21 votes

Liberty without Love is Hollow

"Liberty is not the beginning and the end. Before I believed in liberty, I believed in Love and Truth."


http://youtu.be/seR5qBKkbC8

This is the speech I gave at the Republican Liberty Caucus of Washington State Annual Convention. It may be the most important I have given to date.

In Love and Liberty, Robin (Blue Republican)



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Robin hits the nail on the head

I love this speech, it really drives home the issues that we face in waking up the masses to our message and the persuit of Liberty.

Robin, you are an amazing speaker. I feel so blessed to have being able to facilitate you coming to Boise State and giving a speech prior to our primary/caucus in 2012. I was the president of the club that secured the room in our student union for you to speak, and just as impressed as I was then, I am even more impressed now. I had an opportunity to meet with you after the event at a pub with some the other individuals from outside groups that also helped bring you to Boise to speak, but I didn't go. I am very sorry that I did not go because I very much respect your work for the cause of liberty and I would love to pick your brain, my passions are also in science and philosophy. I didn't go to the after party because I felt like an outsider; I felt as though my thoughts on abortion and my previous voting record would make me a target and it is these issues that held me back from doing more with these outside groups after that night. I can say with pride that I voted for Obama in 2008 because I believed that he was going to pursue the cause of civil liberty and peace, but it did not take me long after he was elected to realize that was not the truth. And THAT is what has lead me to Ron Paul and to the true cause of liberty.

It doesn't matter how we have gotten here, but what really matters is that we ARE HERE. We need to be good salesmen, as Robin says. Our biggest obstacle is our own minds, we must be able to include other people's beliefs about certain issues that do not pertain to the ultimate goal of liberty. Lets debate those issues after we have created a political climate friendly to the cause of liberty. If we decide to brush aside those that do not agree on matters that do not pertain to liberty, then this movement is destined to die with your stubbornness.

Robin, keep up the good work brother. I live in Washington state now in farm country, I hope our paths cross again in the pursuit of liberty for our region and ultimately the globe.

I appreciate...

...the emphasis on speaking the truth in love, regardless of what our viewpoints are. Personally, I do have the conviction that it is wisest to err on the side of preserving human life from its earliest moments; but this is not a reason to dehumanize those who hold a different view and lose patience and kindness in seeking to persuade hearts and minds. Sometimes a matter is so weighty that it would not be loving to trivialize it, though, and not voice a sense of import and urgency. How could someone who believes that a human life is a person from the moment of conception just set that aside and act as if the killing of that person before birth was not the equivalent of a three-month old being killed? I would grieve the loss of the ten in the test-tube in the fire illustration, as I would the loss of the baby who was born. All those innocent lives, snuffed out.

My personal faith (informed through Scripture as well as reason) is such that I see God as ultimately reconciling all things in the cosmos to Him. So while I grieve any death in this phase of life, I am comforted to know that despite the extra pain and complications such actions and events cause along the way, that eventually not only those who are the innocent victims, but also those whose hands have shed blood will be rescued from the horrors of evil, or even outer darkness, by Love, which will conquer all. So all those 'natural abortions' you speak of are, as with every life on this earth, not the end of the story, but of only a chapter within the story for each of those individuals. All shall be well -- but in the meantime we should strive to minimize evil and death and demonstrate Love through the preservation of life.

If I stoop to rescue a spider from the floor and transport it safely outside because of an innate respect for life, how much more would I value those lives within that test tube? Preserving those lives resonates with Love, from my perspective.

Thanks for underscoring that Love is the substrate of Liberty, though! Something we need to keep in the forefront of our minds and hearts.

Phxarcher87's picture

What vs. Why. Here is a clip about what the good Dr. thinks.

I think we are going to be judged on the WHYS in life, and not so much the WHATS...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66jpPCIzza8

One of the biggest pitfalls in a "movment" is the temptation to get cultish about it and refuse to realize that it is only part of the picture. -Joel Salatin ; You Can Farm pg 202

Yes, that is his opinion, and yours.

