Wed, Feb 19, 2025 - Serge Leger - Acts 24

Geologist Explains Why Most Scientists Get Earth’s Age WRONG

Proverbs | Holy Bible Dramatized

Neolibertarianism this Dispensation and Pure World Theocracy the next

In my previous article I defended neolibertarianism for this dispensation. In this article I am going to explain what the future brings for those that are Saved by Faith in Christ and what He has done for us all.  As well as what is in the future for those that do not come to Christ during this dispensation of Grace. 

The reason I can defend a neolibertarian political theory in this dispensation is because this is not the true home of those whom are Saved by Christ. We have no right to remake this Kingdom into a Christian Nation or a Theocracy as this is a dispensation of Grace; of free will acceptance of our Savior/conversion. 

God does not use force or compulsion to make people into Christians. His Holy Spirit convicts and persuades all to be born again and become Christians through their own volition. We therefore have no right to force people to live according to God's Moral standards. This will not last forever though. 

At the blink of an eye all believers will be raptured. The Great Tribulation period will begin and God Himself will bring His Wrath on the unbelievers at His own hand. For 7 years this world will experience the worst days ever and at the hands of His Wrath.

He will use this time to pour out Wrath including removing all protection from the Antichrist and his One World Tyranny. As well as using disease and plague. In the end 2/3rds of Jews will die. As well as Billions witn a B of people in His Wrath during the Tribulation. 

This will conclude with God coming back; Jesus will comeback and kill anyone that has not converted with a mighty sword from His mouth. The blood will be up to the horses bridal and He will usher in His Worlwide Theocracy reigned over by Himself and the resurrected Saints; those whom repented (changed their mind) and believed in/on Christ's Atonement on the Cross for the world. 

Rule by God Himself and the Righteous Saints will begin and last for 1000 years. True Theocracy and ruling with a rod of iron over the world. We do not bring in a Godly society that is left to God Himself in the Millennium reign His Kingdom. While we are here in this dispensation we are to spread the Gospel not want to have Govermental control for our own Christian means. 

Prophecy Roundtable – Living in the Days of the Birth Pangs

Neolibertarianism expanded and defended by a personally Socially/Culturally Christian Conservative.

Neolibertarianism is a political philosophy combining elements of libertarian and neoconservative thought that embraces incrementalism domestically, and a generally interventionist foreign policy based on self-interest and national defense.

It is characterized by a strong emphasis on individual liberty, free market capitalism, and limited government intervention. However, unlike traditional libertarianism, which often advocates for non-interventionism in foreign policy, neo-libertarianism supports a more assertive and interventionist foreign policy to protect national interests and promote democratic values globally.

The roots of neo-libertarianism can be traced back to the late 20th century, particularly in the United States, where a group of intellectuals began to question the traditional libertarian stance on foreign policy. They argued that libertarianism's non-interventionist approach was not sufficient to protect the nation's interests and values in an increasingly interconnected and volatile world. This led to the emergence of a new political ideology that combined the domestic policy views of libertarianism with the foreign policy views of neoconservatism.

Neo-libertarianism gained prominence in the early 21st century, particularly during the George W. Bush administration. The 9/11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent War on Terror highlighted the need for a more assertive foreign policy, which neo-libertarianism supported. However, the ideology also faced criticism for its support of the Iraq War and other military interventions, which some saw as contradictory to libertarian principles of non-aggression.

Despite these controversies, neo-libertarianism continues to influence political discourse, particularly in discussions about the role of government in society and the balance between individual liberty and national security. It represents a unique blend of libertarian and neoconservative ideas, reflecting the complexities and challenges of modern political thought.

Achieving a society where individual freedom is maximized, government intervention is minimized, and free market capitalism is promoted, while also supporting some level of social safety net and foreign intervention for the protection of human rights.

Neolibertarians are sometimes described as "pro-capitalist conservatives" or "libertarians who support the War on Terror."

Neolibertarians generally believe that the drawing of an arbitrary boundary such as a border does not exclude those outside of it from the inalienable human right of liberty.

The creation of the term republitarian within the United States is usually attributed to Larry Elder, an American political pundit, radio talk show host, and author who defines "republitarian" as "a member of the Republican Party who holds libertarian ideals." Neolibertarians tend to support the Republican Party/GOP in the United States over the Libertarian Party due to the issolationist stances of the Libertarian Party of America. 

