Tasine Loc: Southwest US

FTA
In response to yesterday's Hobby Lobby ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, Libertarian Party Executive Director Wes Benedict made the following statement:

It's strange that liberals and conservatives are making this ruling out to be a huge deal. All the ruling does is remove a very narrow coverage requirement, in very specific cases; 99.9 percent of Obamacare is upheld.

It's true that closely held corporate entities should not be forced to pay for this particular contraceptive coverage. But focusing on that narrow issue misses the bigger point: No employer should be forced to provide any health coverage at all.

This ruling just draws the line between freedom and regulation arbitrarily. If these employers are free to ignore this particular mandate, why aren't other employers free to ignore other Obamacare regulations? They should be.

Obamacare is unjust and unconstitutional from top to bottom. No employer should be forced to provide health coverage to its employees, or penalized by government if it doesn't.

Religion is not the issue. The fact that these employers have religious motives doesn't matter. Employers have the right to associate freely with their employees, and to come up with any mutually agreeable employment terms, whether their motives are religious, secular, generous, greedy, or wh**ever.

This ruling is a tiny island in a huge sea of Supreme Court rulings that have supported the federal government's desire to regulate and control.

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-respond-to-hobby-lobby-ruling?utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Libertarian%20Party&utm_content=20140701+Hobby+Lobby+Ruling
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was a Republican loyal v**er and supporter for 50 years - until I decided it was harming the nation by allowing the Democrat Party to run all over them - and us. I joined the Libertarian Party because of the primary principles it supports: minimum government and maximum freedom.

Why try to change how political parties operate? Both major political parties rule the roost - it's hard to get another person elected. Rather than try to change the Democrat Party and the Republican Party, LEAVE them, don't support them, and join me and other patriots in the Libertarian Party - let's give Libertarians an opportunity and our nation a chance to survive.

Olden McGroen Loc: Texas

=====================================

While I agree with Wes on the point of employers have the right to associate freely with employees and that the ACA is unconstitutional from top to bottom, I disagree with him on the point that religion is not an issue.

I think he needs to review the First Amendment of the BOR again. Libertarians, unlike many Conservatives, avoid using religion as an argument with regards to the Constitutionality of any given subject. Religion (or religious beliefs/principles) is the one factor that separates most Conservatives and Libertarians. That's not to say that Libertarians aren't religious or that all Conservatives are. But, I would say that it's probably the norm. That being said, I think Libertarians may try a little too hard not to go down the religion path of reasoning to the point that they may overlook legitimate instances where religious freedom is an issue to be considered.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As a libertarian and as a conservative, I feel freer to express my true thinking than I once did. I didn't read the same thing into Wes' comment that you did. Yes, he did say "religion is not an issue", but what I took him to mean is that religion or NOT, government has no business mucking around in privately owned businesses. I agree whole-heartedly with that comment. The issue SHOULD have been FREE SPEECH AND FREEDOM TO RUN ONE'S OWN BUSINESS - if THAT had been THE issue, it would have solved MANY problems that Obamacare has caused. As it was actually done, it only partially solved problems.

As to libertarians and republicans: Republicans place more emphasis on Christianity and Libertarians place more emphasis on individual rights. BOTH are good policies. Just for the record, every time Christianity is attacked on this forum and other forums, I defend it because while I do not consider myself Christian, I KNOW it is what has held America together all these decades and that without it, the abyss into which we will slide is too deep to climb out of. I believe that Christian philosophies and the Golden Rule maintained a proper attitude for the masses, and I always say so. I think Christianity per se would be better served if it played its cards a bit more quietly and let us who are NOT Christians say what needs saying in its defense.

I was raised in the Methodist Church and was there every time the doors were open for business, later joined the Baptist Church, then later abandoned it too because no matter how hard I tried, I just could not summon enough faith to fully believe all that is within the Bible, and I did the honest thing - I quit being a hypocrite. I have the greatest respect for Christians and their true faith - I only wish I were one of them, but have accepted the fact that I am NOT.