It is not mine. Do we have to let this divide us?
Here is a much more comprehensive list of Dr. Paul's comments on the topic.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm
Do I win? My list is bigger.
I don't agree with you guys, but I consider your opinions valid and would defend your right to be saved from an unwanted abortion. I do not think you should be taxed to pay for them, but then I don't think you should be taxed. Is there enough common ground there that you could stop letting this issue do stuff like this:
http://www.dailypaul.com/180123/can-no-longer-support-ron-pa...
If we are wrong, it is God's job to punish us, but many of us feel the woman's rights have "primacy." It is not because we love abortions, want to kill babies, yet that is how we are treated.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

That was great.

I agree that there should be a month or trimester for a grace period. If pro-lifers want to convict a women for murder after that, I think DNA should be used to identify the father and he should bare some responsibility for the 'murder' as well.

But mostly I agree on the love portion. The best way to spread our message is with loving kindness. Most of us don't do it. Including me. I am trying to do better.

Thank you

for acknowledging that unwanted pregnancies do not spontaneously occur in women.
Love and politics is a hard sell, an even harder path to try to walk... Hang in there!

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Liberty guarantees nothing

In a condition of liberty, our lives are what we make of them. No wealth, or power, or health, or meaning are guaranteed by the condition of liberty. Our lives, however mean or meaningful, are ours to create.

The justification for a condition of liberty is liberty itself. No other justification is needed, nor is any other justification appropriate. If we say that Love precedes Liberty in importance, then we are providing the justification for denying liberty to anyone who chooses other meanings in their lives.

Liberty precedes choices in life. Without liberty, there is no latitude to choose love.

That is just ridiculous.

I can be incarcerated, and still choose love. Love comes from within, liberty is the expression of that internal condition.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Liberty has nothing to do with

accepting an opposing viewpoint out of "love". In fact, greater love and respect is evidenced by showing them how their viewpoint is wrong than by accepting it. Koeners view is that all viewpoints are morally equivalent and he disparages principle. He attempts to negate the idea that there are morally superior viewpoints while at the very same time disparages those who disagree with him as not "loving" enough, a view he obviously considers morally superior! Neither does his pointing out that many pro-lifers are inconsistent in upholding their principles prove that those principles are wrong or not morally superior and logical. Failure to maintain the standard does not negate the standard.
His libertarian principles appear to be very weak as he uses statist code words like "finding common ground" and presupposes the idea of overarching statism, calling for political "selling" to those of opposing views so "we" can all agree or at least "love" each other as they cram theirs down our throats...because that is the essence of political "selling" and statism. His idea that "orthodoxy" is somehow evil and the opposite of liberty is ridiculous, a back door attack on traditional religion and reveals his bias toward the ALWAYS Good and Noble "change" so beloved of the statist. Chesterton would chew him up and spit him out.
A true libertarian understands that you don't HAVE to love or like your neighbor as long as we all live and let live. It is when you try to force associations, conformity, moralities and collectivism that "we" all have to "love" each other and agree.....but not because it is in the Bible, of course, but just cuz he said so.

"finding common ground" is statist?

You're going to have a lonely life, I suspect.
It is NOT about demanding anyone change any core belief, it is having the common sense to STOP ARGUING and focus on the things you DO agree on.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Why?

Why is there no room for disagreement, following a path that perhaps NO ONE else agrees with? Why "argue" at all? Why can't we just leave each other alone?? I'm not seeing the problem. Libertarianism is the only solution TO STOP "arguing". Agree to disagree, live and let live.

Because it is more than just "politics."

It is about saving humanity, and we are at our best when we let love motivate us. You do not have to love everyone the same way and with equal passion, but if you love "others" enough to be motivated by love, you are a poor tool for fearmongers to use.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Nonsense!!

There is nothing more evil than do-gooders "saving humanity" through political force and calling it "loving".If you truly love your fellow man you will respect him enough to leave him alone.History is full of humans who knew best how to "save humanity"....and the result was usually genocide, for the most noble reasons.

I can't "leave people alone" because I love them?

