LDS Freedom Forum

Wow!

...and it works!

TonyOlsen wrote:Wow!

...and it works!

Yes. If the cars are going 5 MPH. You are absolutely right.

That is about the right speed for most Libertarians to be able to make good choices. YEAP!

Wiikwajio wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:Wow!

...and it works!

Yes. If the cars are going 5 MPH. You are absolutely right.

LOL

Wiikwajio wrote:That is about the right speed for most Libertarians to be able to make good choices. YEAP!

Captain Moroni would disagree with you. It's all about Christ's plan of Agency (Liberty/Freedom) as opposed to Satan's plan of force (Tyranny).

I, like Captain Moroni, and all of the ancient and modern prophets who have spoken on that subject, choose Liberty over Captivity.

I'm an anti-socialist. If you don't call that "Libertarian" or "Freeman"... what would you call it?

That is about the right speed for most Libertarians to be able to make good choices. YEAP!

Just remember Wiikwajio -that Thomas Jefferson was and is the "classic" Libertarian..........but after reading many of your posts - I'm sure you will find many things wrong with him as well

TonyOlsen wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:Wow!

...and it works!

Yes. If the cars are going 5 MPH. You are absolutely right.

LOL

Wiikwajio wrote:That is about the right speed for most Libertarians to be able to make good choices. YEAP!

Captain Moroni would disagree with you. It's all about Christ's plan of Agency (Liberty/Freedom) as opposed to Satan's plan of force (Tyranny).

I, like Captain Moroni, and all of the ancient and modern prophets who have spoken on that subject, choose Liberty over Captivity.

I'm an anti-socialist. If you don't call that "Libertarian" or "Freeman"... what would you call it?

Do you think that Captain Moroni gave the King-men liberty? Do you believe the Nephites had no laws? They had strict laws and the Book of Mormon is quite clear on this.

Traffic laws do not impede liberty. They increase it. Think of a modern highway without traffic lanes. Think of our streets without stop lights or speed limits. How about pedestrians crossing the streets they way they are in this film. Now try to get anywhere going faster than 5 MPH.

Mosby wrote:

That is about the right speed for most Libertarians to be able to make good choices. YEAP!

Just remember Wiikwajio -that Thomas Jefferson was and is the "classic" Libertarian..........but after reading many of your posts - I'm sure you will find many things wrong with him as well

I don't recall him giving his slaves their freedom. Do you?

Do all classic Libertarians have slaves and die in debt?

I know Washington freed all his slaves upon his death. Did Jefferson. Classic!

Thanks for proving my point.

Wiikwajio wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote:...

Yes. If the cars are going 5 MPH. You are absolutely right.

LOL

Wiikwajio wrote:That is about the right speed for most Libertarians to be able to make good choices. YEAP!

Captain Moroni would disagree with you. It's all about Christ's plan of Agency (Liberty/Freedom) as opposed to Satan's plan of force (Tyranny).

I, like Captain Moroni, and all of the ancient and modern prophets who have spoken on that subject, choose Liberty over Captivity.

I'm an anti-socialist. If you don't call that "Libertarian" or "Freeman"... what would you call it?

Do you think that Captain Moroni gave the King-men liberty?

No. Some of them he killed for not defending their lands.

Wiikwajio wrote:Do you believe the Nephites had no laws?

No. We know they had laws.

Wiikwajio wrote:They had strict laws and the Book of Mormon is quite clear on this.

Agreed.

And your point is?...

Libertarians do NOT believe in Anarchy. They believe in the same limited government that our Constitution laws out, and which Captain Moroni fought for. I'm suspecting that you don't understand this.

Wiikwajio wrote:Traffic laws do not impede liberty. They increase it.

Perhaps.

Wiikwajio wrote:Think of a modern highway without traffic lanes. Think of our streets without stop lights or speed limits. How about pedestrians crossing the streets they way they are in this film. Now try to get anywhere going faster than 5 MPH.

Now remember... I wasn't making the claim that Libertarians want to get rid of traffic laws... the original poster made that claim. I could see it either way...

TonyOlsen wrote: I'm an anti-socialist. If you don't call that "Libertarian" or "Freeman"... what would you call it?

I am a sovereign. I am an Independent American. But Christ said I should call myself a Christian. So I am a Sovereign by divine right Independent American Christian. I am not a Conservative because there is nothing left to conserve. I am not a Libertarian because I have read their platform and I disagree with it and have seen the fruits of Libertarian thinking and they are evil.

Wiikwajio wrote:Do you think that Captain Moroni gave the King-men liberty?

TonyOlsen wrote:No. Some of them he killed for not defending their lands.

So Captain Moroni killed people for not doing what they did not believe was right. Is that supporting free agency? All the king-men did was to form a government they believed would best protect their safety and happiness. And Moroni killed them for it.

Libertarian platform

1.0 Personal Liberty
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

Obviously Moroni was not a Libertarian.

TonyOlsen wrote:Libertarians do NOT believe in Anarchy. They believe in the same limited government that our Constitution laws out, and which Captain Moroni fought for. I'm suspecting that you don't understand this.

Libertarian platform 1.1 Expression and Communication
We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship.

That means you cannot stop child porn or any porn or snuff movies or naked dancing in the streets or public sex acts called art.

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

The laws of the USA did not allow for licentious acts which include homosexuality and yet the libertarians oppose such laws. The laws of Moses did and yet you claim to be a Libertarian? Why?

1.4 Abortion
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.

So government cannot outlaw any abortion even up to 9 months along. And you claim to be a Libertarian? Why?

3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries.

They support open borders. Do you?

So if you are a Libertarian you are pro-gay rights, pro-Abortion (or at least again any restraint upon abortion) and oppose laws that could limit public sex acts and want to open our borders. I oppose these things. I am pretty sure the Church does too. At least the first three. Are you supporting the false ism of Libertarianism? Why?

Mosby wrote:Thanks for proving my point.

You are welcome. I hold only Christ up as my example. Jefferson was far from perfect but an amazing man. I like him when I like him yet disapprove of many things he said and did.

Wiikwajio wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote:Do you think that Captain Moroni gave the King-men liberty?

TonyOlsen wrote:No. Some of them he killed for not defending their lands.

So Captain Moroni killed people for not doing what they did not believe was right. Is that supporting free agency? All the king-men did was to form a government they believed would best protect their safety and happiness. And Moroni killed them for it.

