Keep searching I think you’re one of the smart ones! Have you read Person of Interest by J Warner Wallace? I loved and agreed with much of your point of view👍🏼
I'm just watching this a year later, after watching your debate with Knowles earlier today. I have to say, this is a breath of fresh air. Allie, the way you navigate this conversation is admirable. Brad, the way you articulate your points - you are always teaching me something. The conversation between the two of you clarified your own points and let the other clarify theirs in a way that is so mature, thoughtful, inspiring, even warming. Allie I appreciate how thoughtful you are in your responses and how present you are with Brad, really making it about the conversation, the connection, finding places to align, and just being present. This is one of the better ones and it is a model of how a good-faith, genuine conversation can go. This is the kind of conversation that creates actual change - not just ego boosts. Kudos to you both. And no shade to anyone else but just really want to say you're both modeling a better way forward.
This was so good. I consider myself a conservative because of my Christian faith, but politically libertarian rather than Republican (though I generally would vote Republican or Libertarian depending on the candidate). Allie I love your show, and loved this guest. Biblically I agree with you but I found myself agreeing with his view of American government rather than the big government push from some Republicans. 👏 👏 👏 great debate. This is what we need right now. I agree with Brad, I still want to believe we can fight good ideas with bad ideas. But I also see how we might be too far gone for that.
Conservatives should acknowledge the middle ground. The government needs to be more libertarian the bigger it is. A big federal government is highly coercive and not a place where moral values can be adequately represented (hence why the Founders devised the federalist system). But local governments like your city or county shouldn't be libertarian at all otherwise you'll live in a community with no shared values and cyclical conflict. We've seen at the school board meetings how being hands off and apathetic towards local government can completely destroy communal values.
Conservative literally means to conserve. Some elements of power/government need to be used to do so, and conservatives believe that there are things that are morally right and wrong. This guy said “traditional conservative” and then mentioned free market capitalism and liberty. While those things are part of conservatism, they are not traditional conservatism at all, and from his social views etc, he would actually be considered more of a neo-Con. In other words, he’s got it backwards (as to what is “traditional”).
Exactly! "Libertarians" are gussied up "money-talks" ahistorical Libertines. They are not Conservatives at all. The USA's post-WW2 GOP was based on "Fusionism" fusing Traditional Conservatives and so-called Libertarians (post WW2 anti-Soviet imports). I studied this stuff at Harvard in classes. Traditional Conservatism is global and nothing whatsoever like Libertarians. You hit the nail on the head.
Free markets and liberty are conservative in the sense that we have a right to property and liberty and the burden of proof falls upon those infringing upon property and liberty. The difference with libertarians is that they hold that burden of proof so high that property and liberty aren't restricted even when they should be
@@sivad1025 Here's one speech by a non-Catholic promoter of National Conservatism. Oh, and "nationalism" is not a euphemism for militarism. TV uses all these terms the wrong way. Nationalism is reciprocal, and American Nationalists start by honoring elections in Hungary, Venezuela and Costa Rica. *Yoram Hazony: Why National Conservatism? - National Conservatism Conference.* ua-cam.com/video/4cpyd1OqHJU/v-deo.html
Libertarianism is a healthier and consistent philosophy than conservatism. The latter is focused on tradition and nationalism while the former is Enlightenment liberalism.
I agree. As a libertarian, I have tolerance towards anyone, even those who disagree, and we should be able to debate without attacking anyone’s character. I know that traditional values are important for many people, but my problem with conservatism is that that the ideology wants to implement the traditional beliefs into government. As a libertarian, I believe that libertarianism would be good for traditional values because we can allow them to live their lives, while people who are not interested in traditional values can also live their lives without any interference from anyone. I push back against both the right and the left, but it would be better to push back against those ideas without having to resort to attack someone’s character.
I like libertarianism in principle, but I've come to the John Adams view that a freedom-based system like ours is only adequate to govern a moral and religious people. It boils down to the "this is why we can't have nice things" problem: freedom is great until everyone starts abusing it.
@@JB-pd3ir That's kind of the point; if the populace is godless and immoral then no form of government can offer you a good life. But I'd personally rather have a dictator who executes violent criminals than live in a world where violent criminals are free to run amok...
Meaning you support conservative values but don't want the government involved? Or you're a default libertarian who supports conservative values in some cases?
@@sivad1025 yes I support conservative values and I want the government involved as little as possible. Abortion needs to be abolished. Things that hurt people need to have action taken against them, but we need to be able to live our lives. Make sense?
