I agree completely that these drugs should be legalized; BUT government should be involved in the restriction of these substances to minors, just like with alcohol and cigarettes.
An adult has the capacity and responsibility to know the dangers of what they are doing; if they want to ingest these substances knowing the risk then so be it.
But a minor does not necessarily understand the risks and consequences of the actions they are taking.
Those advocating drug prohibition are aiding and abetting for that which does nothing good but cause more expansion of government, intrusion on our civil liberties and the erosion of personal responsibility by the big-brother nanny state.
Once again, your comment goes to show that most so-called "conservatives" are as much of blind, sheepish state-worshipers as their welfare-state "liberal" bed-buddies. "Limited government" my smelly brown poop-chute!
@Akatam0t0ma Hey it looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree about this. The reason i have the "no to legalizing drugs " view is not out of being as you say "sheepish state-worshipers" no it has to do with right and wrong. And not having a me , me , me i , i , i view. And looking at the social harm the selfish actions that drug abuse brings upon a good moral society.
Well, if you are so fond of a paternalistic government, fine, but can you at least have the decency to drop the pretense of caring about freedom more than the leftist "liberals" whom you despise so muhc? Because after all, the reason you don't like leftist policies is not because they are coercive and destroy freedom, but because they are not coercive in a way that you approve of. Like most people, you only believe in freedom for yourself, not for others. Oh, the hypocrisy.
@computerpurple And the killing and stealing that results from prohibition is not immoral? I guess you choose to convince yourself that violence does not result from prohibition. Oh, and the trillion tax dollars that we have used to fight it, that's just free money because it didn't come from our pockets, the government has infinite money, right?
@ElJefer Killing and theft are always wrong regardless of illegal drugs being made legal or not...DUH. Yes a SHIT load of our tax dollars have been spent fighting illegal drugs. We live in a very sinful world. We can't cave into what would just lead to a multiple of greater moral decay into a good healthy society by legalizing illegal drugs.
@ElJefer What?.. I have addressed all of your comments you posted to me. Just because i don't say what you want to hear doesn't mean i have not posted a reply comment to you.
@computerpurple Do you have any evidence that letting people choose what to put in their bodies will lead to greater moral decay than the moral decay the war on drugs produces?
@ElJefer ILLEGAL DRUGS do not improve anybody's good health. If you can't understand that then all your brain cells must be fried , keeping you in a permanent "ignorance is bliss" state of mind.
@computerpurple I prefer to use evidence and logic. Illegal drugs are illegal by government decree. There is no natural axiom that illegal drugs cannot improve health.
@ElJefer HA , HA , HA you must have been stoned when you posted the comment reply you made. ILLEGAL DRUGS are not vitamins..DUH. Even little kids know drugs are BAD.
@computerpurple Propranolol, used to treat hypertension, anxiety and panic. It was illegal in the United States from its creation until 1968. Therefore, an illegal drug can improve health.
@ElJefer Hello again, i did a little research and found out from the web site "Wikipedia" (oh by the way this is not the only web site i looked at) that under "History and Development" there is no mention that once upon a time this drug was ILLEGAL.
@LibertyPen I say that because the leftists in this country wants to control and regulate business. I do not think it's fair to a business owner to "force" them to hire anyone they deem a risk. So this is why I say if we legalize drugs, we should protect those who do not want to hire whomever they want. Is this not a legitimit argument Jim?
@SuperGuitarman69 I think your point is very legit. In my view, employers should be able to hire whoever they please, based on whatever criteria they deem appropriate. As it is their capital at risk, they should be free to make such calls in the way that best serves their own interest.
@LibertyPen Well all I have to say is Liberty Pen is without a doubt has the most unbelievable integrity. You are truely a voice for freedom and liberty. Thank you for helping me change my opinion on this subject. I can always rely on Liberty Pen to have common sense videos that always side with individual freedom. Thank you Jim. And, Liberty Pen
@SuperGuitarman69 Hello i just wanted to say i like the point you made about the issue of those in business right to not want to hire or have employees that are using drugs. Thanks for posting the comment you made.