Within Canada they tend to support The People's Party of Canada or The Conservative Party of Canada. While avoiding any association whatsoever with The Libertarian Parties within Canada. Despite supporting the same policy platforms on issues outside of Foreign Policy, Closed/Strctly Controlled Borders and National Defense/Security protocols. Sometimes they are nicknamed or called conservatarians. Combining their neo conservatism and libertarianism political thought into its own term.

The first neolibertarians to use the term did so in response to the Iraq war. Jonathan Henke began popularizing the term "Neolibertarian" on the weblog he created, QandO , along with Dale Franks and Bruce McQuain. Distancing themselves from the generally anti-war response of the Libertarian Party (LP) and the mainstream libertarian movement, Henke and his fellow neolibertarians set out their reasons for supporting a vigorous war on terror and an effort to secure the freedom of Iraqis. Incrementalism in general is a common hallmark of neolibertarians, who tend to avoid over-association with the LP itself. The most obvious neolibertarian instance of taking a practical course to serve a moral goal is the Iraq war, though this is a common approach to many political issues.

:When given a set of policy choices,

:* The choice that maximizes personal liberty is the best choice.

:* The policy choice that offers the least amount of necessary government intervention or regulation is the best choice.

:* The policy choice that provides rational, market-based incentives is the best choice.

:In foreign policy, neolibertartianism would be characterized by,

:* A policy of diplomacy that promotes consensual government and human rights and opposes dictatorship.

:* A policy of using US military force solely at the discretion of the US, but only in circumstances where American interests are directly affected.

Putting a different spin on it, neo-libertarianism:

:...means making a political commitment to combat the initiation of force and fraud by the most effective and moral route possible; paleo-libertarians deal in words and thoughts, while neo-libertarians commit themselves to expanding freedom from the rhetorical world to the real world. It's the difference between saying something for freedom and doing something for freedom.

:Moreover, it's a commitment to the universality of freedom; just as calling oneself 'The Government' cannot legitimately add to one's natural rights, drawing an invisible line on a map and calling it 'The Border' cannot legitimately subtract from one's natural rights. People in foreign lands have the same natural rights as people in the house next door; neo-libertarianism is about finding the most practical ways to stop infringements against the liberty of those around the globe, including the use of force if necessary, just as we would use local police and courts to stop infringements of liberty next door.

:Put more succinctly: Individuals are the only morally significant unit of political economy. Individuals are imbued with infinite liberties circumscribed only by the rights of others to not be coerced or defrauded. The central right of humanity is the right to resist an aggressor, even if you aren't the victim.

Neolibertarianism is a post-9/11 ideological offshoot of libertarianism that incorporates neoconservative ideas on foreign policy, including the use of preventive military force. It also holds that nearly all other issues should remain in the jurisdiction of local political entities: state/provincial and municipal governments, communities, and individuals. Supporting people voting for socially/cultrally conservative policies at the local and community levels. Or socially liberal/libertine values at the local and community level depending on the contractual agreements and policies one wishes to live under in their local political entities within The Nation. Or which values one wishes to enforce on their own private property whether cooperatively or individually owned and controlled. 

This view of localism and individual says ones values is part of the protection of federalism from the Federal Government as well as the right to use and dispose of ones property or properties as seen fit under a Capitalistic system of Government. Localities and communities have every right to make whichever rules as long as they do not attempt to force someone to stay living under rules with which they disagree. Or attempt to thwart ones right to own and control their private property and possession as they see fit. Provided they are not using their property for something which is supporting of domestic or international terrorism or attempting to break laws which are given to the Federal Government to maintain and enforce under the Nations Constitution. Or to harm others. 

It is also more likely than paleolibertarians and Libertarian Party libertarians to be in support of some form of saety net either in a directionalist/pragmatic transition to a free society that relies on market based mutual aid and mutualist capitalism for providing welfare to a Nations citizens. Or as a proper function of Government in a Laissez-Faire Capitalist society depending on the strain of neolibertarianism ones thoughts align with.

What is laissez-faire capitalism?

Laissez-faire is French for “leave alone,” “allow to pass,” or “let do.”