@@breannawilliamson9787 It is important to realize that a lot of ground has been lost in the last 50 years and I do blame part of that on libertarian naivete; so now more than ever is the time to wield political power to conserve the good, the true, and the beautiful. The libertarian inclination of "less government is always better" or "as long as it doesn't effect me personally" has only helped Democrats. We have to realize that there is no such thing as small government in a country of 330 million people and we will continue to lose ground if we do not start to bring the fight to the Democrats instead of simply playing defense.
Hands down, Brad Polumbos perspective and vision of how we should function as a society would genuinely be THE SAVIOR of our planet. Its BALANCED. It has the ability to mesh with everyone, if only everyone could be as open minded and emotionally intelligent on BOTH sides. Not saying that Allie Beth is wrong, its just that there are a lot of us in the center that identify more with the right, but also find it so hard to commit because of its rigid and unforgiving nature.
@@cappylover192 but they are your biological sex is your consists of your sex chromosomes, sex hormones and genitalia. While your gender deals with with your psychological identity of your your own assigned sex. The reason why scientists differentiate the two gender and sex is because you could have Gerald swyer syndrome were your a person could be born as a girl with female genitalia but has XY chromosomes but they identify with being a girl or a person who has XX male syndrome is born a boy with male genitalia but has XX chromosomes but identifies as a boy still
Yes there are lol. The bible speaks a bazillion times against lust. But if you lust at someone and they never know how are they or anyone else hurt? They're not lol. You've just offended God and defiled yourself. But you havent harmed anyone else.
@@GratiaPrima_ yes sin hurts others and that is wrong but sin hurts God the most. There are times where sins don’t hurt others but it’s kept hidden but it’s not hidden from God.
...Eh, I do not like that argument. There MUST be remoteness or limits of liability otherwise we are justifying a totalitarian state-be is communist or fascist or theocratic in nature.
Emergency Please join me in prayer for all those affected children families in dire earthquake in Peru may God help them they desperately need your prayers please pray for them God bless you all
Straight forward comment - one must use government because government will be used against you - as the ideology that the gun you didn't use is the gun that will be used against you. It is not a bad thing to defend yourself with the same tactics. However, I do agree a more civil course could be used. Unfortunately, we've gone so far down the hole that what's the alternative. Great discussion and keep up the great dialog.
Hi Allie, we appreciate your podcast! There is a whole group of Theonomic Libertarians out there, such as The Gospel Liberty Podcast, who do not root libertarianism in anything besides God's special revelation in Scripture. Just want to make sure that your audience knows that Libertarianism isn't in-and-of-itself a godless ideology. It depends what type we are talking about. Blessings!
I get that some people believe we should all have a core understanding that God is the foundation of our country's democracy and giver of our freedoms. The problem is, this assumes we all believe in a higher power, or the same one, and that there are no lunatics who will use that to further their own warped agendas based on perverted religious beliefs and politics. As an example, the KKK has historically used the "God, flag and home" gospel to fuel fear and insecurities and attract people to its cause of protecting white Protestant supremacy. I think we can agree that we are all born with certain inalienable or natural rights and freedoms. It's the privilege of being human. IMO, we don't have to agree on the why or the source. To say that we must have consensus on this only encourages religious intrusion, intolerance and abuse of power.
People don’t even seem to understand the point of freedom anymore. Freedom is so you’re free to do the right thing. To follow God’s will. The point is NOT that you’re free to do your own will.
You are confusing the free-will given by God and political freedom. Political freedom is freedom to worship or not worship whomever and however you want. Freedom to speak out against those you disagree with. Freedom of speech even if it offends.
@@pbmechura the concept comes from a political freedom situation. Moses told Pharaoh to let God’s people go (from their political bondage). He said okay, but leave your cattle. Moses said, no dice. We don’t know what God is going to ask of us to worship Him, we have to be completely free with all that we are.
Well, I think freedom to not harm others. If you choose to go against God's will at your own expense, you're permitted to do so. The government is supposed to wield the sword of justice, not legislate morality.
It's funny because over here in Europe, Libertarians are Marxist borderline anarchists. Their prime example was the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (National Confederation of Labor) as the confederal militias, together with POUM [Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista] (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification) All of which peaked during the Spanish Civil War in Catalonia. In contrast, in America, libertarians are ultra right-wing.