You empathize with the Kingmen? Is this the socialism I see seeping around the edges when you talk?

Agency is Christ's plan, and Force is Satan's plan.

There are only a very few situations where God condones the use of force and has permitted it. These involve the following:
* Defending Life
* Defending Liberty
* Defending Property

This is why Captain Moroni created the Title of Liberty. He held it up as he marched through the country side gathering men to create an army to go and forcibly defend their lands, life, and liberty from those who sought to take it away. The Lamanites (at that time) sought to take it away... and so did the Kingmen.

...just like the Socialists seek to take it away today.

Wiikwajio wrote: Libertarian platform

1.0 Personal Liberty
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

Obviously Moroni was not a Libertarian.

That platform point I do not believe in... it's too absolute without allowing for force to be used in defending Life, Liberty, and Property.

I'm a Libertarian, but that does not mean I agree with everything in the Libertarian platform.

Wiikwajio wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:Libertarians do NOT believe in Anarchy. They believe in the same limited government that our Constitution laws out, and which Captain Moroni fought for. I'm suspecting that you don't understand this.

Libertarian platform 1.1 Expression and Communication
We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship.

That means you cannot stop child porn or any porn or snuff movies or naked dancing in the streets or public sex acts called art.

That's YOUR interpretation... and I disagree with it.

I believe that a person does not have the right to take away someone else's Life, Liberty, and/or Property, unless that is the only way to defend Life, Liberty, and/or Property. You should not kill someone unless he/she is trying to kill you and you can find no way to stop him without taking his life.

One could easily argue that a child in child porn is a captive/prisoner and has had Liberty taken away.

Also, since addictions are a loss of Liberty. While you can choose to get yourself addicted to drugs, sexuality, or whatever, and lose your own Liberty... you have no right to take that Liberty away from someone else. You wouldn't be allowed to sneak addictive drugs into someone's food, because you are attacking that person's Liberty. Likewise, sexual addictions can be achieved visually, so lewd sexual behavior in public attacks the Liberty of the public. If a person chooses to lose their own Liberty, then they would have to seek out the lewd sexuality... the lewd sexuality has no rights to invade the Liberty of the public.

This does not mean I believe in all forms of censorship. I believe in allowing as much Freedom as possible as long as other people's Liberties are not attacked against their will. So some things in censorship might be valid and some things might not. Despite your attempts... it is NOT a black and white issue.

Wiikwajio wrote: 1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

The only word I disagree with here is "define". I believe the Constitution gives the Federal Government authority to establish constant weights and measures. This means defining terms, such as Marriage.

Do gays have freedom today to form personal relationships of their own choosing? Yes, they do.

Is there a major movement to seek to make homosexuality illegal? No, there isn't...

...they have that freedom today.

But that's not what the homosexual movement is seeking. It is not enough for them to be able to commit evil after the manner of their own choosing... they now seek to force other people to have to claim that it is not evil. They are seeking to take away the freedom of Heterosexuals and Christians to believe that homosexuality is a sin (which it is).

This is the big lie... while this socialist homosexual group seeks to take away freedom from other people (by forcing the redefining of contracts by changing the word "Marriage" from it's traditional, Christian, and true meaning, into a perversion.

Homosexuals are free to be homosexuals. But God does not grant them the right to redefine our weights and measures.

The devil has sought to redefine our language in an attempt to pervert our scriptures and God's law. "Marriage" is his next target.

I stick by the definition of Marriage that the Church used in its recent proclamation. Homosexuals who claim my doing so is taking away their freedom are liars, and the truth is not with them.

Wiikwajio wrote: The laws of the USA did not allow for licentious acts which include homosexuality and yet the libertarians oppose such laws. The laws of Moses did and yet you claim to be a Libertarian? Why?

1.4 Abortion
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.

So government cannot outlaw any abortion even up to 9 months along. And you claim to be a Libertarian? Why?

I do not blinding adhere to any list that another groups puts forth. You've correctly pointed out those things that one group has claimed is the Libertarian beliefs. I disagree with their claims.

My definition of Libertarian is more simple than that:

"To seek the greatest Liberty possible"

Some of the planks you've mentioned do not help to increase Liberty, but actually take away from our Liberty, and therefore I reject them as correct/valid Libertarian ideals.

...I don't care what groups of self-professed intellectuals have claimed on the subject.

Wiikwajio wrote: 3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries.

They support open borders. Do you?

I do to the extent that other people's Life, Liberty, and Property are not put in danger.

I do not believe in government regulations that go beyond defending Life, Liberty, and Property.

Wiikwajio wrote: So if you are a Libertarian you are pro-gay rights, pro-Abortion (or at least again any restraint upon abortion) and oppose laws that could limit public sex acts

Wrong.

Wiikwajio wrote: and want to open our borders.

"Open Borders" is a term that can mean a range of things ranging from Libertarian to Socialism... ranging from Liberty to Tyranny.

When Obama talks about "Open Borders" he's talking about creating a new Global Economy and greater Tyranny... less freedom. This is Socialism/Tyranny.

When the Lamanites were converted to the Gospel, there was peace for many years... and the Nephites and Lamanites started openly trading with one another... more freedom. This is Libertarianism/Liberty.

And yet both could be called "Open Borders".

Yet... do you see the difference?

Wiikwajio wrote:I oppose these things. I am pretty sure the Church does too. At least the first three. Are you supporting the false ism of Libertarianism? Why?

I already answered that above.

Wiikwajio wrote: Do you think that Captain Moroni gave the King-men liberty?

TonyOlsen wrote:No. Some of them he killed for not defending their lands.

Wiikwajio wrote:So Captain Moroni killed people for not doing what they did not believe was right. Is that supporting free agency? All the king-men did was to form a government they believed would best protect their safety and happiness. And Moroni killed them for it.

TonyOlsen wrote:You empathize with the Kingmen? Is this the socialism I see seeping around the edges when you talk?

I empathize with any man that is accused of a crime that does not receive full due process of law. "Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are." Benjamin Franklin

You seem to disagree with Franklin. I do not. Was Franklin a socialist?

Would you want your government to treat you the way Captain Moroni treated the king-men? Do you support the Japanese internment camps here in the USA? Is that not what Captain Moroni did to the king-men or those accused of being king-men. What happens to Libertarians when the government we have today treats you the way the Captain Moroni treated the king-men?