I had a grandfather who was a religious zealot, NOT what I would call a Christian,but who thought he was the greatest Christian since Christ. One day after listening to him berate me (that's while I was still with the church) for my "sins"(I'm sure I had some, but can't name a single one of them), I told him I believed he had decades ago been called to the ministry and that he refused the call. Talk about angry!!! That really made him mad, and I was pretty sure I was right. At any rate, I walked out of his house never to see him again.

To tether Libertarians and Republicans as one, here's what I would recommend:
Libertarians should knock off the "a******n is no one's business except the pregnant woman's", and Christians should knock off the constant impulse to dictate to others re a******n.
Both sides pose a problem to all Americans. I say don't fight a******n before a heartbeat occurs. OR, my FAVORITE choice, fight ALL a******ns except those that are done to save the mother's life,while at the same time making the morning after pill available to all who want it and are not put at risk by taking it. That pill PREVENTS THE PREGNANCY, it does not destroy a baby.

Olden McGroen Loc: Texas

=====================================

I too, am a Conservative Libertarian. Conservative leaning on social issues, but not all. I'll get to that later.

As for Wes's statement, "they" (Hobby Lobby, et al) were basing their argument on the First Amendment of Freedom of Religion. So, while I agree with you and Wes that the federal gov't should stay out of our business beyond what the commerce clause in the Constitution dictates, I disagree with Wes's statement that it wasn't about religion. I mean, we can play semantics on what "religion" is and means in this context, but...anyway, that's that.

As for the Libertarian stance on the a******n issue...I just so happened to have sent an email to Wes a couple months ago on that very topic. In the STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES section of the Libertarian Platform...2nd paragraph...and to paraphrase..."We all have the right to pursue our lives as we choose as long as our pursuits don't infringe on the rights of another to do the same."

However, in the 1.0 Personal Liberty section, 1.4 A******n. Paraphrasing again, "Gov't should stay out of it and it should be left up to the individual and their conscientious consideration."
Meaning, the woman has the right to choose a******n if she chooses without gov't intervention...(which is what we have now WITH gov't intervention.)

I, however, disagree. And I'm basing it on the second paragraph of the Libertarian Platform's Statemen of Principles...(see above)...Not on the bible, or any other Christian platform.

I believe that a woman has the right to choose...but the choice is NOT to take a life out of convenience as a mulligan for a miscalculated discretion...Rather, the CHOICE was at copulation. We've allowed the Progressives to move the goal post on the question of where the choice actually is. Once conception has taken place, personal responsiblity follows. I don't think we need another law. It's already against the law to murder someone.

Now, you may be thinking, "Hey, a woman has rights you know?" Yes, but I'll refer you back to paragraph two of the LP SoP. We all have rights, but some of our rights have perameters. We are free to drink alcohol, but we can't drive while drunk. Why? Paragraph two... We have the right to own and shoot guns...but we can't shoot at one another...Why?...Paragraph two....We have the right to free speech, but we can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre (unless there is one)...Why?....you guessed it.

Therefore, it is my contention that while a woman has rights, once she has conceived, she forfeits her right for the right of the unborn child. Now, there are countless debates over exactly where life begins...but, I think that once conception is established, life begins...regardless of how inconvenient it is for those wanting the mulligan. Maybe acting more like a grownup and planning ahead would've been the better option. There are so many birth control choices out there and readily available that there is NO excuse...except in cases of rape. Which is the only exception to the rule. Danger to the woman's health is a gray area, because in a real situation, the doctor would be trying to save both. I can't imagine too many scenarios where it would come down to the doctor having to take a child's life to save a mother. Deliver it early, yes...but not an a******n. That sounds pretty far-fetched.

See, if we started treating copulation like we do alcohol, guns and free speech, I imagine more people would start acting more responsible. Yes, that means make it a criminal offense. Technically, you could call it 1st degree murder. There's no such thing as an accidental a******n. Libertarians are all about personal responsibility. This is where the rubber meets the road on it.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I totally agree with EVERY syllable in your comment!!!!!!!! I don't have the right to take this woman's life, and she doesn't have the right to take the baby's life. Also, I've always said that she exercised her right when she opened her legs, after that she has no more right to "choice". She has responsibility to the choice she already made!!! Same wave length!!!! Fantastic.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Personal responsibility, pre coitus, would mean the use of contraception in some form, including condoms for males. Where things get ugly, is when Federal money is being used for any of the above. Conservatives get plumb livid with the thought of THEIR tax money being used to make screwing " guilt free ". I plan a trip to DC next month. I'm going to poll the hookers that the politicians use, to see what preventive measures THEY use - and how it's paid for.