@computerpurple You are welcome. Freedom should be extended to everyone. That includes employers. It isn't fair to legalize drugs and then have discrimination laws to protect them. An employer takes a financial risk when he invests his hard earned money into a business. Those in Washington seem to not care about the employer, only the employee. That isn't freedom and it is not fairness.
@SuperGuitarman69 Hello once again i agree with what you said. Hey i just sub. your channel. Read your "About me" statement on your channel. Have you ever heard of a musician saxophone player named Eric Leeds he is known to have worked with many time my favorite musician Prince?.
@computerpurple I know who he is. I'm not really in that arena. Prince isn't really on the radar of the music industry world. Therefore most of the guys he works with are from like Minneapolis or something. Some are LA cats. Which I do know some of them as well. But not personally. I'm a Nashville guy. But there is a lot more to Nashville than just country.
@LibertyPen Jim, I see your point. I need to think deeply on this. I have been changing my view over time on this issue. I think the arrest rates are offensive to good Americans who use it to merely enjoy or take the edge off of their day. It is getting a bit obsurd to fight this monetarily. It is a war we cannot win. I will say this however, I think if it is legalized, that businesses should still be allowed to drug test employees if they do not want them using drugs. Liberty should be for all!
It's probably only a matter of time until drug prohibition is no more, as more and more people see through it. Contrary to what he says, I DO think there is a libertarian heart beats down inside of people. Probably not all people, but I think on the long run, if enough people are outspoken about it, the idea of liberty will triumph.
@epidemicstudios Yes, it is government's job to protect people from violations of their rights. It is NOT the job government to protect people from themselves or to take on the role of violator of individual rights.
@epidemicstudios The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. It is NOT the government's job to baby us and make our life decisions for us. This video is not bullshit, it's dead-on accurate!
But to protect them from themselves? If that was the case it would be mandatory to lock us all up in a padded room. What do you think the government would do if it had to protect you from your bad thoughts?
I will have to be the negative one here [in a sense of speaking]. God does not exist (or at the very least he does not exist in the manner in which you may have been taught). Dr Vance has gotten everything pretty much spot-on in regards to where responsibiltity truely lies. The sad thing is that most governments are powered by big business and America is just one big corperation. Drugs will not be legalised anytime soon. Visit my channel and view Zeitgeist for more info on religion.
He's wrong about it necessarily being a vice. Just look at some of the great artists and thinkers of centuries past. One thing that doesn't get talked about enough is the doors of perception that can be opened. It's not always simple hedonism.
Thank-you Dr Vance. The whole medical marijuana and regulate and tax argument really gets my goat for it is a stupid argument. the issue of drugs has absolutely nothing to do with how safe a drug is or how beneficial. if you argue that mj is safe and beneficial and should therefore be legal, what you are really arguing is that the state has the right to prohibit what falls outside these boundaries. salt and sugar come to mind. worth thinking about
This is completely unbiblical. God's government in the Bible restricted mans freedoms because God knew the evils of mans hearts. Was God wrong, does God not understand how a Government should run. Were our founding fathers wrong in trying to form a Biblical based form of government. A Christian arguing this way is arguing against a Biblical form of Government which could be summised as an unsupportive of the Bible. And calling the use of drugs a "victimless" crime is naive at best.
@spiritmix God is never wrong. But, the people who proclaim to know God's will are with great frequency. If not, there would be only one religion and the truth of the matter would be obvious to all.
@fzqlcs I agree. God's Will is not always easy to decipher but his word is true and we should abide in it or else find ourselves in the image of Sodom (if we are not already there).
@shamgar001 These were the laws of Jewish society,Government and religion (read them and you will see). When the Hebrews strayed from these laws God was displeased and allowed them to be conquered.
