I just think most people can’t handle that level of freedom.

The Obama admin agrees. Funny thing is though, we’ve been systematically wiping-out freedom in America for better than a century now. Yet the government is more corrupt than ever, more intrusive than ever, has borrowed more money than it can ever pay back (immoral), and society is degenerating rapidly.

As Bastiat taught us, there is that which is seen and that which is unseen. We fail to look at the whole picture. History presents a compelling case: Stricter laws create more crime. Bureaucracy turns men into degenerates. The state is chaos. “Liberty,” as Proudhon said, “is the mother, not the daughter, of order.”

But would you be in favor of somebody who says “let the states decide” then …

We’re supposedly a nation of laws not men. If we’re a nation of laws, then it follows that we must follow those laws. Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to regulate what people ingest (drugs), how they marry, what age they may drink alcohol, etc. Therefore, the federal government should refrain from these acts until the Constitution is amended. Otherwise, we’re just another nation ruled by the whim of a ruling elite.

… “right” and what is “wrong.”

Again, we have to look at the whole picture. When discussing government edicts, we have to be clear on what that means – the threat of, or use of violent force. For example, smoking a joint may be bad for the individual smoking it, but what consequences does exacting violence against this person for smoking it have on society? The smoker has hurt no one, so how can I, as a Christian member of society, justify the sin of threatening or using violence against him? Should every sin be met with a gun? Not only would that bring chaos, but we’d all be dead.

The history of our government in action tells me that putting them in charge of marriage is the fast-track to legalizing “gay marriage” across the entire continent. Think about it.

At a certain level, a government and its people must agree upon what is “right” and what is “wrong.” I think Libertarians are helpful in pushing for more freedom which benefits us all but were they running the show how well would it go?

Libertarianism is great in theory… I just think most people can’t handle that level of freedom. What he said was:

“It is amazing that we want freedom to pick our future in a spiritual way but not when it comes to our personal habits.”

That’s not quite a ringing endorsement of being against heroin, is it?

And being a “non-interventionist” versus an “isolationist” is a rather thin, highly subjective line, don’t you think? This argument was used in Congress before WWI and WWII. That’s how Lend-Lease came about.

Mr. Paul is an intelligent man and I respect him but I honestly don’t feel that this country would be better off with him in the White House.

As for being an isolationist, he really isn’t. He considers himself a non-interventionist, meaning we stay out of the affairs of other countries, when they have nothing to do with the national security of America.

Right now we have many outstanding conservative candidates running for President and I would like to see the conservative blogs give each and every one of these good people a fair shake.

There is no perfect candidate and we all have our favorites, even I, but when all is said and done, any of these candidates would be better than what we have now. Let’s pay attention to some of those that are not our favorites; they may surprise us and be almost as good as our favorites.