Cuz, I pretty much thought that what what I was doing. Did you need me to pester you to show my love? Didya? Didya? Didya? Didya?
I know what you are talking about, it is easy to swing over into rainbows and lollipops land, but there is a delicate balance.
I love you. I don't feel compelled to act on that love in any way, other than to reply to your question. I'm pretty sure you expect no more of me, and really would probably not hate me if I did not reply. That is an expression of love. The old saw: There are 2 kinds of people in the world, those who just want left the hell alone, and those who just won't leave people the hell alone." If we could accept that and sort ourselves out, the do-gooders could run around do-gooding to their hearts content amongst themselves - they could be called "communities" perhaps. The others could live in the country, or even amongst the do0-gooders with signs that said "No Trespassing" and everyone understood that meant "None." If the "eccentric" old man is not bothering anybody, leave him be. All of this stems from loving each other enough to learn to give all the flowers in the garden room to blossom.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Robin Koerner's picture

Exactly wrong

You wrote, "Koener's view is that all viewpoints are morally equivalent and he disparages principle."

False. That is not my view and I specifically say so in this speech.

You wrote, "He attempts to negate the idea that there are morally superior viewpoints"

Also false.

I explicitly say in this speech that I believe in absolute Truth, and that we should strive for it, and try to live by it.

I also state that I believe political arguments - including on the particular topic at hand - should be made from principle. I also specifically say I am not a relativist.

I don't mind disagreement, and (as per this talk) can respect your views if they differ from mine but I object to false statements of my views.

There is obviously a difference between A) believing there is no morally superior view (which I do not agree with), and B) believing that there is a morally superior view, but humility is still a good policy because we are imperfect vessels for morality.

>>>You wrote, "Koener's view

>>>You wrote, "Koener's view is that all viewpoints are morally equivalent and he disparages principle."

False. That is not my view and I specifically say so in this speech.<<<<

You say you believe in absolute truth then later in your speech you state "If you think I am morally less because I disagree about a specific"...this is an attempt to claim that there is no morally correct position. There is absolute morality/truth. You certainly seem to be claiming people who disagree with your definition of "human" have no right to claim a moral high ground. Are you saying that absolute truth exists but is unknowable?

>>>>You wrote, "He attempts to negate the idea that there are morally superior viewpoints"
Also false.<<<<

See above.

>>>>>I also state that I believe political arguments - including on the particular topic at hand - should be made from principle. I also specifically say I am not a relativist.<<<<<

Then how can you condemn people who disagree with your idea of principles? They are arguing from principle.

>>>>I don't mind disagreement, and (as per this talk) can respect your views if they differ from mine but I object to false statements of my views.<<<<<

You contradict yourself. You say that you believe political arguments should be made from principle but in your speech you claim that humans are incapable of logical rational thought based on a neurological experiment. How can arguments be made from principle if you don't believe people are capable of being logical and rational. You certainly seem to hold that position with your perseveration on love, FEELING, rather than rational argument (only fit for computer programmers!).Claiming that love is more important than a true position lowers us. We should strive to THINK, not FEEL.I am not trying to disrespect you as a human.I think you are wrong to get so offended by people who challenge your ideas.

>>>>>There is obviously a difference between A) believing there is no morally superior view (which I do not agree with), and B) believing that there is a morally superior view, but humility is still a good policy because we are imperfect vessels for morality.<<<<

I don't disagree that we are imperfect and that humility is a good policy. And I am sorry that the pro-lifers were rude to you. Why do you think that it would be more principled, from the pro-life view, to save the test tube of 10 embryos rather than the born infant?

Actually, I believe that you would have been more consistently libertarian to argue against any abortion law. It's doubtful that there would be much of an increase in abortions. People need to have liberty to make their own decisions, sins and mistakes and it is our job to persuade, not bully through politics. THAT would be the truly loving position.

ROBIN!!!

I watched this the other night while doing homework, it was and remains, fantastic.

Often, I feel as you did when preparing a speech, 'What is important?', only to realize that truth, through love, makes its own path.

God bless you!

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

Thanks Robin

Shared on Twitter.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

I was not impressed

I went to the CA Spring convention where the RLC had Raimondo give a simular speach, HISTORY of the LP.

Not only was it BORING, but slanted, and I think for some of us who spent years in the LP (76- 93 for me), the LP became controlled oppression in the name of liberty. That's what I see with you.

It bothered me tremendously to see my LP peers, who worked hard, get SOLD OUT by the LP to the GOP, election after election, and that includes Ron Paul's 6 months.