BearK Loc: TN

I'm a registered Republican, but have Libertarian attitudes - time to change.

I keep saying, the only difference between the two are the color ties they wear, otherwise, throw them in a hat, shake them, dump them and they all look and smell the same.

Striker Loc: Arizona Rockies

While I totally agree with this, the Dem-Rep Monopoly dictates the process and prevents having any alternatives. Other parties, regardless of what they're named or what they stand for, are relegated to the bottom shelf. It seems few want to "waste their v**e", yet v****g Dem or Rep is almost always a wasted v**e, and those parties dictate the choices of the v**ers to bigger/better/more-of-the-same tyranny.

I've been a Libertarian from virtually it's beginning over 40 years ago. We can get nowhere as the independents have no candidate and "new" parties are forced to requalify in many states, time after time. I've seen it all. And this is why I keep saying that "v****g is not the answer"!

So the Monopoly Rules and those who object can go to hell.

Alicia Loc: NYC

************
I love your plan. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There's an answer out there somewhere. Given the fact that the government we were born to is nowhere to be found, it seems to me that we could force the DNC and the RNC to change their rules re who can and who cannot run. We desperately need e******n reform, BIG TIME.

hprinze Loc: Central Florida

[quote=Olden McGroen
While I agree with Wes on the point of employers have the right to associate freely with employees and that the ACA is unconstitutional from top to bottom, I disagree with him on the point that religion is not an issue.

I think he needs to review the First Amendment of the BOR again. Libertarians, unlike many Conservatives, avoid using religion as an argument with regards to the Constitutionality of any given subject. Religion (or religious beliefs/principles) is the one factor that separates most Conservatives and Libertarians. That's not to say that Libertarians aren't religious or that all Conservatives are. But, I would say that it's probably the norm. That being said, I think Libertarians may try a little too hard not to go down the religion path of reasoning to the point that they may overlook legitimate instances where religious freedom is an issue to be considered.[/quote]

=====================================
Religion is NOT the issue. The issue is that government has no constitutional authority to force an employer to buy health insurance for employees. Nor does governmemt have any constitutional authority to meddle in any of the private business agreements between employees and employers.
Government has no constitutional authority to tell employers or employers what their "minimum" wage is or what the working hours will be or what the employees and employers ncan wear on the job.


If government can force employers to buy health insurance for itheir employers, what is next?

Will employers be forced to buy the employees' groceries, buy them automobiles, pay for their haircuts, buy their clothes, pay their utilities and on and on and on?

Government at the federal, state, county, and city levels is the worst enemy of the free enterprise system in the USA.

Is total c*******m next, where the government gives to all according to their needs and takes from all according to their abilities?

VladimirPee

I took a serious look at the Libertarian Party for a long time. I came to the conclusion it was the Liberal-Tarian party. While we conservatives are in agreement with Libertarians on many issues I find their " Anything Goes" politics is not conservative and their immigration policy sucks.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

Dennis, I don't believe most libertarians think that "anything goes". What they think is that "you live your life, and let me live my life"; "don't do to me what you don't want done to yourself", etc. If you look for the perfect party, you'll never find it. Pick one that is nearest to YOUR philosophy for living. That's what I did, but I'm not changing MY PERSONAL philosophy for living just to satisfy a political party.

We do this to ourselves, of course. If we didn't think we HAVE TO HAVE GOVERNment to tell us what to think and how to think it, we wouldn't be having all these problems. I hope everyone understands that the ONLY people who insist on GOVERNment are the ones who will set it up and run it.

VladimirPee

I suppose the issues where we disagree are big ones like terrorism. They believe it should be a police issue not a military issue parroting Kerry from the 2004 debates. I believe both are needed.

Legalizing drugs not just pot.

Neutral foreign policy
Open borders.