@spiritmix God's laws were made for the Jewish people. Paul denounced forcing Jewish tradition onto Christians, or gentiles. He said "All things are permissible, not all things are beneficial." In our country there is a separation of church and state, so even if your original point were solid, it doesn't follow that our government is being righteous in restricting drug use.
@3684541 You are correct in that some of these laws were fullfilled in Christ. (ie the religious laws) but some were still expected to be upheld (ie Ten Commandments). The first century church still enforced some social laws within the church.
@3684541 The modern understanding of "Seperation of Church and State" is fallacious and does not represent the intent of the 1st amendment. But that is neither here nor there, because my point was that if God deemed it neccesary to regulate peoples behaviors in his government then there must be a reason and I believe our founders understood that.
And what is a "Biblical form of government"? It is a government that protects people from violence and fraud, not one that goes around raiding people's homes with machine guns because they have a leaf.
And how do you feel about a "Biblical government" that sends people to prisons where it there is widespread rape and sodomy? Should we send people there because they smoked a plant? That sounds like a Satanic form of government to me.
@spiritmix You're way off base dude. There's a difference between God looking out for you and government looking out for you. And Christ never came to "govern" people on Earth. His kingdom is eternal. Christians are to serve others, not wield power over them (to love as He has loved us). Which is not living under the law, but in the freedom of His presence, something he showed again, and again with His disciples. Something the pharisees considered wicked.
@3684541 You are not fully reading my comments. Never did I say that government should be looking out for me or taking care of me, nor do I believe this. I do think that at times it is neccessary for government to decide if something is beneficial or detremental to society. We are not discussing Christian life and doctorine.
Wow. Not only you are abysmally and aggressively ignorant of your nation's history, thinking that the Founding Fathers wanted to establish a medieval theocracy in America(If they wanted that, they could simply remain in Europe), but you are a fine case-in-point to the Christopher Hitchens' book subtitle.
"Was God wrong, does God not understand how a Government should run."
God is not wrong nor understands, because it doesn't exist, except in your feeble religionist imagination.
@Akatam0t0ma WOW, Thanks for the insults. May I return your salutations with this: Read my posts and you will see that you are either blind or IGNORANT to what I am trying to say. I never once said that the founding fathers wanted a theocracy nor do I want a theocracy. Your opinion that God does not exist is just that, YOUR OPINION. I hope that one day you will seek the Truth.
Well, you DO think that people should be thrown in prison for possessing and/or smoking a plant, because you believe it makes your gods happy, right? If you do, and consider such form of government as your ideal, if that is not theocracy, then quite frankly I don't know what is. If you don't think so, feel free to set me straight, but if you do think so,you are most definitely entitled to your opinion,but please have the decency not to pretend that it has anything to do with liberty.
When I say that the gods don't exist, it may very well be my opinion, but it's an opinion that is pretty much supported by evidence, or rather, the lack thereof of evidence for the existence of the gods. You are of course entitled to your opinion that there are supernatural gods that created this universe,but while you're at it, please have the decency not to pretend to know their minds and then act like it gives you the authority to tell or dictate to anyone how to live their lives.
The governments real war is against the people who must be beaten and trodden down for the fear they will begin to solve their own problems and no longer need their masters.
We should always do without being commanded what others do only by fear of the law. On the other hand who hell is anybody to tell us what to do. Don't do drugs, and to hell with anyone who tells us no we can't.
@FreeInquisition Are you so sure the others that you have heard from are in fact conservative and Christian? I think a lot of things are called what they are not...
Once youv been a libertarin for a while is it not just absolutly nauseating how coercive, controlling, and violent the majority is, or can be persuaded to behave.
I think that there laws are barbaric and so immoral. Greate video
I agree completely that these drugs should be legalized; BUT government should be involved in the restriction of these substances to minors, just like with alcohol and cigarettes.
An adult has the capacity and responsibility to know the dangers of what they are doing; if they want to ingest these substances knowing the risk then so be it.
But a minor does not necessarily understand the risks and consequences of the actions they are taking.