TonyOlsen wrote:Agency is Christ's plan, and Force is Satan's plan.

There are only a very few situations where God condones the use of force and has permitted it. These involve the following:
* Defending Life
* Defending Liberty
* Defending Property

This is why Captain Moroni created the Title of Liberty. He held it up as he marched through the country side gathering men to create an army to go and forcibly defend their lands, life, and liberty from those who sought to take it away. The Lamanites (at that time) sought to take it away... and so did the Kingmen.

...just like the Socialists seek to take it away today.

You mean the land that the King-men controlled that they forcibly took from others that disagreed with them because the king-men claimed rightful authority?

You seem to forget that history is written by the victors. Would you have wanted to be treated like Captain Moroni treated the king-men?

How did we get the land you live on? Did white people march through the country side gathering men to create an army to go and forcibly take their lands, life, and liberty from those who sought to keep it? YOu know. The Indians.

Now PLEASE justify the taking of Indian land by telling me God commanded it. Were the Lamanites told to take the lands away from the Nephites in the days of Mormon? If so why did a prophet of God fight against the Lamanites to stop them?

TonyOlsen wrote:That platform point I do not believe in... it's too absolute without allowing for force to be used in defending Life, Liberty, and Property.

So you disagree with the party's position. So do I. That is why I am not a Libertarian.

TonyOlsen wrote:Libertarians do NOT believe in Anarchy. They believe in the same limited government that our Constitution laws out, and which Captain Moroni fought for. I'm suspecting that you don't understand this.

Wiikwajio wrote: Libertarian platform 1.1 Expression and Communication
We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship.

That means you cannot stop child porn or any porn or snuff movies or naked dancing in the streets or public sex acts called art.

TonyOlsen wrote: That's YOUR interpretation... and I disagree with it.

Okay. Tell me what censorship is and why you oppose it. Remember that the platform does not say we oppose SOME government censorship. They do not support ANY government censorship because they did not limit that opposition. Words have meanings. In law that statement would allow for no government censorship.

TonyOlsen wrote:I believe that a person does not have the right to take away someone else's Life, Liberty, and/or Property, unless that is the only way to defend Life, Liberty, and/or Property. You should not kill someone unless he/she is trying to kill you and you can find no way to stop him without taking his life.

One could easily argue that a child in child porn is a captive/prisoner and has had Liberty taken away.

One could easily argue the other way too. That is why law is so technical. When you do not place limits there are none. When there are none then the extremist view is included, not excluded. And you are placing your morals others concerning when sexual consent starts. That is allowing religion into law and respecting one religious belief over another and Libertarians don't approve of such things.

Why are you trying to impose your religious beliefs concerning child pornography on others? Are you not a Libertarian?

TonyOlsen wrote: Also , since addictions are a loss of Liberty. While you can choose to get yourself addicted to drugs, sexuality, or whatever, and lose your own Liberty... you have no right to take that Liberty away from someone else. You wouldn't be allowed to sneak addictive drugs into someone's food, because you are attacking that person's Liberty. Likewise, sexual addictions can be achieved visually, so lewd sexual behavior in public attacks the Liberty of the public. If a person chooses to lose their own Liberty, then they would have to seek out the lewd sexuality... the lewd sexuality has no rights to invade the Liberty of the public.

So you would support government censorship if your religion set the standards and not mine? What if my religion support voluntary human sacrifice? A guy in Germany put out an advertisement asking for a person that he could kill and eat. A man answered and the guy killed him and ate him. Would your Libertarian beliefs punish the man to killing and eating another man that wanted him to do it?

TonyOlsen wrote:This does not mean I believe in all forms of censorship. I believe in allowing as much Freedom as possible as long as other people's Liberties are not attacked against their will. So some things in censorship might be valid and some things might not. Despite your attempts... it is NOT a black and white issue.

So you believe in censorship when it is appropriate. Who decides that? You? Me? The Democrats? The Republicans? You are no more a Libertarian than I am.

Wiikwajio wrote: 1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

TonyOlsen wrote:The only word I disagree with here is "define". I believe the Constitution gives the Federal Government authority to establish constant weights and measures. This means defining terms, such as Marriage.

I hate to tell you this but the Federal Government has NO right to have ANYTHING to do with marriage in the states and never has. If the government can use the equal weights and measure clause to define what things are then they can define religion, sex, marriage, liberty, tyranny, movement, happiness. Your claim about the equal measurement clause is without question, the most ridiculous unsubstantiated by law or history or original intent justification I have ever heard. You are not a libertarian. You are a tyrant. You would allow the Federal Government to define words at their whim and caprice. What if they defined marriage as not being in an LDS Temple? Or that EVERY marriage had to include multiple partners? YOU have given the Federal Government more power than any person in America to decide everything about your liberty. You just gave then the power to define what liberty means.

TonyOlsen wrote:Do gays have freedom today to form personal relationships of their own choosing? Yes, they do.

No. They cannot marry in many states and receive the same benefits and heterosexuals. I worked hard in Nevada to ensure that. It was my Church calling.

TonyOlsen wrote:Is there a major movement to seek to make homosexuality illegal? No, there isn't...

...they have that freedom today.

Yes there is such a movement and no, they do not have the same freedoms as heterosexuals. Which is a good thing.

TonyOlsen wrote:But that's not what the homosexual movement is seeking. It is not enough for them to be able to commit evil after the manner of their own choosing... they now seek to force other people to have to claim that it is not evil. They are seeking to take away the freedom of Heterosexuals and Christians to believe that homosexuality is a sin (which it is).

No big deal. Congress can just define homosexuality as being normal under the equal weights and measure clause and then you will be forced to recognize them as being normal or be in violation of law.

TonyOlsen wrote:This is the big lie... while this socialist homosexual group seeks to take away freedom from other people (by forcing the redefining of contracts by changing the word "Marriage" from it's traditional, Christian, and true meaning, into a perversion.

Libertarians support the rights of homosexuals to be married. If they can marry they can adopt. Adoption is not socialist. It is a lawful function of government to regulate adoption. If the government cannot determine what is moral and immoral then they cannot discriminate against homosexual married couples declared to be equal by Congress under the equal weights and measure clause. YOu are not a Libertarian for the same reasons I am not a Libertarian.

