Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.

Formerly rockytop-liberty Jakob, 31, Tennessee. Econ/Poli Sci double major. Christian, Conservative Libertarian. Weather geek, football nerd. HAARP apologist. I vet aesthetic posts for AI. Tell me about the weather where you live!

[autumnal-thunder]

Bro how tf can you be Poli Sci AND Christian and be a damn Libertarian? Like pay attention, we need to care about each other not compete with our neighbors to make some millionaire into a billionaire

I'm more of a conservative in my personal views, but a libertarian in my role of government, which should be as limited as possible. Free-market principles have brought more people out of poverty than any other political or economic model.

Capitalism is compassion. A proper market economy needs not just competition, but rule of law and virtues like cooperation, stable families, self-sacrifice, a commitment to delayed gratification, and a willingness to risk based on a future hope. These all fit nicely with the Christian worldview.

Free market economies are not zero-sum games in which someone wins only if someone else loses. We have discovered an economic order that creates wealth in abundance.. capitalism. And only the creation of wealth will reduce poverty in the long run.

Wealth is created when our creative freedom is allowed to prosper in a free-market environment undergirded by the rule of law and suffused with a rich moral culture. This creative freedom comes naturally to Christians. We believe that human beings are made in God’s image, and sent by God to work and prosper in the world he gave us. Our creative freedom reflects that divine image. The essence of Christianity is one of the least appreciated truths of economics.

Christianity and capitalism and by extension fair competition are not bitter enemies. On the contrary, a good Christian can be, and should be, a good capitalist.

[autumnal-thunder]

Funny how a concept that was in place for the majority of the nation's history is an "existential threat".

But I'm not getting my hopes up. This would be too good to ever happen.

[jraker4]

Ahh yes, the tried and true libertarian principle of *checks notes* having less say in who your elected officials are.

(I expected the mask to slip as it almost inevitably does when a ‘Christian libertarian’ is talking, but I didn’t expect it to blow away with a sneeze.)

[autumnal-thunder]

The people already have their own representation you dolt, the House of Representatives. The Senate was designed to represent the states and their interests against overarching federal policy. The fact that each state gets two senators regardless of population is direct evidence to that.

Besides, the state legislators who appointed senators prior to the 17th amendment were democratically elected, so there's some more democracy for you.

But no, you just want to use MuH dEmOcRaCy to enact New York and Californian style tyranny on the rest of the country and provide a cushy old people's home to decrepit senators who are decades removed from actually living under their own laws. Fuck off. Repeal the 17th.

[jraker4]

So this will surprise no one who's done a lick of reading, but the US Senate was not, in fact, designed the way it was for just one reason: part of it was concern about states having their interests overruled by federal policy, absolutely. Part. Another part, the reason why every state gets two Senators regardless of population, the reason why Senators have terms three times longer than Representatives and half again longer than Presidents and no term limits, part of why the Senate has considerably more power in federal government than the House...is to serve as a brake on 'the mob'. It's why those six year terms are staggered, so that unlike the House in which every seat is up every two years, in the Senate only one third are ever up for re-election at any given time. We know this because the Founders said so. If you'd like to learn more, read some history. Read the LBJ biography by Caro. You silly little twerp, on the Senate's own website it reads as follows: "Article I, section 3 of the Constitution provided for state legislatures to elect senators. The framers hoped that this arrangement would give state political leaders a sense of participation in the new federal system and calm their fears about the dangers of a strong centralized government. The state legislatures, the framers argued, would provide the necessary "filtration” to elect the most accomplished individuals and insulate them from pressures of popular opinion."

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-appointing-senators/overview.htm So c'mon dipshit, who are you meant to be kidding? The reason the state legislators were the ones appointing Senators was explicitly because the people weren't considered trustworthy to elect their own Senators. This isn't a matter of opinion, and if it wasn't clear already that you're full of shit, it becomes crystal clear when you snivel about things like 'decrepit senators' and yet want less popular control over the US Senate. But then again, you're a self-described libertarian. Consistency and integrity aren't expected.

[autumnal-thunder]

"insulate them from pressures of popular opinion." doesn't mean the people weren't entrusted to elect them. It enabled senators to ignore the short-term whims of the people in order to work on advancing the long-term interests of the state, and to fight against the federal government's natural inclination to expand its power into every facet of our lives. That balance was destroyed after the passing of the 17th Amendment; senators are now lumped in with the representatives who have to answer to the whims of the people instead of the interest of the states.

Since the 17th Amendment we've had the passing of the Department of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security among others that make our lives worse. These wasteful and inefficient federal agencies likely wouldn't have been established had the states still been able to represent their own interests.