Satarack 2 weeks ago
Amazing video!
batmanrules1014 6 months ago
Those advocating to legalize drugs are aiding and abetting for that which does nothing good but cause a rippling decay into a strong moral society.
computerpurple 1 year ago
@computerpurple:
Those advocating drug prohibition are aiding and abetting for that which does nothing good but cause more expansion of government, intrusion on our civil liberties and the erosion of personal responsibility by the big-brother nanny state.
Once again, your comment goes to show that most so-called "conservatives" are as much of blind, sheepish state-worshipers as their welfare-state "liberal" bed-buddies. "Limited government" my smelly brown poop-chute!
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago 2
@Akatam0t0ma Hey it looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree about this. The reason i have the "no to legalizing drugs " view is not out of being as you say "sheepish state-worshipers" no it has to do with right and wrong. And not having a me , me , me i , i , i view. And looking at the social harm the selfish actions that drug abuse brings upon a good moral society.
computerpurple 1 year ago
@computerpurple:
Well, if you are so fond of a paternalistic government, fine, but can you at least have the decency to drop the pretense of caring about freedom more than the leftist "liberals" whom you despise so muhc? Because after all, the reason you don't like leftist policies is not because they are coercive and destroy freedom, but because they are not coercive in a way that you approve of. Like most people, you only believe in freedom for yourself, not for others. Oh, the hypocrisy.
Akatam0t0ma 11 months ago
@computerpurple And the killing and stealing that results from prohibition is not immoral? I guess you choose to convince yourself that violence does not result from prohibition. Oh, and the trillion tax dollars that we have used to fight it, that's just free money because it didn't come from our pockets, the government has infinite money, right?
ElJefer 2 months ago
@ElJefer Killing and theft are always wrong regardless of illegal drugs being made legal or not...DUH. Yes a SHIT load of our tax dollars have been spent fighting illegal drugs. We live in a very sinful world. We can't cave into what would just lead to a multiple of greater moral decay into a good healthy society by legalizing illegal drugs.
computerpurple 2 months ago
@computerpurple Did I say I endorse murder and theft?
ElJefer 2 months ago
@ElJefer ...I don't know did you? (rolls eyes)
computerpurple 2 months ago
@computerpurple I don't, now can you address what I said without assuming something without evidence?
ElJefer 2 months ago
@ElJefer What?.. I have addressed all of your comments you posted to me. Just because i don't say what you want to hear doesn't mean i have not posted a reply comment to you.
computerpurple 2 months ago
@computerpurple Do you have any evidence that letting people choose what to put in their bodies will lead to greater moral decay than the moral decay the war on drugs produces?
ElJefer 1 month ago
@ElJefer Please step away from your bong now. COMMON SENSE tells us all that...DUH... ILLEGAL DRUGS are not good
computerpurple 1 month ago
@computerpurple I prefer evidence and logic to common sense. Do you have evidence or logic to prove your case?
ElJefer 1 month ago
Comment removed
computerpurple 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ElJefer ILLEGAL DRUGS do not improve anybody's good health. If you can't understand that then all your brain cells must be fried , keeping you in a permanent "ignorance is bliss" state of mind.
computerpurple 1 month ago
@computerpurple I prefer to use evidence and logic. Illegal drugs are illegal by government decree. There is no natural axiom that illegal drugs cannot improve health.
ElJefer 1 month ago
@ElJefer HA , HA , HA you must have been stoned when you posted the comment reply you made. ILLEGAL DRUGS are not vitamins..DUH. Even little kids know drugs are BAD.
computerpurple 1 month ago
@computerpurple If I can present you with clinical evidence that at least one illegal drug can improve health, will you admit you're wrong?
ElJefer 1 month ago
@ElJefer So what ILLEGAL drug are you implying can improve health?.
computerpurple 1 month ago
@computerpurple Propranolol, used to treat hypertension, anxiety and panic. It was illegal in the United States from its creation until 1968. Therefore, an illegal drug can improve health.