TonyOlsen wrote: Homosexuals are free to be homosexuals. But God does not grant them the right to redefine our weights and measures.

Can you find a single table or definition of weights and measures where marriage is included? Is polygamy listed as being an equal weight or a measure? How about concubines? How about group marriages? Would Brigham Young have legal marriages under your system of Congressional definitions of marriage?

TonyOlsen wrote:The devil has sought to redefine our language in an attempt to pervert our scriptures and God's law. "Marriage" is his next target.

So is polygamy a legal marriage? Who decides?

TonyOlsen wrote:I stick by the definition of Marriage that the Church used in its recent proclamation. Homosexuals who claim my doing so is taking away their freedom are liars, and the truth is not with them.

So you want to impose your religious beliefs on marriage on others and you call yourself a Libertarian. You sound a lot more like a Republican to me.Does the recent definition of marriage by the Church include polygamy?

Wiikwajio wrote: The laws of the USA did not allow for licentious acts which include homosexuality and yet the libertarians oppose such laws. The laws of Moses did and yet you claim to be a Libertarian? Why?

1.4 Abortion
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.

So government cannot outlaw any abortion even up to 9 months along. And you claim to be a Libertarian? Why?

TonyOlsen wrote:I do not blinding adhere to any list that another groups puts forth. You've correctly pointed out those things that one group has claimed is the Libertarian beliefs. I disagree with their claims.

Those were from the National platform.

Here is Nevada's
1.4 Abortion
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.

That means that if a person's conscience believes that they can have an abortion at 9 months then they can because government cannot intervene.

TonyOlsen wrote:My definition of Libertarian is more simple than that:

"To seek the greatest Liberty possible"

Some of the planks you've mentioned do not help to increase Liberty, but actually take away from our Liberty, and therefore I reject them as correct/valid Libertarian ideals.

...I don't care what groups of self-professed intellectuals have claimed on the subject.

That is like saying you want a government that allows for the most happiness of the people.

Who defines "greatest liberty possible"? Congress, under the equal weights and measure clause? That would mean that liberty has no definition unless Congress defines it. Did you see the measurement Congress gave to the measurement "dollar"?

Wiikwajio wrote: 3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries.

They support open borders. Do you?

TonyOlsen wrote:I do to the extent that other people's Life, Liberty, and Property are not put in danger.

I do not believe in government regulations that go beyond defending Life, Liberty, and Property.

[/quote]

Who decides what endangers your life, liberty and property? Congress, under the equal weights and measure clause? Will they do as good a job as they did with "dollar"? You really have no clue as to what you have stated. You have no practical solutions, just like all Libertarians never have practical solutions and they live in a fantasy land where Congress will not define marriage as anything except what you feel in your heart of hearts will give the "greatest Liberty possible." RIDICULOUS.

And don't worry about the Borders. Congress will just tell us where they are under the equal weights and measure clause. And everyone knows that Congress would never steal our liberty which is why the Founding Fathers gave them the power to define any and all words.

Wiikwajio wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote: Do you think that Captain Moroni gave the King-men liberty?

TonyOlsen wrote:No. Some of them he killed for not defending their lands.

Wiikwajio wrote:So Captain Moroni killed people for not doing what they did not believe was right. Is that supporting free agency? All the king-men did was to form a government they believed would best protect their safety and happiness. And Moroni killed them for it.

TonyOlsen wrote:You empathize with the Kingmen? Is this the socialism I see seeping around the edges when you talk?

I empathize with any man that is accused of a crime that does not receive full due process of law. "Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are." Benjamin Franklin

You seem to disagree with Franklin. I do not. Was Franklin a socialist?

Would you want your government to treat you the way Captain Moroni treated the king-men? Do you support the Japanese internment camps here in the USA? Is that not what Captain Moroni did to the king-men or those accused of being king-men. What happens to Libertarians when the government we have today treats you the way the Captain Moroni treated the king-men?

No, Benjamin Franklin was not a Socialist.

Captain Moroni followed due process. He obtained permission before forcing the Kingmen (read the chapter).

17 Yea, verily, verily I say unto you, if all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men.

- Alma 48:17

Isn't there a temple recommend interview question that you'd fail with your Kingmen empathy?

I'll answer the rest later (no time now)... but perhaps this is pointless, since you obviously don't believe in the Book of Mormon's divine origin or authority, so I can't prove anything to you using it.

TonyOlsen wrote:Captain Moroni followed due process. He obtained permission before forcing the Kingmen (read the chapter).

15 And it came to pass that he sent a petition, with the voice of the people, unto the governor of the land, desiring that he should read it, and give him (Moroni) power to compel those dissenters to defend their country or to put them to death.

So you are saying that a government can force people, that do not support the government, to fight for that form of government, or be put to death. Did I get that right about what you, as a Libertarian, believe is the proper and legitimate form of government?

So if the government tells you to join the military to fight in an undeclared war in Iraq and to kill women and children that you are required to do so?

TonyOlsen wrote:I'll answer the rest later (no time now)... but perhaps this is pointless, since you obviously don't believe in the Book of Mormon's divine origin or authority, so I can't prove anything to you using it.

So now you accuse me of not believing in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon. Well I do believe in the divine authority of the Book of Mormon but I never saw the word "Libertarian" in the Book of Mormon.

And NO...I do not believe in the "divine authority" of the Book of Mormon because Books do not have authority. Didn't you know that? What? Are you like a Calvinist and believe the Bible has authority?

For you to claim you are right to support Libertarian beliefs by citing the Book of Mormon and Captain Moroni is a JOKE! No TRUE Libertarian would EVER support the position that a government can FORCE a person, under penalty of Death, to take up arms to support the very government he does not support. That is like saying that the United Order is Communist. What happened to your belief in the right to life and liberty? Moroni would take their lives if they did not surrender their political liberty.

I do not support Libertarian beliefs because they are not supported in the Book of Mormon nor in the Constitution or the Declaration of taking up arms or the Declaration of Independence. They are far more like the beliefs of the supporters of the bloody French revolution.

Captain Moroni was not a Libertarian. That is the point. And that fact that you believe you are a Libertarian is humorous at best. You are not. And that is a good thing.

Wiikwajio wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:Wow!

...and it works!

Yes. If the cars are going 5 MPH. You are absolutely right.