Enjoyed the debate .. Brad is an honest gay with an opinion not swayed by what is expected as a gay man! An an important note, Brad has great eyebrows. 😁
It’s tough. I want to be consistent with pushing against mandates & censorship, but of course not ALL actions ought to be tolerated; we need to be sure where the line is properly drawn. Conversations / interviews like this one are food for thought.
At the Constitution. If it's not an article 1 issue, leave it to the states. Conservatives and Christians really struggle with this, but abortion is a good example of something that's not a federal issue. It was never intended to be and never made one. If you want to change abortion, you have to start on the city level and state level first. It has to be a moral shift that brings the country together. Because using the fedeal government to make unpopular mandates, even if for a good cause, will only tear the country in half and further distance the people you're trying to reach
About the gay wedding cake thing, the problem sounds less to do with the slippery slope of gay marriage and more to do with private actors being allowed to discriminate. Instead of fighting against gay marriage, you should have fought against that clause in the Civil Rights Act disallowing private discrimination. That 'innocent person's life' comment was a low blow, Stuckey.
Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that he was buried and that he rose again the third day praying for everyone everyday God bless you all.
36:54 Good on Allie for pushing back on this tired platitude that we can just decide for ourselves what to value, it really exposes the fundamental emptiness of the libertarian view. Conservatism isn't inherently good, it is only good because what we aim to conserve stems from Biblical values. Also RIP "based", it had a good run 😔. I'm still holding on to it though.
@1800s kindaguy Could you expand on what you mean? My point was that those so-called "morals" have no real basis; you can't arrive at them from reason alone. Without a divine justification for right and wrong, the moral compass has no true north.
@1800s kindaguy Nah, you definitely don't sound religious 🙄. So what I'm getting from the claim that morals are the product of evolution is that they are based solely on utility; they make humans more productive and fitter for their environments. Of course, this necessarily implies moral relativism: under this definition of morality, tyrants who seize power and subjugate their citizens are living morally because they are thriving in their environment. Why by your terms is this not the case? Seems like you are making a Foucauldian claim whereby the ability of someone to gain and act on power is the only moral law. The idea that we can be guided by gut feelings is similarly shortsighted: things like gut feelings and even one's conscience is heavily, if not solely influenced by the social rules in which we are raised. A fundamentalist muslim in Iran would have the gut feeling that he should stone a woman accused of adultery, is he acting morally for following that feeling?
@1800s kindaguy You sound like you're in denial my friend. You correctly point out that letting your spirit within guide you is an important part of morality (because if you follow your biology, you're merely reacting, not choosing). But... how can you have a spirit that understands morals without a creator? With no creator, you're just a meaningless carbon based machine following its programming. You aren't moral or special and you certainly don't have value because you haven't been bestowed value. Neal's point is that these values make sense under a monotheistic worldview because you now have a source of your intrinsic value and a guide for your moral preceps.
Good and civil discussion, but she is very ignorant and presumptuous when it comes to the “why?” Do we have these inalienable rights I.e. freedom, liberty etc. The assumption that basic human rights need to be ordained by god/religion shows an extreme naïveté or perhaps narrow-mindedness. Brad doesn’t do a the best job of pushing back on this either. Morality isn’t exclusive to religion. And this debate is far older than America is; see John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes…
I think ABS does a good job of flushing out the particulars here, but also I think she does herself and other conservatives a disservice by trying to highlight these differences and that there's a fundamental problematic difference. ABS says she considers using government due to fears of how the left will use government. Fear is not a good decider. If we take the power from government, we do not have to fear what they can do with it.
Can one be a nationalist and populist at the same time? It seems like everyone has different definitions for these words and nobody knows what anyone means
You have just stumbled across the modus operandi of the "New Britons"; their sole loyalty is to their family, their clan and their tribe. The nation as a whole means nothing to them. Milk the state, game the market. Vote Corbynite, live capitalist. The mentality of the crafty peasant.
A Christian can be a libertarian, but NOT a libertine. Many libertarians are really libertines - the idea that there are no rules on morals. Anybody who believes in following the U.S. Constitution is libertarian. The type of government prescribed by the Bible is libertarian, but not libertine. For practical effectiveness libertarians should be Republicans and try to move the Republican Party towards smaller government.
The Constitution isn't exactly libertarian. It has a scale of libertarianism. The greater the power, the more limited it is. This is why the states had such broad rights under the original understanding of the Constitution
@@sivad1025 - The FEDERAL government would be libertarian if it were followed to the letter. The federal government would be very small. State governments could be libertarian, but not necessarily.