You criticize my reading comprehension yet you miss the underlying points in your own argument. The framers were geniuses to set up a system with the dedicate balance to protect us from tyrants like you.

[jraker4]

Bud. It explicitly means the people weren't entrusted to elect them. Electing Senators was very deliberately kept out of the people's hands, what are you even talking about? Again: this isn't a matter of opinion, it's a question of fact. They said so at the time. They wrote it down. The US Senate says so now about it's own history. You're just lying, and doing so badly...which is really only interesting in that you style yourself a libertarian. An authoritarian, boot licking impulse is often present in libertarians, but they don't usually cop to it as freely as you do. You don't often hear about libertarians sneering at 'the whim of the people', or expressing a desire that they have less control over their government. In fact, judging by this discussion at least, the most interesting thing about you is whether you're lying to yourself first and then everyone else, or just everyone else. 'Tyrants'? Yes, I am indeed a tyrant: the person who wants more power of government to rest with individual human beings, whereas you want more power of government to reside in the hands of distant government officials. Sic semper tyrannis to me and all that;) Reading comprehension? I never denied that part of the reasoning behind the original Senate's creation was as you say: concern over states' rights. I explicitly said so, if we want to talk about reading comprehension. Then I went on to show, using facts that I referenced, that there were other important, or even equally and perhaps more important reasons alongside that. Don't get me wrong, though, I suspect the truth behind the interesting thing about you is pretty boring: I'd be happy to be wrong, but you've got the stink of Christian nationalism about you, which would explain this little song and dance about libertarianism, as expressed by the curious idea that individuals should have less say in the federal government.

[autumnal-thunder]

"It explicitly means the people weren't entrusted to elect them"

Partially, perhaps. And if so, the founders were again correct. You erroneously seem to believe democracy is synonymous with libertarianism. It's not. Our founders understood the limitations and dangers of democracy.

Hamilton: "We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship."

Jefferson: "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

Franklin: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”

Adams: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders

Madison: pure democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

Libertarianism is about reducing government power and decentralizing it. Not just giving people more say in their oppression, that's a ridiculous, elementary assumption. If the boot of government oppression is on my neck, why should I feel better because "the people" voted to put it there? You're a tyrant because you want the federal government to meddle in people's lives. It doesn't make you any less of a tyrant because your authoritarianism is backed by a popular vote.

The direct election of senators by the people has made us more inclined to democracy by removing the states' voice from the federal decision making process, resulting in all the things the founders feared.

[everythingfox]

Loving the water

(via)

[birds-in-posts]

Lineolated parakeet (Bolborhynchus lineola)

[freefal311]

I don't know why some think child-like faith in God means neither asking questions nor seeking to understand. Like, have you ever met a child?

[arizonaconservativegal]

I am so glad the supreme court up held the ban on trannies not being able to compete in biological women´s sports or events period. I also wish the retarded left side quit calling these men and boys women and girls. They are men and women do not have dicks.

You know, it's possible to make this exact same point without calling people trannies and retards. When you go out of your way to say it like this, it just makes you sound like an asshole.

[souf-vs-staff]

You should be able to listen to a full album without looking at your phone. You should be able to watch a 3 hour film from beginning to end without checking social media. If you can't do this, you need to start training your attention span as if it were a physical muscle. I don't experience boredom or restlessness because I've trained my brain to not be dependent on quick stimuli and dopamine hits. If you can't chill on a park bench while waiting for a friend with just your imagination to keep you company, you need to learn how to do it ASAP because one day we may not have access to the internet.

[autumnal-thunder]

Funny how a concept that was in place for the majority of the nation's history is an "existential threat".

But I'm not getting my hopes up. This would be too good to ever happen.

[jraker4]

Ahh yes, the tried and true libertarian principle of *checks notes* having less say in who your elected officials are.

(I expected the mask to slip as it almost inevitably does when a ‘Christian libertarian’ is talking, but I didn’t expect it to blow away with a sneeze.)

[autumnal-thunder]

The people already have their own representation you dolt, the House of Representatives. The Senate was designed to represent the states and their interests against overarching federal policy. The fact that each state gets two senators regardless of population is direct evidence to that.

Besides, the state legislators who appointed senators prior to the 17th amendment were democratically elected, so there's some more democracy for you.

But no, you just want to use MuH dEmOcRaCy to enact New York and Californian style tyranny on the rest of the country and provide a cushy old people's home to decrepit senators who are decades removed from actually living under their own laws. Fuck off. Repeal the 17th.