ElJefer 1 month ago
@ElJefer Hello again, i did a little research and found out from the web site "Wikipedia" (oh by the way this is not the only web site i looked at) that under "History and Development" there is no mention that once upon a time this drug was ILLEGAL.
computerpurple 1 month ago
The sentence at 6:23 to 6:33 I find the most fascinating.
bagnumberthree 1 year ago
And yet I have various friends who use drugs but insist they must be kept illegal... i'll never understand this world, and I don't want to.
XanatharEye 1 year ago
@LibertyPen I say that because the leftists in this country wants to control and regulate business. I do not think it's fair to a business owner to "force" them to hire anyone they deem a risk. So this is why I say if we legalize drugs, we should protect those who do not want to hire whomever they want. Is this not a legitimit argument Jim?
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 I think your point is very legit. In my view, employers should be able to hire whoever they please, based on whatever criteria they deem appropriate. As it is their capital at risk, they should be free to make such calls in the way that best serves their own interest.
LibertyPen 1 year ago
@LibertyPen Well all I have to say is Liberty Pen is without a doubt has the most unbelievable integrity. You are truely a voice for freedom and liberty. Thank you for helping me change my opinion on this subject. I can always rely on Liberty Pen to have common sense videos that always side with individual freedom. Thank you Jim. And, Liberty Pen
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Hello i just wanted to say i like the point you made about the issue of those in business right to not want to hire or have employees that are using drugs. Thanks for posting the comment you made.
computerpurple 1 year ago
@computerpurple You are welcome. Freedom should be extended to everyone. That includes employers. It isn't fair to legalize drugs and then have discrimination laws to protect them. An employer takes a financial risk when he invests his hard earned money into a business. Those in Washington seem to not care about the employer, only the employee. That isn't freedom and it is not fairness.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Hello once again i agree with what you said. Hey i just sub. your channel. Read your "About me" statement on your channel. Have you ever heard of a musician saxophone player named Eric Leeds he is known to have worked with many time my favorite musician Prince?.
computerpurple 1 year ago
@computerpurple I know who he is. I'm not really in that arena. Prince isn't really on the radar of the music industry world. Therefore most of the guys he works with are from like Minneapolis or something. Some are LA cats. Which I do know some of them as well. But not personally. I'm a Nashville guy. But there is a lot more to Nashville than just country.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Thanks for posting a comment that makes COMMON SENSE. It's good to know there are still people around that can express such views.
computerpurple 2 months ago
@computerpurple Why thank you my good sir.
SuperGuitarman69 2 months ago
@SuperGuitarman69 Your welcome.
computerpurple 2 months ago
@LibertyPen Jim, I see your point. I need to think deeply on this. I have been changing my view over time on this issue. I think the arrest rates are offensive to good Americans who use it to merely enjoy or take the edge off of their day. It is getting a bit obsurd to fight this monetarily. It is a war we cannot win. I will say this however, I think if it is legalized, that businesses should still be allowed to drug test employees if they do not want them using drugs. Liberty should be for all!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
It's probably only a matter of time until drug prohibition is no more, as more and more people see through it. Contrary to what he says, I DO think there is a libertarian heart beats down inside of people. Probably not all people, but I think on the long run, if enough people are outspoken about it, the idea of liberty will triumph.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
omg pwnage
DickeyRogers 1 year ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this video is bullshit. its the government's job to protect its people.
epidemicstudios 1 year ago
@epidemicstudios you cant protect man from himself. if you live in a free society you have the freedom to make good and BAD choices.
ibo1978 1 year ago 2
@epidemicstudios Yes, it is government's job to protect people from violations of their rights. It is NOT the job government to protect people from themselves or to take on the role of violator of individual rights.
fzqlcs 1 year ago 2
@epidemicstudios The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. It is NOT the government's job to baby us and make our life decisions for us. This video is not bullshit, it's dead-on accurate!
