Author Topic: Rothbards idiotic defense of libertarianism (Read 5373 times)

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #40 on:** August 04, 2013, 11:06:23 AM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

A Catholic monarchy would be ideal. The first step in the direction of a monarchy is for tradition to take up residency in the Vatican and for modernism to be evicted.

Wait a minute, wait a minute. If you are for a strong leader that would be against the libertarian and liberal ideology which is all about freedom and egalitarianism and for civil rights. If you are for a strong State that would be against the libertarian ideology of allowing business to do what it wants and for open borders, along with anarchism. If you want a moral culture that would be against the libertarian ideology of social liberalism.

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #41 on:** August 04, 2013, 12:41:13 PM »

In conclusion one cannot be for both. One must either be a traditionalist or one must be a libertarian.

Capt McQuigg · « **Reply #42 on:** August 04, 2013, 03:11:49 PM »

Quote from: Traditional Guy 20

In conclusion one cannot be for both. One must either be a traditionalist or one must be a libertarian.

I sure wish that was the choices in front of us.

In the absence of a Catholic monarchy or a Catholic republic, then I say keep the state as small as possible. Big, strong, atheistic states have a nasty habit of placing the boot firmly on man's neck. After all, why shouldn't they? The atheist state sees man as a commodity to do with as it wishes.

But, like I said either I said in this thread or any other, until the modernists are evicted from the Vatican, a "Catholic"state would actually be a conciliar state, whether that is actually worse than an atheist state is the topic of another thread. :wink:

Traditional Guy 20 · « **Reply #43 on:** August 04, 2013, 04:14:19 PM »

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

In the absence of a Catholic monarchy or a Catholic republic, then I say keep the state as small as possible. Big, strong, atheistic states have a nasty habit of placing the boot firmly on man's neck. After all, why shouldn't they? The atheist state sees man as a commodity to do with as it wishes.

The same could be said of business with all of its greed and the rich, who care nothing for nation or race; they only care about monetary interests.

Of course one would not want an evil State like the Soviet Union or rather any country that has fallen to Communism, however government has a role in society and is not evil in itself. One should support religion in a child's education for instance. Of course politicians are truly dreadful as one is reminded of FDR's many lies either about the New Deal or during World War II.

Quote

But, like I said either I said in this thread or any other, until the modernists are evicted from the Vatican, a "Catholic"state would actually be a conciliar state, whether that is actually worse than an atheist state is the topic of another thread. :wink:

At least an atheist knows where he stands, today's Catholic Church knows nothing except to try and be "tolerant" of the modern world and "throw the windows of the Church open."

jlamos · « **Reply #44 on:** August 04, 2013, 04:22:28 PM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Capt McQuigg

How would you categorize your political views now?

If I could choose, I would choose a Catholic Monarch who recognized Christ as King. But I don't think I will live to see it. There are not a lot of Monarchists in the good old USA.

How many monarchists do there need to be in order to have a monarchy? Enough to elect a king? A very small minority of faithful Catholics could overthrow the evil empire. God could do so in a second.