By: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND

The article below compares the Libertarian of today with the abolitionist, freedom rider, suffragettes, and free speech advocates of ages past, attempting to place the sheen of those social “accomplishments” on the present day Libertarian movement.

The seemingly clever analogical argument is flawed by the assumption that all past actions are equivalent to present and future positions of Libertarianism.

The analogy is also erroneous in its assumption that society has advanced in its creation of a culture of unrestrained expression.

The flaw is the idolatrous worship of freedom and liberty as though they are the highest principles of society.

Is it the responsibility of government to regulate nudity, obscenity, drunkenness? No, it is the responsibility of every parent to train up a child in the ways of Godliness. It is a responsibility of mature citizenship to take personal responsibility to stand against all unruly and boundary-violating behavior.

And, if the citizens of a community wish to codify these moral principles in city ordinance, and use the force of government to add an exclamation point to the importance they place on moral standards, then every locality should be permitted to do it.

Is it a right and wise public policy to give the franchise to the homeless, penniless, and dependent (a right once only held by property owners)?

Not all women, blacks, youth, nor men have the moral maturity to cast a wise vote.

Giving a child or a moral degenerate the right to govern the affairs of state by his vote is a sure formula for guiding the ship of state into the shoals of destruction.

Along with the Libertarian call for deregulation of vices and “victimless crimes” has come the embrace of vices as a right and the celebration of perversity. Eventually will come the domination by the perverse (see the story documented in, “The Poisoned Stream – “Gay” Influence in Human History).

The elevation of freedom of all expression as protected speech has left no higher governing authority in the moral vacuum left by the exit of governmental regulation.

The governmental declaration and enforcement of a Godless education and social code have given men no moral center by which to self regulate in the absence of state-mandated behavior.

The seeds of our current decay of state were planted and have grown wild in this exaltation of animalistic free expression.

The Libertarian should take responsibility for his contribution to the decay of a once more ordered society, especially if he has not advocated for Godliness with equal fervor.
The proposed market system of Murray Rothbard, et al, as the teacher of boundaries, is far from mature.

The exit of government and Godly education, and ultimately Godly parenting has left in its place an unruly populace that necessarily demands an ever more invasive governmental regulation.

While the old order was imperfect, the animal nature was restrained by a government restrained by the Constitution, and a populace somewhat self-regulated by a fear of God.
When the Libertarian stands alongside the moral principles of Godliness as strongly as he stands for the rights of men, and advocates for the absolute need of every man to regulate himself in accord with the principles of Godliness, I will proudly stand with him in his protest of the surrogate parent and often abusive hand of government.

Until then, I ally with those who call for Godly self-regulation and a return of government to its Constitutional boundaries.


—–Original Message—–
From: John  Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 7:46 PM
To: Thomas Lee Abshier, ND
Subject: FW: Are Libertarian Ideas Too Radical???

One-Minute Liberty Tip
By Sharon Harris

Too Radical?“
Your ideas are just too radical to ever be accepted,” she said to me across the restaurant table. “It just makes you sound foolish when you advocate them. Your libertarian ideas won’t get anywhere because they’re just too extreme.” “Well, I think a lot of your political ideas are very radical, too,” I responded.“What do you mean?” “Well, consider that gentleman over there.” I indicated a black man at a nearby table. “Do you think it should be legal to own and sell him?” “Of course not!” “I agree,” I said. “And so does everyone else – now. But that was an extremely radical idea in this part of America back in, say, 1858. Still, some people had the courage to call for it. And because of them, that man is free today.”I pointed at the glass of wine at her table.“Do you think it should be legal for you to buy that wine?” “Of course.” “Another radical anti-Establishment idea of yours,” I said. “The manufacture, sale and transportation of alcoholic beverages was outlawed in 1920 – by a constitutional amendment, no less. Prohibition lasted until 1933 – until years of hard work by radical anti-Prohibitionist activists finally resulted in that Amendment being repealed.“And what about voting?” I continued. “Should you, a woman, be allowed to vote?”Her eyebrows shot up. “Certainly!” “That’s still another radical belief you hold,” I said. “In fact, the first U.S. political party to propose it was the Liberty Party in 1848 – one of those radical third parties you laugh at. But it wasn’t until 1920 that the U.S. Constitution was finally amended to allow women to vote. It took nearly a century of activism to bring that about.” “Well, all that was a long time ago…” “Let’s look at more recent times. Do you think it should be legal to publish and buy the works of D. H. Lawrence, Henry Miller, and William Burroughs?” “Certainly. They’re major figures in world literature.” “Your radicalism is showing again,” I smiled. “It was illegal to publish some of their major works in America as late as the 1950s and 1960s. Booksellers were arrested for selling them. Court cases supported by First Amendment activists – who were often denounced as radicals, pornographers and enemies of America — eventually made it legal to print and sell them.“We could go on,” I said. “Nudity and cursing in mainstream films – illegal until several decades ago. The use of medical marijuana – only now finally winning acceptance. Strong language in stand-up comedy — remember what happened to Lenny Bruce as late as 1964? “My point is, we’re both radicals. You’re as radical as I am on many issues. The only difference is that you’re radical on issues that were settled a while back. It’s easy now to defend the freedom to purchase alcohol or to read Henry Miller or to listen to comedians who use strong language. But that’s only because passionate and brave people spoke up and took risks – including sometimes ridicule, criticism and persecution — when those were the hot issues of the moment.“You and I agree on those issues. But the difference is — I’m also radical on the burning freedom issues of 2011. And let me ask you: What will happen on those vital issues if people like you and me don’t speak up now?”