In CA, all the prep work by the RLC attracted a wide audience.. the room filled with people interested.. and as Raimondo droned on, they started leaving, and then as RLC members got up to make speaches (that could have been taken from posts here on DP) I watched the room empty.. GOP walked away unimpressed at best, and discusted.

Here in CA, where globalization has HURT so many, the idea that someone from another country is going to tell us what our history is, and advise us to what direction we should take SMACKS HARD of GLOBALIZATION in your face.

For me, a former LP member, it's just more of the same.. speakers who we can not vote for.. controlled opression.

Now, if I was not a former LP member, had not joined the GOP to help RP win the nomination, and remained in the GOP to help Rand, really didn't care too much about politics.. I would have thought of you as being cute, charming, funny, intelligent and entertaining.

I do think that you are cute, charming, funny, intelligent and entertaining. I also think that it's a mistake for the RLC to not be finding and promoting American REPUBLICANS for leadership roles.

RLC has a HUGE job if they expect to actually take on the ptb in the GOP.. Catering to Libertarians (who are not attending GOP conventions as GOP delegates) is NOT the solution at a GOP convention, and I really don't understand the RLC's agenda at this point.

Liberty without legs to liberate is also hollow.

LOVE, The Granger

Raimondo

was probably over your head, he's never boring. But then, Neocons do hate him because he is anti war. Besides, this speech was not about the history of the LP. What are you talking about?

He was not only BORING, but meely and dark

I was a hard core antiwar.com /Raimondo supporter from the time antiwar.com started. I have a neat colection of bumper stickers from the good old days when they began asking for donations..

When Raimondo refused to STAND FOR RON.. I refused to stand for Raimondo.

Koerner did cover LP history from a UK GLOBAL perspective.. how does that help REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS advance within the GOP? It doesn't. So what was the point?

RLC prooved that it has NO leadership, no one to challenge the PTB in the GOP, and is so desparate for speakers, they have to search out of the country and then get a Blue Republican?

You have a penchant for

trying to impress with what you consider your credentials. I could not care less. The massive state that tyrannizes us is replete with pols, bumper stickers, "vision", Good Intentions and plenty of "leaders". Funny how Rand didn't "STAND FOR RON" but that doesn't bother you.
This speech had nothing to do with the history of the LP so your post here makes no sense.

I have no credentials

I worked hard for Ron paul's nimination and took a committee seat to be a Ron Paul delegate and I will remain in my seat for my term.. but I have no plans to go further than I have. And since you could not careless, why bring it up?

Rand absolutely stood for Ron, but what's more, is Ron set Rand up.. Ron ran to stuff the GOP for Rand.

We don't agree with Koerner's speach.

If my experience helps others decide whether they want to join the GOP, petiton and become elected to a seat, hipefully my post helped them. If not, that's ok too.

I'm sharing my experience, not credentials.

YOU

brought it up, and bring it up, over and over, yawn. We don't agree on Rand and DEFINITELY not Ron Paul. I'm sure they called you up and explained it all to you, though.

Yawn?

Then why bother?

Robin brings people to liberty

And his speech definitely wasn't boring - it was followed by a sustained standing ovation, hugs in the crowd and a few wet eyes...not sure what your problem is with Robin Koerner...

Support Liberty Media! http://benswann.com/ - http://www.bluerepublican.org/ - http://krisannehall.com/ - http://lionsofliberty.com/

We won't turn things around until we 1st change the media - donate to a liberty media creator today!

I apologize

Raimonda's speach was BORING. Robin's speach was insulting.

Robin is not an American, not a Republican, and prooves the RLC has no one for a leadership position.

hugs.

Liberty

has nothing to do with being an American (especially nowadays) and certainly nothing to do with being a (gag) Republican. Liberty is transcendant, a human right and has nothing to do with the state or its components. How did this speech insult you in any way?

For the Ron Paul rEVOLution (Liberty Movement) it does.

Ron Paul rEVOLution is American and is happening in the GOP.

I believe that the REPUBLICAN LIBERTY COUNCIL should promote REPUBLICANS at GOP events, not Libertarians.

LOL! I'm sure you do

because there is nothing libertarian about you! The GOP is nothing but a nest of lying Neocons playing controlled opp for the commie Dems. A big fat fake.

Actually my history is Libertarian

and my name is on resolutions, and other issues I helped write and promote for the LP in CA decades ago.