[jraker4]

So this will surprise no one who's done a lick of reading, but the US Senate was not, in fact, designed the way it was for just one reason: part of it was concern about states having their interests overruled by federal policy, absolutely. Part. Another part, the reason why every state gets two Senators regardless of population, the reason why Senators have terms three times longer than Representatives and half again longer than Presidents and no term limits, part of why the Senate has considerably more power in federal government than the House...is to serve as a brake on 'the mob'. It's why those six year terms are staggered, so that unlike the House in which every seat is up every two years, in the Senate only one third are ever up for re-election at any given time. We know this because the Founders said so. If you'd like to learn more, read some history. Read the LBJ biography by Caro. You silly little twerp, on the Senate's own website it reads as follows: "Article I, section 3 of the Constitution provided for state legislatures to elect senators. The framers hoped that this arrangement would give state political leaders a sense of participation in the new federal system and calm their fears about the dangers of a strong centralized government. The state legislatures, the framers argued, would provide the necessary "filtration” to elect the most accomplished individuals and insulate them from pressures of popular opinion."

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/electing-appointing-senators/overview.htm So c'mon dipshit, who are you meant to be kidding? The reason the state legislators were the ones appointing Senators was explicitly because the people weren't considered trustworthy to elect their own Senators. This isn't a matter of opinion, and if it wasn't clear already that you're full of shit, it becomes crystal clear when you snivel about things like 'decrepit senators' and yet want less popular control over the US Senate. But then again, you're a self-described libertarian. Consistency and integrity aren't expected.

[autumnal-thunder]

"insulate them from pressures of popular opinion." doesn't mean the people weren't entrusted to elect them. It enabled senators to ignore the short-term whims of the people in order to work on advancing the long-term interests of the state, and to fight against the federal government's natural inclination to expand its power into every facet of our lives. That balance was destroyed after the passing of the 17th Amendment; senators are now lumped in with the representatives who have to answer to the whims of the people instead of the interest of the states.

Since the 17th Amendment we've had the passing of the Department of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security among others that make our lives worse. These wasteful and inefficient federal agencies likely wouldn't have been established had the states still been able to represent their own interests.

You criticize my reading comprehension yet you miss the underlying points in your own argument. The framers were geniuses to set up a system with the dedicate balance to protect us from tyrants like you.

[shitacademicswrite]

[roach-works]

[theconstitutionisgayculture]

[autumnal-thunder]

@the-shadow-under-your-bed

[eternal-echoes]

“If your boyfriend expects you to give him a doctoral defense on the virtue of chastity, something is wrong. Your feelings should be enough to earn his respect, and there's no need to apologize for having morals. All he needs to know is that he doesn't deserve the total gift of your body unless he has made the total gift of himself to you in marriage. No matter what he thinks of this, don't let any guy make you feel like he's doing you an immeasurable favor by not having sex with you. It is his duty as a gentleman, and you owe him nothing for doing what he ought to do.“

-Jason and Crystalina Evert, How to Find Your Soulmate Without Losing Your Soul

[prolifeproliberty]

If he doesn’t respect you & your boundaries before you get married, he won’t respect you or your boundaries after you get married!

[autumnal-thunder]

Funny how a concept that was in place for the majority of the nation's history is an "existential threat".

But I'm not getting my hopes up. This would be too good to ever happen.

[jraker4]

Ahh yes, the tried and true libertarian principle of *checks notes* having less say in who your elected officials are.

(I expected the mask to slip as it almost inevitably does when a ‘Christian libertarian’ is talking, but I didn’t expect it to blow away with a sneeze.)

[autumnal-thunder]

The people already have their own representation you dolt, the House of Representatives. The Senate was designed to represent the states and their interests against overarching federal policy. The fact that each state gets two senators regardless of population is direct evidence to that.

Besides, the state legislators who appointed senators prior to the 17th amendment were democratically elected, so there's some more democracy for you.

But no, you just want to use MuH dEmOcRaCy to enact New York and Californian style tyranny on the rest of the country and provide a cushy old people's home to decrepit senators who are decades removed from actually living under their own laws. Fuck off. Repeal the 17th.

[clubcope]

[screenshotsofdespair]

[nature-travel-photography]

Malheur National Forest, Oregon [OC][2667x4000] - Author: indieaz on Reddit

[halokarii]

Exclusive season 2 finale leaks

[literary-sparks]

“Why don’t you use ai” idk man beyond the obvious environmental and “this machine causes psychosis and encourages people to kill themselves” thing I think asking the equivalent of a solid D student who is also a pathological liar if they can answer my question/do the work for me seems pretty fucking stupid

[scorpionlafemme]

[myjusticecake]

You can begin this process at any time, regardless of how old you have become.

[badlydrawneverything]