Kras3169 1 year ago 2
@Kras3169 nope its total bullshit. its a case of the fence versus the ambulance. the fence is cheaper and more effective.
epidemicstudios 1 year ago
But to protect them from themselves? If that was the case it would be mandatory to lock us all up in a padded room. What do you think the government would do if it had to protect you from your bad thoughts?
CHEVEL67NI 1 year ago
I will have to be the negative one here [in a sense of speaking]. God does not exist (or at the very least he does not exist in the manner in which you may have been taught). Dr Vance has gotten everything pretty much spot-on in regards to where responsibiltity truely lies. The sad thing is that most governments are powered by big business and America is just one big corperation. Drugs will not be legalised anytime soon. Visit my channel and view Zeitgeist for more info on religion.
jamespd1 1 year ago
i've sent this just about everywhere
capgains 1 year ago
He's wrong about it necessarily being a vice. Just look at some of the great artists and thinkers of centuries past. One thing that doesn't get talked about enough is the doors of perception that can be opened. It's not always simple hedonism.
That being said, Vance is the shit. Awesome vid.
olmofo 1 year ago 3
Thank you - posted on dailypaul(dot)com
campaign4liberty 1 year ago 3
Laurence Vance is great. His book "Christianity & War" changed me profoundly.
AustinW90 1 year ago
Thank-you Dr Vance. The whole medical marijuana and regulate and tax argument really gets my goat for it is a stupid argument. the issue of drugs has absolutely nothing to do with how safe a drug is or how beneficial. if you argue that mj is safe and beneficial and should therefore be legal, what you are really arguing is that the state has the right to prohibit what falls outside these boundaries. salt and sugar come to mind. worth thinking about
58robbo 1 year ago
Yes. Well said.
*Takes another toke of his spliff*
Enign3 1 year ago 2
This is completely unbiblical. God's government in the Bible restricted mans freedoms because God knew the evils of mans hearts. Was God wrong, does God not understand how a Government should run. Were our founding fathers wrong in trying to form a Biblical based form of government. A Christian arguing this way is arguing against a Biblical form of Government which could be summised as an unsupportive of the Bible. And calling the use of drugs a "victimless" crime is naive at best.
spiritmix 1 year ago
@spiritmix God is never wrong. But, the people who proclaim to know God's will are with great frequency. If not, there would be only one religion and the truth of the matter would be obvious to all.
fzqlcs 1 year ago
@fzqlcs I agree. God's Will is not always easy to decipher but his word is true and we should abide in it or else find ourselves in the image of Sodom (if we are not already there).
spiritmix 1 year ago
@spiritmix Where in the Bible does it say the government can tell us what we can or cannot injest?
shamgar001 1 year ago
@shamgar001 Leviticus, Deuteronomy etc... Even Jesus followed these laws.
spiritmix 1 year ago
@spiritmix Those were religious laws, that showed us how to live a life that pleases God; they were (are) not instructions for a system of government.
I must also echo the statements made by 3684541.
shamgar001 1 year ago
@shamgar001 These were the laws of Jewish society,Government and religion (read them and you will see). When the Hebrews strayed from these laws God was displeased and allowed them to be conquered.
spiritmix 1 year ago
@spiritmix God's laws were made for the Jewish people. Paul denounced forcing Jewish tradition onto Christians, or gentiles. He said "All things are permissible, not all things are beneficial." In our country there is a separation of church and state, so even if your original point were solid, it doesn't follow that our government is being righteous in restricting drug use.
3684541 1 year ago
@3684541 You are correct in that some of these laws were fullfilled in Christ. (ie the religious laws) but some were still expected to be upheld (ie Ten Commandments). The first century church still enforced some social laws within the church.
spiritmix 1 year ago
@3684541 The modern understanding of "Seperation of Church and State" is fallacious and does not represent the intent of the 1st amendment. But that is neither here nor there, because my point was that if God deemed it neccesary to regulate peoples behaviors in his government then there must be a reason and I believe our founders understood that.
spiritmix 1 year ago
@spiritmix
And what is a "Biblical form of government"? It is a government that protects people from violence and fraud, not one that goes around raiding people's homes with machine guns because they have a leaf.