The term is said to originate when, in 1681, when the comptroller of finance for King Louis XIV of France, Jean-Baptiste Colbert, asked a group of French businessmen, headed by M. Le Gendre, what should the government do to help their businesses.

Le Gendre’s response “Laissez-nous faire” (which means: to leave us alone, and let us do it.)

Laissez-faire does not mean banning all laws that protect consumer rights, that one can kill one’s competitors; or that companies are not responsible for unsafe working conditions. Unsafe and unsanitary working conditions preceded capitalism. Laissez-faire does not mean the “laws of the jungle,” i.e., that business owners can enslave workers. Laissez-faire means operating under an objective rule of law (freedom) as opposed to an arbitrary, rule of man (regulation). Laissez-faire ends where the violation of the rights of others begins. What laissez-faire does mean is that if a business action does not violate individual rights, then the states’ policy is “hands-off” or laissez-faire.

***

Under laissez-faire capitalism, there is a separation of economics and state; just like under freedom of religion, there is a separation of religion and state.

Under laissez-faire capitalism, the role of government is to protect the rights of all individuals equally. In cases of the initiation of physical force or fraud, the government is required to protect the rights of injured parties. Under laissez-faire, there are no bail-outs, no subsidies, no price controls, no licensing to create coercive monopolies, no regulations to restrict competition, no “protection” from imports, nor any laws to interfere with the freedom of production, work, and contract, so long as one is not violating the rights of others.

Therefore by defintion one is not required to deny the need of an Social or Income Safety Net/or Basic or Minimum Income Gauranteed as part of moving from here to there. Or even as a basic requirement of the Lassiez-Faire economy. Milton Friedman, F. A. Hayek, and other libertarian luminaries had supported a Basic Minimum Income Gauranteed and Safety Net as a prerequisite to the real life working of a Nation following Lassiez-Faire economic principles. Even within their ideal end game libertarian/classical liberal worldview on Government. 

One can both be for privatization, removing State based/Government based regulations for market based ones, and for Government getting out of peoples lives and for that same Government providing a Basic Income Guarantee or Minimum Income for its citizens. I would tie it to whether one is working a full time job that puts them in a livable position. If one is not they get a Minimum Income Guaranteed and if one is working with a livable income level than they would not qualify for the Safety Net. There need not be a huge bueracracy a very simple application and verification process. In fact, I would go even further than these luminaries and say that even in a world where Governments did not use taxation for funding Government it should provide a Voluntarily Funded Basic/Minimum Income Guaranteed as part of what they spend their voluntarily funded Government. 

I will continue in this vein by saying even a Fully-Tax Free-Government funded totally by Voluntary Contributions (the end goal for the most extreme Right(ist) Minarchist which goes even further than mainstream neolibertarian thought/Republitarians/conservatarins) the only Moral Form of Government needs to use that funding to provide its Citizens with a Guaranteed Minimum level of income based upon their ability to live on their income. The consequences of not having a Minimum Income for ones Citizens in a Pure Capitalist society I find deplorable/highly evil/immoral and this is one big place I diverge from others OnThe Right-Minarchy of the political spectrum. (I would be fine considering myself a Moderate and pragmatic/consequentialist Right Minarchist.)

My place on the Right-Minarchy spectrum would be the Moderate Lib Minarchism on the following graph; with the addition of the Minimum Income Guaranteed to the things Government should do. Whether the Minarchy has private or Goverment funded roads, or privatized fire departments or not it needs to use its funding to provide its Citizens with a livable income when they are unable to get one via working. Whether totally voluntary funding or low taxation funded the Government needs to provide an Income Floor or Minimum Income/Safety Net. This is where my neoconservative side shows up in my neolibertarianism/conservatarianism/Republitarianism. 

Some Safety Net is required period no matter how it is funded. Along with a hawkish and Peace through Strength National Defense/Foreign Policy view. A just and proper Government/Nation should be limited to not doing anything more than this ideally, but it cannot morally ever do less than this. Nor can it ever allow it's Borders to be thrown open without strict restrictions on whom is allowed to cross into a Free Nation. Open Borders are an assault on National Sovereignty and Nationhood; on top of being an all out assault on Laissez-Faire (Private Property Rights) and its Citizens. 

1 Timothy | Holy Bible Dramatized