@@Nimish204 Back when it became legal I was moderate left. But I was shouting no, don't do it. I moved more left years after. Then saw the right push back and said told ya so. I don't want to get into details but the Cathoic church/pope and CNN etc are sick. I'm planning to vote republican next time but not feeling good about either side
What does Mr. Polumbo mean by "common good?" Catholics believe a common good is indivisible one that everyone can have equally. For example, everyone in the audience can enjoy an opera.. The Catholic Church probably give that example. But you see what I mean.
Emergency Please join me in prayer for all those affected children families in dire situation in north Carolina fertilizer plant out of control fire mass evacuations firefighters pulled back they desperately need your prayers please pray for them God bless you all
This episode was like pulling teeth. The numbers and enthusiasm behind the liberty movement is not the Brad types. It's the likes of Ron Paul, Dave Smith and Michael Malice. As far as Allie goes, how is it possible to be so firmly pro-life, yet support a GOP that has killed millions of men, women and children over the decades in evil wars of imperialism and war profiteering? I share a personal belief in evangelical christianity, yet I cannot pretend that conservatism is more in line with my religious beliefs than the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism.
There are many areas in which I do find his argument lacking, albeit, his are more complex & must be properly thought out and have knowledge of what many of the words truly mean- such as Rights & Liberty. Speech rebuttal to Biological males who claim they are female being allowed in female spaces and teams IF it is a private institution/ business, is not truly the same harm, overall, and where speech does sincerely cause harm, we do have laws that govern. For example- Libel/ Gossip, smearing of someone’s character to destroy them w/o objective evidence-> even scripture says Gossip/ libel slander are mortal level sins because it ‘kills’ the soul of another. Having rights are not a free pass to do whatever. With rights comes responsibility. The greater the harm (ie- national media w/ 10’s to 100’s of thousands of viewers vs some kid or some private citizen posting on social media to their 1,000 followers have very different harm potential, and should not be equally punished); or regarding “let live”.. Well it depends upon what we are permitting to ignore. Gender reassignment surgeries is medical butchering of healthy organs of someone who is clearly not in a strong mental situation. Because of the grace harms that can occur, which are permanent, the regulation over this must be far stricter and have very strict guidance over when such procedure is justified (1 of which must be that the person knows it will not make them truly this other gender)
@@joaogabryellrucks3788 what should we do then?everything the LGBTQIAP+ is outside of GODS WILL and outside of THE GOD GOVERNMENT ORDAINED WILL,this is purely wicked
Theological foundation ??? For what purpose was "the sword" given? Was it given so that those in authority can pick winners and losers with tax policy? Or with regulation? Or trade policy? The danger of using "the sword" for charity is that it is impossible to draw a firm line and say "I will do this much good, and no more"; and the only way for those in authority to do more good is to have more power and more resources to do good with. There is no ideological or philosophical limit on doing good. At 37 minutes... We see the practical purpose of separating civil and ecclesiastical authority. The civil authority which bears the sword only uses it to fight against those who do evil. This is the structure which permits religious liberty. The lower boundaries of human behavior are policed with the sword, and the higher virtues are extolled with persuasion by religious authorities. Call it a separation of labor if you wish.
The sword is given for God's judgment. So I tend to agree. Although, I think Leviticus 19 does provide a good foundation for using the government for redistribution to the poor in some capacity. Not in the way our welfare state works, but there is a Biblical precedent for compelling charity to the poor to avoid the hoarding of goods. That's my understanding at least
@@sivad1025 - Did that "redistribution' go through the king, or through the temple? One of the many real dangers of "doing good with the sword" is that it is nearly impossible to draw a firm line and say that you will do this much good, and no more. If you wish to do more good, you will need more resources and more power. There is no ideological or philosophical limit to the amount of good that can be done if you have the resources and power to do it; and thus there is no limit to the resources and power that someone may seek in order to do more good. This dynamic is seen in virtually all government programs whose purpose is to "help" those in need. There will be some who find themselves just outside of a qualifications window, and they will petition for themselves to be included in the program. For the politicians spending someone else's money, the urge to do more good is difficult to suppress. But, they will need just a smidgen more resources and power in order to do more good. The program expands. With the structure of charity going through the temple, those who are in a position to distribute charity never have the sword at their disposal, in order to prevent the corrupting temptation to compel others to do good.