That is about the right speed for most Libertarians to be able to make good choices. YEAP!

I know some of them that can't make good choices even while they standstill

Bu Xiangzhi wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:Wow!

...and it works!

Yes. If the cars are going 5 MPH. You are absolutely right.

That is about the right speed for most Libertarians to be able to make good choices. YEAP!

I know some of them that can't make good choices even while they standstill

What is you political persuasion? Bu Xi?

Are you from China or in China or am I completely wrong?

What is you political persuasion? Bu Xi?

Are you from China or in China or am I completely wrong?

Hi Wiikwajio,
My political persuasion is Capitalist Republican.
I Was born in Beijing,China in 1983.
After I had grown up under a fierce-evil comonist rule I understood how awful are those regimes!
I came to the US and started connecting to the LDS church a few years ago and im a new convert to the mormon's.
Last year I was married to an wonderful woman that her family is mormon too,her name is Wendy.
After we got married in the temple we Bought this astonishing hand-painted painting of the LDS Temple, I can 100% suggest you to buy this painting of your own .
You can buy it here : http://art-lds.com/testimonial.php

Hope you will buy a painting of your own and enjoy it as we do ,
Thank You for the warm welcoming into your lovely site .

Bu Xiangzhi wrote:

What is you political persuasion? Bu Xi?

Are you from China or in China or am I completely wrong?

Hi Wiikwajio,
My political persuasion is Capitalist Republican.
I Was born in Beijing,China in 1983.
After I had grown up under a fierce-evil comonist rule I understood how awful are those regimes!
I came to the US and started connecting to the LDS church a few years ago and im a new convert to the mormon's.
Last year I was married to an wonderful woman that her family is mormon too,her name is Wendy.
After we got married in the temple we Bought this astonishing hand-painted painting of the LDS Temple, I can 100% suggest you to buy this painting of your own .
You can buy it here : http://art-lds.com/testimonial.php

Hope you will buy a painting of your own and enjoy it as we do ,
Thank You for the warm welcoming into your lovely site .

It is not my site but glad you like it.

I am not a capitalist and definitely not a Republican. I am not a Communist nor a Fascist nor a Socialist nor a Democrat. I support free enterprise not capitalism. Capitalism is what the Federal Reserve Banksters practice. To me it is a very evil system.

I am not a "Mormon" either. To me it is a name I do not like. I am a Latter-day Saint and to me there is a huge difference. But others think I am just crazy so don't mind me. I am not trying to insult you. Just tell you how I feel.

Glad to hear you escaped China. My son is preparing to marry a girl who is half Chinese. Her mother came from China.

I am rather opinionated but I enjoy the opinions of others. Please remember that I like to debate and debate with no holds barred. If I insult you let me know so I can apologize because I have anger issues I am dealing with because the Local Police hurt me and my family and I am suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Wiikwajio wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:Captain Moroni followed due process. He obtained permission before forcing the Kingmen (read the chapter).

15 And it came to pass that he sent a petition, with the voice of the people, unto the governor of the land, desiring that he should read it, and give him (Moroni) power to compel those dissenters to defend their country or to put them to death.

So you are saying that a government can force people, that do not support the government, to fight for that form of government, or be put to death.

No, that is not correct.

Government itself was not listed on Captain Moroni's Title of Liberty.

They were not fighting to preserve their current form of government. ...they were fighting to defend Life, Liberty, and Property.

Wiikwajio wrote:Did I get that right about what you, as a Libertarian, believe is the proper and legitimate form of government?

Like it says in the local 2010 Republican Party plank:

"If it isn't defending Life, Liberty, or Property, government shouldn't do it."

(I should know... I put that plank there... and it's staying in there at the state convention... I hope it stays until the National convention)

Wiikwajio wrote:So if the government tells you to join the military to fight in an undeclared war in Iraq and to kill women and children that you are required to do so?

No, this is not a blank check.

Someone's "claim" that their cause is just and force is justified does not equate to that claim being true.

Likewise, in the Book of Mormon we also read of Lamanites who were killed by other Lamanites when they would not attack the Nephites... and in that case, the forcing Lamanites were in the wrong. This is the story of when the Anti-Nephi-Lehi's were starting to be slaughtered, and then many Lamanites repented and did not wish to slay them anymore... and the remaining evil Lamanites attempted to force them to no avail.

Just because a valid scenario exists does NOT mean that all scenarios that rhyme with the valid scenario are automatically also valid. Personal revelation, through the Holy Ghost, is needed to determine righteousness from the Devil's traps.

Wiikwajio wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:I'll answer the rest later (no time now)... but perhaps this is pointless, since you obviously don't believe in the Book of Mormon's divine origin or authority, so I can't prove anything to you using it.

So now you accuse me of not believing in the divine origin of the Book of Mormon. Well I do believe in the divine authority of the Book of Mormon

I'm glad to hear that.

I wonder then why you call Moroni's actions evil when the Book of Mormon says that they were good and that Captain Moroni was a very righteous man. (Only a very few people in the Book of Mormon received that kind of praise from Mormon).

Wiikwajio wrote: but I never saw the word "Libertarian" in the Book of Mormon.

Neither did I.

But the principle of Liberty is prevalent throughout the book... as you know.

Wiikwajio wrote:And NO...I do not believe in the "divine authority" of the Book of Mormon because Books do not have authority. Didn't you know that? What? Are you like a Calvinist and believe the Bible has authority?

I see your point.

Wiikwajio wrote:For you to claim you are right to support Libertarian beliefs by citing the Book of Mormon and Captain Moroni is a JOKE! No TRUE Libertarian would EVER support the position that a government can FORCE a person, under penalty of Death, to take up arms to support the very government he does not support. That is like saying that the United Order is Communist. What happened to your belief in the right to life and liberty? Moroni would take their lives if they did not surrender their political liberty.

I do not support Libertarian beliefs because they are not supported in the Book of Mormon nor in the Constitution or the Declaration of taking up arms or the Declaration of Independence. They are far more like the beliefs of the supporters of the bloody French revolution.

Captain Moroni was not a Libertarian. That is the point. And that fact that you believe you are a Libertarian is humorous at best. You are not. And that is a good thing.

Which political party would you say I'm closest to, then?