But personally.. I want nothing to do with the LP. LOSER PARTY.

I

Love you bro!

Thank you for being our modern day Thomas Paine;)

Support Liberty Media! http://benswann.com/ - http://www.bluerepublican.org/ - http://krisannehall.com/ - http://lionsofliberty.com/

We won't turn things around until we 1st change the media - donate to a liberty media creator today!

Robin, it has been a long, strange journey.

I honestly can't remember what you ever said or did that made me not trust you, but I just did not. For that, I apologize. This speech absolutely won my heart. You sound more like my husband than anyone I've ever met, and I've been with him for over 30 years - I'm enjoy his company pretty much.
For love and truth, my friend - the only path to lasting liberty.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Robin Koerner's picture

Thank you so much

Yours is one of the most touching comments I have received, and I am deeply grateful for it. Thank you for your open mind and the apology that you did not owe me! I am delighted to be walking with you on our journey to Liberty (and Love and Truth!).

RE: Time = Money

If value does not exist in nature and all value derives from human action:

Human Action + Time = Value

Thing + Time = Value?

On a side note ... why is it that when I hit the reply button and log in to comment it doesn't put it under the comment replied to?

Timing can be critical

WHEN you get something is often as important as WHAT you get. Time is our most precious IRREPLACEABLE commodity. If I agree to do without something for a period of time, why shouldn't I asked to be compensated?

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

The value of labor represents being

paid for ones time. Interest represents the use of money over time. It is interest for use of a thing I question. The following is a list of things one might pay to use in their life:

Rental car.
Tool rental.
Taxi.
Toll road.
Rented house or apartment.
Electricity, water, and utilities.
Subscription TV or internet.
Movie rental.
Laundromat.

Why is it that a money rental is different than paying for the use of any other thing and commands interest?

Why is it that even with some of the things listed above one pays to use that if payment is late all of a sudden there may be interest in addition to late fees or penalties on the amount due?

Why doesn't the value of labor accrue interest?

Usury = Anti-Liberty.

Usury is Anti-Love & Anti-Truth.

Usury = Debt-Trap = Slavery.

Usury distracts from/or weakens what is Fair, Faith & Family.

Usury feeds that which is false, foul, & fallacious.

Usury's goals are demonic, deceptive & destructive.

Time = Money

Interest is your reward for risking your capital. Your punishment for failure is that you lose your money.
Would you rather have one apple today or nine apples tomorrow?
How about three vs seven?
Or 4.864 vs 5.136?
Once you decide on the exact ratio, you will have determined for yourself what a just interest rate is. We all have a specific time preference. The market tends to blend them together and find the optimal solution.
Unless you mean something entirely different from "interest", I can discern nothing necessary fraudulent or rapacious about "usury". I oft suspect that it is more a shiboleth than a description.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

Usury = Bank's Instrument of Control.

The Bank’s chief instrument of control is USURY : i.e. Interest, > Time as basis of increase on deposits or loans of money. Money is considered the medium of exchange, the value carrying fluid used in economic transactions (liquidity?). It$ similar to = as blood is to the body of the living, nourishing and distributing energy.
Usury is not a person or a thing, and it cannot be seen in darkness or ignorance. IT$ a ticking-$ystem to govern and dis’locate persons and things. It$ "Idea" is the % rate in the false concept “Time i$ Money, ! Wow ! “.
Think about it, is it really ? Magic ? Yeast ? Driven by the manic-$wiss-rotor, i.e. the systemic-pulse =(tick-tock), moving/ adding monetary-digits, 00$00$0
The working ferment that bubbles-(pumps, puffs & sucks) is visible to all those who care and find courage to SEE. Verily, it$ HERE, - you have to seek The True Light. It$ symbol of power is manifest in the obelisk and clock-tower.

"Money" is an imperfect approximation

It is the accommodation of aggregates and averages.
Time, displacement, mass, and charge are all objectively measurable, but money (like human rights) is a creation of human intelligence. It is what we use to facilitate our exchanges when beef wanting tomato farmers can find no tomato wanting cattle ranchers in the neighborhood.

Whether the voluntary arrangement specifies grams of gold, liters of whisky, kilograms of wheat, or Federal Reserve Digits, the principle remains the same. How am I injured by agreeing to pay interest?

