18 votes

Principles or Love?

Which trumps which?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

If a father loves his son he disciplines him.

This means that true love would correct any departure by Rand from principles he has embraced all his life. and that he learned from his father. How that correction would manifest itself is the question.

My guess is that Ron would take him aside and point out the error of his ways. If he insisted on maintaining an unprincipled position then Ron might bring in one or two other friends to counsel him. If he continued in his intransigence then Ron would not support him or endorse his candidacy. This is both the principled and the loving thing to do.

The father who does not discipline his son hates his son.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

This is a really tough

This is a really tough question, Mike. My gut says Principle, so that's what I'm going with.

I just cannot see how RP would be so rock solid on his principles all these years and then turn his back on his principles simply because his son becomes a presidential candidate.

Then again, he can still love his son while not agreeing with his politics. My guess, if Rand is Romneyfied, is that Dr. Paul will word his support ever so carefully so that his principles are not put into question.

...

Sorry, I replied to the wrong post.

.

"Jesus answered them: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever; the son remains forever. So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.'" (John 8:34-36)

I have 3 different answers

1. I think he chooses love and I don't blame him one bit. It's his kid!!!

2. Love. He endorsed cruise and ken buck and I doubt he even loves them.

3. one thing is for sure, he won't support Rands opponent (ohhh burn!)

My husband is a good father.

My husband is a good father. And by good I mean great! So la couple years ago he decided to help coach my sons baseball team. Sure...some parents snickered about it. Some thought there would be special treatment. But guess what? My son got "it" worse than any other kid on that team! My husband raised the bar of expectations far more for my son than the other kids. And if my son couldn't perform, he sat out and he made him work extra hard during practices.

If your asking if Ron would endorse his son just because he is his son I think you are wrong.

Love...

...delights in the truth -- so I think (hope?) that would shine through in however Dr. Paul would respond. I doubt he would muzzle his own disagreements with his son completely.

He'll choose principle. But

He'll choose principle. But in actuality he will choose love. Not shortsighted love, but ecompassing all wise love, which is the bedrock of principle.

Translation of the above: he'll kick Rand out of the house. Tough love.

Well said

.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

If you haven't noticed... the

If you haven't noticed... the GOP is coming our way now with all the bought-and-paid for establishment haks kicking and screaming as they get keel-hauled.

Ron will choose Love, and Rand will very much remain in the house.

That doesn't happen by dropping out of the GOP

I hope you agree.

That comes from dominating PC counts and county delegate positions, wrenching state delegate positions from them and MAKING the GOP do the right thing.

Pressure over time. The more the better. The founding fathers didn't call it "Occasional Vigilance." They said "Eternal Vigilance". Eternal vigilance is leather-strap whoopin hard.

I realize that grates the libertarian purists and for that I'm sorry - genuinely.

We all have our strengths and weaknesses and we all have roles. Mine is winning in party politics. Just like bees sting and and make honey and you can't make them stop, that's what I do - win in party politics - eternal leather strap hard whooping vigilance - for liberty. Whoop the party until they get it right.

It's not for the gentile and it can't happen when people quit.

Said with love. :)

Not only do agree, but after

Not only do agree, but after the election, I called all the RP people I brought to our caucus, and brought them around again to become PCOs and take over our party. We wiped them out and took all the major electable positions.

Im not opposed to people who want to do their thing outside of the system, but I choose to work within the system by becoming it (only better). In my opinion, its going to take more than one style to bring down this giant bitch. Some will have to work inside, others outside. We need 911 truthers, an-caps, and even social deviants and radicals to help chizle away at the power structures of the elite so that those of us on the inside can open the gates and let the patriots in to storm the king's castle and ressurrect our republic.

Bump.



A solid bump from:
A Proud Ron/Rand RepubliCAN Liberty Comitteeman!

Yes, I am rocking the boat.

Exercise Liberty.


America Rising.
The Constitution Stands.

"That the pen is mightier than the sword would be proven false; if I should take my sword and cut off the hand that holds the pen" - American Nomad

Without Love...

...I am nothing. Perhaps the only principle that really stands, absent Love, is the erosion of all other principles. Anything good that exists comes from Love; all that non-Love can do is act as a parasite on the host: weakening, decaying, twisting, eroding, destroying the good, the original.

Principles are a subcategory

Principles are a subcategory of love. We determine our principles based on love. For example, I do not steal. Why? Because a violation of this principle is a violation of love. Do not lie. Same reason. Do not murder. Same reason. The general principle to describe the sub-principles is love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to one's neighbor. Love is the complete fullness of the purpose of all laws (laws are principles). Our lives will be a journey to strive toward love since no one in practice is able to love one's neighbor as oneself. What is the basis of love? Love is God. God is love. All the principles of righteousness and justice and mercy are in their fullness in the person of God. We are persons, too, with the potential to be perfect, because we were created in God's image, but each one has fallen to his own way. His own way meaning fallen away from love. So why then love? To get back, to prevent a falling further. Because we know that the opposite of love is hate and hate leads to suffering and despair. Does it follow that the opposite of hate leads to happiness and hope? So we make a choice to pursue love because we believe love is in our best interest. Also, if everyone loved one other then our true potential could be reached. What do we need then? A perfect model of a man who became perfect through love. The greatest form of love is to freely give one's life for the lives of one's friends. We are God's friends if we believe in love, if we believe (choose to pursue) in Him who is love.