I'm a Constitutionalist, but I don't make that my main party, because although I support the Constitution and believe it is inspired, I do not believe it is perfect. I do believe, however, that it is the best form of Government we can realistically hope for without putting ourselves at risk of having something much much worse (which has been the result of almost all past revolutions).

So which party do you believe is closest to my beliefs? My ideals are to achieve the greatest amount of Liberty obtainable. Labels, although imperfect, have their place. I'm a disciple of Jesus Christ. I'm a freeman.

What modern political ideology/party does that fall under, in your view?

For me... Libertarian fits about 95%.

Wiikwajio wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:Captain Moroni followed due process. He obtained permission before forcing the Kingmen (read the chapter).

15 And it came to pass that he sent a petition, with the voice of the people, unto the governor of the land, desiring that he should read it, and give him (Moroni) power to compel those dissenters to defend their country or to put them to death.

So you are saying that a government can force people, that do not support the government, to fight for that form of government, or be put to death.

TonyOlsen wrote:No, that is not correct.

Government itself was not listed on Captain Moroni's Title of Liberty.

They were not fighting to preserve their current form of government. ...they were fighting to defend Life, Liberty, and Property.

So it is okay to take up arms against the lawful government and put them all to death if they are doing what our own government has done to us to a greater extent than the king-men tried to do?

Wiikwajio wrote:Did I get that right about what you, as a Libertarian, believe is the proper and legitimate form of government?

TonyOlsen wrote:Like it says in the local 2010 Republican Party plank:

"If it isn't defending Life, Liberty, or Property, government shouldn't do it."

(I should know... I put that plank there... and it's staying in there at the state convention... I hope it stays until the National convention)

So you joined the king-men (Republicans) to reform them while calling yourself a Libertarian. That explains a lot.

Wiikwajio wrote:So if the government tells you to join the military to fight in an undeclared war in Iraq and to kill women and children that you are required to do so?

TonyOlsen wrote:No, this is not a blank check.

Someone's "claim" that their cause is just and force is justified does not equate to that claim being true.

Likewise, in the Book of Mormon we also read of Lamanites who were killed by other Lamanites when they would not attack the Nephites... and in that case, the forcing Lamanites were in the wrong. This is the story of when the Anti-Nephi-Lehi's were starting to be slaughtered, and then many Lamanites repented and did not wish to slay them anymore... and the remaining evil Lamanites attempted to force them to no avail.

Just because a valid scenario exists does NOT mean that all scenarios that rhyme with the valid scenario are automatically also valid. Personal revelation, through the Holy Ghost, is needed to determine righteousness from the Devil's traps.

So you pick and choose what laws you think you will obey? Which ones are those? Income Taxes laws you have never even read? Traffic and license laws you have never read? Social Security laws you have never read? How do you know what laws to obey? Have you ever even read your State's Constitution? I doubt it.

TonyOlsen wrote:I wonder then why you call Moroni's actions evil when the Book of Mormon says that they were good and that Captain Moroni was a very righteous man.

Would you like to quote where I wrote that Moroni's actions were evil? I would really like to see where I made such a statement. When you are unable to find any such statement by me you can apologize.

Wiikwajio wrote: but I never saw the word "Libertarian" in the Book of Mormon.

TonyOlsen wrote:Neither did I.

But the principle of Liberty is prevalent throughout the book... as you know.

As I have pointed out, I did not find libertarian principles in the Book of Mormon. I found Christian principles but Libertarians do not support a Christian Nation. They support a nation without religion in its institutions. It does not believe the principle that America is a Christian Nation. Libertarians would not force people to fight for a philosophy they oppose like Captain Moroni did. Libertarians would have have established borders like the Nephites did. Libertarians would have legalized abortion and I just don't see King Mosiah or Captain Moroni making such a law. Libertarians would have legalized prostitution and homosexuality and public sex acts. I just don't find that in the Book of Mormon.

TonyOlsen wrote: Which political party would you say I'm closest to, then?

The Independent American Party of Nevada
http://www.iapn.org/newiap/2010platform.html

And you are not even close to being 95% libertarian. You are reading into their beliefs and adding your own morality to their immoral platform because you are so moral you cannot comprehend the depth of their perversions. I am not inhibited by your youth nor naiveté.

(That means I am old and corrupt)

Wiikwajio wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:Captain Moroni followed due process. He obtained permission before forcing the Kingmen (read the chapter).

15 And it came to pass that he sent a petition, with the voice of the people, unto the governor of the land, desiring that he should read it, and give him (Moroni) power to compel those dissenters to defend their country or to put them to death.

So you are saying that a government can force people, that do not support the government, to fight for that form of government, or be put to death.

TonyOlsen wrote:No, that is not correct.

Government itself was not listed on Captain Moroni's Title of Liberty.

They were not fighting to preserve their current form of government. ...they were fighting to defend Life, Liberty, and Property.

So it is okay to take up arms against the lawful government and put them all to death if they are doing what our own government has done to us to a greater extent than the king-men tried to do?

I didn't say that.

...but you just did.

No blank checks to hand out here.

Wiikwajio wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote:Did I get that right about what you, as a Libertarian, believe is the proper and legitimate form of government?

TonyOlsen wrote:Like it says in the local 2010 Republican Party plank:

"If it isn't defending Life, Liberty, or Property, government shouldn't do it."

(I should know... I put that plank there... and it's staying in there at the state convention... I hope it stays until the National convention)

So you joined the king-men (Republicans) to reform them while calling yourself a Libertarian. That explains a lot.

Sounds like you don't believe in Christ's Atonement and people's ability to repent/change.

I'm a Libertarian. I'm working on correcting the Republican party in a similar manner to how Ron Paul worked to correct the Republican party.

Wiikwajio wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote:So if the government tells you to join the military to fight in an undeclared war in Iraq and to kill women and children that you are required to do so?

TonyOlsen wrote:No, this is not a blank check.

Someone's "claim" that their cause is just and force is justified does not equate to that claim being true.

Likewise, in the Book of Mormon we also read of Lamanites who were killed by other Lamanites when they would not attack the Nephites... and in that case, the forcing Lamanites were in the wrong. This is the story of when the Anti-Nephi-Lehi's were starting to be slaughtered, and then many Lamanites repented and did not wish to slay them anymore... and the remaining evil Lamanites attempted to force them to no avail.

