money because we can't have a church advertised on this property. But, the American Legion is ok.

You completely disregard the ability for a community to make decisions as a collective in your argument. No one has stated anywhere that an individuals rights would be affected other than by their choosing. I see reasons for public land. I understand that public land can be a good thing for a community. I would hate to see a city with no public land other than that for government business. If people want to create public land for parks, free speech areas, or whatever, they should be allowed to do so. Your argument assumes that no one has a choice. I don't want no government. I want a limited government. And I want government at the local level, chosen by the people, to work with them.

Frankly, the only way you will have no public land is through anarchy.

Yeah, I meant to put in there that the property was a public park...

As far as what is advocated within the bounds of the LP, I don't think that we are all planning on moving equal distances away from each other. It stands to reason that there will still be communities and small local governments. Generally a municipality is created when a group of people in the same geographic area come together and decide to write a charter. Ideally the form of governing chosen would be decided by the population that is incorporating. Unfortunately there are roadblocks to this process in reality because of many reasons, but that is a seperate debate.

Your hypothetical case is highly tortured.

Why not simply sell the public park to a private entity which can develop it as it sees fit? Assuming the private entity wishes to attract members of the local community as customers (likely), and assuming the community is religious, churches will be ALL OVER that park. You get your freedom AND your religion. Sounds like a win-win for you.

Your case is like what they're doing in the Philly public schools. They turn over the running of certain public schools to private corporations. So it's still a public school, but a private corporation gets some kind of weird monopoly because people are still forced to financially support the school, and there is no ability for parents or kids to choose which school they want to go to. It's fascism, really.

What they really need to do is end the property tax, shutter the public school system, or sell what they can, and let the private sector - including families - make their own decisions about how kids will be educated, without any initiation of force being involved.

The real solution is to abolish the notion of "public property" altogether.  If the property had real human beings who owned it, then they can do what they want with it.  But then, I'm one of those wierdos who longs for the day when we can cancel government altogether due to lack of interest.