What do you support against a

What do you support against a thief? Love? Let him go? Feel sorry for him?

Principles come first. You should support consequences to violations of the NAP.

The non-aggression principle

The non-aggression principle is an application of love. If you turn that around then you are saying that the non-aggression principle is the ultimate truth by which you derive the meaning of love. I did mention that justice, righteousness, and mercy are all expressions of love. How do you love a thief? You must apply the principles of justice, righteousness, and mercy. To let him go is not to love him. To feel sorry for him is not to love him. What I am saying is that the non-aggression principle is an application of love or in accord with love. Do I support consequences to violations of love. Yes. But they must be consistent with a loving approach, one that considers the principles of justice, righteousness, and mercy. I admit that I am not perfectly just, always right, and understand true mercy! But I strive towards those goals! I cannot believe in a simple "eye for eye" approach because I myself am a lawbreaker, and my aims ought not to be solely punitive but corrective. Disciple can be tough love. I take the time to reply because I hope you to discover that love is more than an emotion. We cannot treat others based solely on our emotions! I might feel sorry for him one moment and want to kill him the next! No, love is a choice, a pursuit of true justice, righteousness, and mercy. We must refuse to follow emotions and choose to follow love. The non-aggression principle is one application of many based on love, but not love itself. You need more principles to live by such as regarding your question about how to respond to a thief.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Wow! Bravo!

I love your answer!

The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. - Alan Watts

Equal

Love could be a preferred condition,
and principles,
could be the boundaries that sustains it.

NOSHEEPLE

Michael Nystrom's picture

That's not a bad answer

Considering it is a trick question.

I like your answer.

The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. - Alan Watts

It depends on context which

It depends on context which one trumps the other. Sometimes principle wins out. But the times when principle trumps love, is when love is shortsighted and limited in scope. If love is encompassing and wise, it will trump principle each and every time. Because good principles need this type of love as foundation in order to work. Principles without love is soulless and will eventually collapse unto itself.

Moral of the story, you guys need to stop hatin'. Yesterday (or was it the day before?), I heard somebody say to me that we will never come to an understanding. An incredibly sad statement. As long as sentiments like these exist, hate will triumph over love. Nothing good can come of it.

Love is THE Principle.

.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

Already been posted

Below,lol

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Then we're on the right path :)

.

"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience"—Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

BMWJIM's picture

If everything in your life is done with true love, then

Principles can never be compromised.

Jim

1976-1982 USMC, Having my hands in the soil keeps me from soiling my hands on useless politicians.

Tough question that I'll

Tough question that I'll attempt to squirm away from by claiming that it's impossible to answer without context.

I could say love, because though I believe it's wrong to steal I'd do so in a heartbeat if it was the only way to keep my loved ones from starving.

On the other hand I could say principle, because though I love people and hate to see innocents hurt I wouldn't steal from my neighbors to fund a military intervention against a foreign despot.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

Michael Nystrom's picture

Context is important, but the way I read your answer is:

Love comes first.

Which is another way of saying, Love is the first principle.

The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. - Alan Watts

Well, I'm still squirming,

Well, I'm still squirming, but there are two first principles in my concept of libertarianism;

- NAP, which does imply love as fundamental because why otherwise would initiating aggression be wrong?, and

- the Golden Rule.

Now, the Golden Rule does leave me some room for principle first, because of the second part of the rule, the "as you would have them do unto you" clause, which demands of me that I act towards others in ways that I would want them to act towards me.

I am one who measures every potential act against how it will be judged by the man in the mirror. In other words, conscience enters into every act or at least into the judgement of every act after the fact. So because I am principled, and a follower of the Golden Rule, my principles dictate how I act towards others. Principles first.

I must be willing to give up what I am in order to become what I will be. Albert Einstein

jrd3820's picture

One Word.

“One word
Frees us of all the weight and pain of life:
That word is love.”
Sophocles

There is nothing better in this world than loving completely and freely even if it goes against every ‘principle' in the book. It feels so amazingly good; there are no words for it. Someone said it is not sustainable, but I disagree. Not only is it completely sustainable, it is profitable. It feels better than anything in the whole world, and the profit comes from feeling it.

Really.... there is nothing more freeing and liberating than loving and forgiving and caring and giving all the love you have and when you think you don't have any more love to give, finding it and sharing it.

The ultimate freedom is love.

Michael Nystrom's picture

The ultimate freedom is love!

Whoa!

You're one of the people who gets it. (But I knew that already).

The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. - Alan Watts

But falling in love is

But falling in love is different.

Love is giving someone a gun
Pointing it to your heart
And trusting them not to pull the trigger.

Trust...that's love.