Just because a valid scenario exists does NOT mean that all scenarios that rhyme with the valid scenario are automatically also valid. Personal revelation, through the Holy Ghost, is needed to determine righteousness from the Devil's traps.

So you pick and choose what laws you think you will obey? Which ones are those? Income Taxes laws you have never even read? Traffic and license laws you have never read? Social Security laws you have never read? How do you know what laws to obey? Have you ever even read your State's Constitution? I doubt it.

Have you read the entire Federal Law?

Can you even tell me how many pages it is?

Wiikwajio wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:I wonder then why you call Moroni's actions evil when the Book of Mormon says that they were good and that Captain Moroni was a very righteous man.

Would you like to quote where I wrote that Moroni's actions were evil? I would really like to see where I made such a statement. When you are unable to find any such statement by me you can apologize.

Here it is:

Wiikwajio wrote:Do you think that Captain Moroni gave the King-men liberty?

TonyOlsen wrote:No. Some of them he killed for not defending their lands.

Wiikwajio wrote:So Captain Moroni killed people for not doing what they did not believe was right. Is that supporting free agency? All the king-men did was to form a government they believed would best protect their safety and happiness. And Moroni killed them for it.

How are we supposed to understand what you wrote here? It sounds like you disagree with Moroni's actions here.

...or is this your indirect way of saying that you agree with Moroni's actions here?

(...will I get an answer to the above question, or will you waiver and change the subject like a Jehovah's Witness?)

Wiikwajio wrote:

Wiikwajio wrote: but I never saw the word "Libertarian" in the Book of Mormon.

TonyOlsen wrote:Neither did I.

But the principle of Liberty is prevalent throughout the book... as you know.

As I have pointed out, I did not find libertarian principles in the Book of Mormon. I found Christian principles but Libertarians do not support a Christian Nation.

This one does.

Wiikwajio wrote:They support a nation without religion in its institutions. It does not believe the principle that America is a Christian Nation.

I do not push for Athiesm. I push (with my words and my prayer) for Christ's Gospel, while preserving people's freedom to "choose ye this day whom ye will serve".

Wiikwajio wrote:Libertarians would not force people to fight for a philosophy they oppose like Captain Moroni did.

Libertarians believe in the non-initiation of force.

Did Captain Moroni initiate the force? No... the Lamanites did. Once the Lamanites initiated force against the Nephites, Captain Moroni (in this specific instance - again, this is NOT a blank check for everything that "rhymes" with this situation - God's will tell his servants when/how to fight or flee)... when the Lamanites initiated force against the Nephites, Captain Moroni, Captain Moroni used force to protect people's Life, Liberty, and Property... and that force included forced enlistment in the army as well as destroying traitors who sought to destroy people's Life, Liberty, and Property from the inside.

Wiikwajio wrote:Libertarians would have have established borders like the Nephites did.

What? I don't know if you wrote that sentence correctly. Try again.

Wiikwajio wrote:Libertarians would have legalized abortion and I just don't see King Mosiah or Captain Moroni making such a law.

I believe that abortions are morally wrong at conception, but I personally believe that Science must be able to prove sentience before a law can be applied (through the use of science (even with it's limits and flaws) in a court-of-law). When any human heart is stopped, the courts today determine whether murder occurred based on certain scientific factors, such as brain activity, etc. People aren't convicted if a family member pulls the plug on a brain-dead family coma patient. Logic (despite the frailties of human's logic) would need to be applied to determine "when" abortion would be illegal.

Personally, I think this places the magic line somewhere around the 2nd week, but many might disagree. In this world, the "morning after pill" would be immoral, would result in excommunication, but the person would not go to jail for it. ...If an abortion were had at 3 weeks, then a jail sentence likely would be served.

The National Libertarian committee doesn't represent the views the the Libertarian voters any more than the National Republican committee represent the views of Republican voters. ...just like the Soviet communist propaganda did not represent the views of the Soviet people.

People think for themselves.

Wiikwajio wrote:Libertarians would have legalized prostitution and homosexuality and public sex acts.

I some cases, "Yes", and in other cases "No". People could choose to commit the evil of taking away their own liberties, but they could not take away the liberties of others (which would rule out public sexual acts that could arouse sexual addictions of others and could affect their Liberty, much like taking drugs or viewing pornography would).

Wiikwajio wrote:I just don't find that in the Book of Mormon.

"29. And finally, I cannot tell you all the things whereby ye may commit sin; for there are divers ways and means, even so many that I cannot number them."
- Mosiah 4:27

Wiikwajio wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote: Which political party would you say I'm closest to, then?

The Independent American Party of Nevada
http://www.iapn.org/newiap/2010platform.html

Nevada? Does an Iowa-ian have to move to Nevada for that?

I quickly scanned over them and I did not find any I would disagree with.

...but I tire of the various planks that get too specific and get lost in the forest for the trees. I like to, like the Gospel, "keep it simple".

My planks are summarized in the following:

"If it isn't defending Life, Liberty, and/or Property, Government shouldn't do it".

Wiikwajio wrote:And you are not even close to being 95% libertarian. You are reading into their beliefs and adding your own morality to their immoral platform because you are so moral you cannot comprehend the depth of their perversions. I am not inhibited by your youth nor naiveté.

So let it be written... so let it be done.

Wiikwajio wrote:(That means I am old and corrupt)

Perhaps.

Wiik: So it is okay to take up arms against the lawful government and put them all to death if they are doing what our own government has done to us to a greater extent than the king-men tried to do?[/quote]

TonyOlsen wrote:I didn't say that.

...but you just did.

Tony. Do you know what a questions mark means? It means that I asked a question. It does not mean that I made a statement about my beliefs. If I asked you if Captain Moroni was gay that does not mean that I believe he was. It means I am asking you what you think about it. You seem to approve of Captain Moroni's methods. Are you opposed to Captain Moroni's methods or not?

TonyOlsen wrote: (I should know... I put that plank there... and it's staying in there at the state convention... I hope it stays until the National convention)

Wiik So you joined the king-men (Republicans) to reform them while calling yourself a Libertarian. That explains a lot.

TonyOlsen wrote:Sounds like you don't believe in Christ's Atonement and people's ability to repent/change.

Sounds like you don't believe it either or you would have joined the Democratic party. I also know history and learned from it. Besides, since Joseph Smith prophesied that the Independent American Party would come about in these last days I have concentrated my efforts on a good tree instead of trying to change an evil tree. Those that want real change can come to it and those that want to support evil and remain Republicans.