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

Bank = Piggy = Whore.

See Andy Warhol's paintings - "The Bank" -
http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=5849

To de’scribe the diff'errant aspects of U$URY i.e. % interest, many fat books would be required. We will try and squeeze it in a sentence for you : IT$ = “A Per Second Charge For TOUCH’ing Money”, for / of the Bank. At times IT$ even charged for ‘let’ing you think - you are ‘feeling’. Oho, similar to a Prostitute in Per’son or her sub-statute Pro’jected on-to your in-screen.
Hence beware, do not touch the bank’$ money, makes you poorer.
So, the one who owes the (most) highest amount is the poorest of all. Check-U^P, the Govt. of U.S.A._(man-ager De Le ‘super’corP) owes by the tons, i.e. over U$D:16.86 Trillions (16,860,000,000,000+%). “Oh! What a heavy sum”, to pay. How do they manage the ‘interests’ ?? Aha ! (Fort Knox in Print+^+B.I.S.).

Dis’closures may surprise the naïve, but most banks had started in an Inn, a Proxy Parlour, with a Prime PurPose to Pay a Pimp & Pray - “Priests lips slip, lisp”. When banks get-along-side the temple and hotel, BIS zoomsss'sky-scraping.

"Money" is an imperfect approximation

It is the accommodation of aggregates and averages.
Time, displacement, mass, and charge are all objectively measurable, but money (like human rights) is a creation of human intelligence. It is what we use to facilitate our exchanges when beef wanting tomato farmers can find no tomato wanting cattle ranchers in the neighborhood.

Whether the voluntary arrangement specifies grams of gold, liters of whisky, kilograms of wheat, or Federal Reserve Digits, the principle remains the same. How am I injured by agreeing to pay interest?

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

Did You

receive a full and honest disclosure for any inequality of liabilities and/or obligations in an otherwise even exchange of value derived from human action?

It is those who have taking advantage of those in need.

Justify all you like, usury is evil.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

I need groceries

Kroger takes advantage of me by demanding money for food. And yet I don't consider Kroger to be evil. My understanding of "evil" is to intentionally inflict injury on the undeserving. If I agree to pay interest for the privilege of borrowing someone else's property, how am I being injured?

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
======================================
West of 89
a novel of another america
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/161155#longdescr

The money you pay is printed with interest.

You know that drill, right?
You re not "borrowing" groceries from Kroger, you are engaging in free trade. You do not pay Kroger interest on your groceries, either. When you pay to borrow something, it is called "rent" and the only "interest" paid is tax, and neither of the parties in the "free contract" benefit from that tax.
Gene, I am too busy to bother with this. Go on, use people whenever you see a profit to be made, it is the "American way."

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

You have to quantify what you

You have to quantify what you mean by 'evil'

Is it something that you believe should be illegal?

Is it something people should go to hell (or whatever you believe in) for?

Does equal blame lie with both parties?

Does it make them cruel?

Does it physically or mentally inhibit them in any way?

I'm asking your opinions.

Evil is something that does not come from love.

I do not think you can legislate morality.
I don't know what happens after we die, have my hands full trying to figure out what is happening while I live.
No, a person acting from evil motives usually finds a victim, and the victim's motives are a separate issue, case by case.
Not outwardly, the most evil people I know of are quite charming.
It inhibits their capacity to love and be loved.
Now, go ahead and pick apart my OPINIONS, since I think this was a fishing trip for things to snipe at.
As for USING PEOPLE, it is the opposite of LOVING people.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Ok so you are saying people

Ok so you are saying people practising usury aka money lending aka charging interest are unable to love or be loved to the degree they would have been able to if they did something else. Ok.

So two parties agreeing to a contract, knowing its terms are reducing their capacity to love or be loved. Let me know if I'm twisting your words as this is the information I have distilled from your post.

I do not know if what you say is true or not as 'love' is difficult to quantify and furnish proof of. All I will say is that me and a lot of people on the dailypaul make their living and enrich other people's lives through this mechanism in ways that CAN be quantified without ever having felt this di.inished us in any way. That is my opinion.

Your post was reasonable and interesting that is why I replied, not because of any other reason.