And how do you feel about a "Biblical government" that sends people to prisons where it there is widespread rape and sodomy? Should we send people there because they smoked a plant? That sounds like a Satanic form of government to me.
strongbadXCP 1 year ago 2
@spiritmix You're way off base dude. There's a difference between God looking out for you and government looking out for you. And Christ never came to "govern" people on Earth. His kingdom is eternal. Christians are to serve others, not wield power over them (to love as He has loved us). Which is not living under the law, but in the freedom of His presence, something he showed again, and again with His disciples. Something the pharisees considered wicked.
3684541 1 year ago
@3684541 You are not fully reading my comments. Never did I say that government should be looking out for me or taking care of me, nor do I believe this. I do think that at times it is neccessary for government to decide if something is beneficial or detremental to society. We are not discussing Christian life and doctorine.
spiritmix 1 year ago
@spiritmix:
Wow. Not only you are abysmally and aggressively ignorant of your nation's history, thinking that the Founding Fathers wanted to establish a medieval theocracy in America(If they wanted that, they could simply remain in Europe), but you are a fine case-in-point to the Christopher Hitchens' book subtitle.
"Was God wrong, does God not understand how a Government should run."
God is not wrong nor understands, because it doesn't exist, except in your feeble religionist imagination.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@Akatam0t0ma WOW, Thanks for the insults. May I return your salutations with this: Read my posts and you will see that you are either blind or IGNORANT to what I am trying to say. I never once said that the founding fathers wanted a theocracy nor do I want a theocracy. Your opinion that God does not exist is just that, YOUR OPINION. I hope that one day you will seek the Truth.
spiritmix 1 year ago
@spiritmix:
Well, you DO think that people should be thrown in prison for possessing and/or smoking a plant, because you believe it makes your gods happy, right? If you do, and consider such form of government as your ideal, if that is not theocracy, then quite frankly I don't know what is. If you don't think so, feel free to set me straight, but if you do think so,you are most definitely entitled to your opinion,but please have the decency not to pretend that it has anything to do with liberty.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
@spiritmix:
When I say that the gods don't exist, it may very well be my opinion, but it's an opinion that is pretty much supported by evidence, or rather, the lack thereof of evidence for the existence of the gods. You are of course entitled to your opinion that there are supernatural gods that created this universe,but while you're at it, please have the decency not to pretend to know their minds and then act like it gives you the authority to tell or dictate to anyone how to live their lives.
Akatam0t0ma 1 year ago
Wow. This is great; thx for posting LP!
julianhpike 1 year ago
if i am free and dont harm anyone no one should tell me what to do. government is eivl.
Rico8458 1 year ago
Great speech!
pantadon 1 year ago
The governments real war is against the people who must be beaten and trodden down for the fear they will begin to solve their own problems and no longer need their masters.
XCritonX 1 year ago
We should always do without being commanded what others do only by fear of the law. On the other hand who hell is anybody to tell us what to do. Don't do drugs, and to hell with anyone who tells us no we can't.
LokiScoutSniper 1 year ago
That's the most sense I've ever heard from a conservative Christian.
FreeInquisition 1 year ago 26
@FreeInquisition - lol
manoman0 1 year ago
@FreeInquisition Are you so sure the others that you have heard from are in fact conservative and Christian? I think a lot of things are called what they are not...
danieldeming 1 year ago
Comment removed
CapitalistPhil 1 year ago
"At the heart of every man is not a libertarian but a statist."
Well said, sir. :)
ipwnallnubscuzirock 1 year ago 2
@ipwnallnubscuzirock
Once youv been a libertarin for a while is it not just absolutly nauseating how coercive, controlling, and violent the majority is, or can be persuaded to behave.
I think that there laws are barbaric and so immoral. Greate video
JordanViewer 1 year ago 44
wow, your videos are getting exponentially better
amagilly 1 year ago