TonyOlsen wrote:I'm a Libertarian. I'm working on correcting the Republican party in a similar manner to how Ron Paul worked to correct the Republican party.

You are no more a Libertarian than I am.

Wiik: So you pick and choose what laws you think you will obey? Which ones are those? Income Taxes laws you have never even read? Traffic and license laws you have never read? Social Security laws you have never read? How do you know what laws to obey? Have you ever even read your State's Constitution? I doubt it.

TonyOlsen wrote:Have you read the entire Federal Law?

Can you even tell me how many pages it is?

I read the laws that allegedly apply to me. I have read most of the IRC. But it is impossible to read the entire federal law. It is too voluminous to be read. And Madison wrote in the Federal papers that if it is too voluminous to be read then it is not law. Are you claiming it is law?

Do you just blindly follow laws by faith that support Marxism when we have been commanded to eschew such false isms?

Wiikwajio wrote:

TonyOlsen wrote:I wonder then why you call Moroni's actions evil when the Book of Mormon says that they were good and that Captain Moroni was a very righteous man.

Would you like to quote where I wrote that Moroni's actions were evil? I would really like to see where I made such a statement. When you are unable to find any such statement by me you can apologize.

TonyOlsen wrote:Here it is:

Wiikwajio wrote:Do you think that Captain Moroni gave the King-men liberty?

So you do not know what a ? is or what it means. That explains a lot. You probably should learn what a ? is.

Main Entry: question mark
2 : a mark ? used in writing and printing at the conclusion of a sentence to indicate a direct question

You see a question is different than a statement:

Main Entry: state·ment
1 : something stated: as a : a single declaration or remark : assertion b : a report of facts or opinions
2 : the act or process of stating or presenting orally or on paper

So when I ask a question it does not mean that I believe the question to be true or false. It means I am asking what you believe. You do not need to thank me for explaining this simple fact and you no longer need to apologize. I was in error to believe you understood these simple concepts of standard American English. Many Republicans do.

TonyOlsen wrote:How are we supposed to understand what you wrote here? It sounds like you disagree with Moroni's actions here.

...or is this your indirect way of saying that you agree with Moroni's actions here?

See above for the difference between a question and a statement. I need not believe one word of a question. I could ask you if you thought Joseph Smith was the anti-Christ and it has nothing to do with what I believe.

Wiik: As I have pointed out, I did not find libertarian principles in the Book of Mormon. I found Christian principles but Libertarians do not support a Christian Nation.

TonyOlsen wrote: This one does.

That is like saying you are a Communist that supports liberty. If you do not act and believe in a manner that would be Libertarian then you are not a Libertarian any more than you are a duck.

Wiikwajio wrote:They support a nation without religion in its institutions. It does not believe the principle that America is a Christian Nation.

TonyOlsen wrote:I do not push for Athiesm. I push (with my words and my prayer) for Christ's Gospel, while preserving people's freedom to "choose ye this day whom ye will serve".

Which means you are not a duck or a Libertarian nor a Communist.

Wiikwajio wrote:Libertarians would not force people to fight for a philosophy they oppose like Captain Moroni did.

TonyOlsen wrote:Libertarians believe in the non-initiation of force.

Did Captain Moroni initiate the force?

Yes. He did. He forced the king-men to fight for a cause they did not support or be put to death.

Wiikwajio wrote:Libertarians would have legalized abortion and I just don't see King Mosiah or Captain Moroni making such a law.

TonyOlsen wrote:The National Libertarian committee doesn't represent the views the the Libertarian voters any more than the National Republican committee represent the views of Republican voters. ...just like the Soviet communist propaganda did not represent the views of the Soviet people.

People think for themselves.

So do ducks but ducks still have certain characteristics that they need to meet to still be ducks.

Wiikwajio wrote:Libertarians would have legalized prostitution and homosexuality and public sex acts.

I some cases, "Yes", and in other cases "No". People could choose to commit the evil of taking away their own liberties, but they could not take away the liberties of others (which would rule out public sexual acts that could arouse sexual addictions of others and could affect their Liberty, much like taking drugs or viewing pornography would).

You seem to fail to understand how definitions work. I am a classic liberal. So was Sam Adams. I am not a liberal because the word has been verbicided to where it now means Socialist. In order to be a Libertarian you have to

A. Belong to the party.
B. Have libertarian beliefs.

A. You are a Republican.
B. You do not support libertarian beliefs.

You are not a duck. You are not a libertarian. You are a Republican in both membership and beliefs. You believe in a big tent. You believe in oppressing people when God tells you to. People have rights until they conflict with moral absolutes. You did indeed join the correct political party. By the way...it will never change for the better. It is a part of the NWO twin party system.

TonyOlsen wrote: Which political party would you say I'm closest to, then?

Wiik: The Independent American Party of Nevada
http://www.iapn.org/newiap/2010platform.html

Nevada? Does an Iowa-ian have to move to Nevada for that?

I quickly scanned over them and I did not find any I would disagree with.

...but I tire of the various planks that get too specific and get lost in the forest for the trees. I like to, like the Gospel, "keep it simple".

You need not move to Nevada. Just start your own party. That is what we did. Of course there are those that do and those that talk and then there are those that try to reform Satan's party.

"Keep it simple." Said like a true Big Tent Republican. You sound like the IRS when people ask: "Show me the law." And they say: "We like to keep it simple. Pay up or we will make your life Hell."

I like my law and declared principles written down so I can read it and understand them. I like my political party to have principles around which people can gather that believe in those principles. I do not like a big tent where Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett dwell with Satyrs and demons dwell with ease and comfort. The Declaration of Independence certainly was not simple. Nor was the Constitution of the USA or any of the original States. Especially the 12 of them that had religious requirements. Now there were some brilliant men that were anything but libertarian. They were Republicans before Satan got a hold of that word.

Wiikwajio the more of your post I read the more I think you need to be on medication

your logic process is not working, you’re so angry that you argue every little point that a person is trying to say, you do not listen to what they’re saying, you have ears but you do not hear. If the Lord was teaching his parables today you would argue with him about his meaning. And that is sad very sad…

So did Captain Moroni pay taxes this whole time or did he eschew the current government and skip the census.