@@jamesbuchanan3888 See, I agree with all that. My point is that there is a legislative mandate in the Bible to give up a proportion of your goods to the poor. That tells me that God intends for there to exist prohibitions on hoarding. Does this mean that the government should spend other people's money? Well, probably not. I vehemently oppose the welfare state. But I think you could perhaps to justify mandated charity giving or use the government to break up monopoly power. You do run into the limiting principle issue. But pure economic libertarianism is just as bad. You have the same issues only now the abusers are private individuals and not public ones.
@@sivad1025 - Note our different focus. I am focusing on structure, and how it can provide balance between extremes. Returning a portion to God is a means to do several things simultaneously. 1 - The wealthy regularly acknowledge the source of their wealth, which helps provide humility. 2 - It provides the crippled, widows, and orphans a place to go for daily bread and a structure for their lives. They were still expected to do what they could do, despite their limitations. 3 - It keeps the priests busy with real world problems instead of ivory towers. 4 - Example to other nations 5 - Emergency storehouse for times of drought or famine A prohibition on hoarding ??? God did that with rot, decay, rust, and death. The prohibition is against having your faith rest in material possessions.
@@jamesbuchanan3888 You're arguing for a world where the rich can buy all the resources in the world and prevent the lower class from having any means to a healthy life. I agree that Christians should give charity. But I think it's absurd to have no government intervention to protect the poor from the most powerful in society.
They are no 2 types of people (those that follow CHRIST and those that are ANTICHRIST)In ADAM OR CHRIST,THE BOND WOMAN OR THE FREE WOMAN,RIGHTEOUS OR UNRIGHTEOUS,GODLY OR UNGODLY,LIGHT OR DARKNESS,BITTER OR SWEET,MOUNT SIANI OR MOUNT ZION,GOD OR MAMMAN,GOOD OR BAD,RIGHT OR WRONG,they are no NUANCES IN THIS.
“I don’t want to use the Government to shut down my enemies” - Let’s use the Supreme Court. 😂 ok buddy He doesn’t see the irony in that at all, you’re using the gov, just in a way you’ve been taught is acceptable for your ideology.
He supports freedom of speech, religious toleration, open and free markets, cutting government spending, lowering tax rates, opposing wokeness, lowering regulation, and pursuing a non-intervention foreign policy. How is that liberal? You don’t know what you’re talking about!
Thanks again for having me. I had a blast and this was a refreshingly polite, substantive convo on such an important debate.
Keep searching I think you’re one of the smart ones! Have you read Person of Interest by J Warner Wallace? I loved and agreed with much of your point of view👍🏼
@@ritapacheco8084 No, I haven't, I'll have to check it out! Thank you.
I'm just watching this a year later, after watching your debate with Knowles earlier today. I have to say, this is a breath of fresh air. Allie, the way you navigate this conversation is admirable. Brad, the way you articulate your points - you are always teaching me something. The conversation between the two of you clarified your own points and let the other clarify theirs in a way that is so mature, thoughtful, inspiring, even warming. Allie I appreciate how thoughtful you are in your responses and how present you are with Brad, really making it about the conversation, the connection, finding places to align, and just being present. This is one of the better ones and it is a model of how a good-faith, genuine conversation can go. This is the kind of conversation that creates actual change - not just ego boosts. Kudos to you both. And no shade to anyone else but just really want to say you're both modeling a better way forward.
It’s refreshing to see a healthy and respectful discussion with differing points of view.
I learned SO MUCH from this conversation. Also, thank you, Allie, for being a great example of how to have these debates.
This was so good. I consider myself a conservative because of my Christian faith, but politically libertarian rather than Republican (though I generally would vote Republican or Libertarian depending on the candidate). Allie I love your show, and loved this guest. Biblically I agree with you but I found myself agreeing with his view of American government rather than the big government push from some Republicans. 👏 👏 👏 great debate. This is what we need right now. I agree with Brad, I still want to believe we can fight good ideas with bad ideas. But I also see how we might be too far gone for that.
Conservatives should acknowledge the middle ground. The government needs to be more libertarian the bigger it is. A big federal government is highly coercive and not a place where moral values can be adequately represented (hence why the Founders devised the federalist system). But local governments like your city or county shouldn't be libertarian at all otherwise you'll live in a community with no shared values and cyclical conflict. We've seen at the school board meetings how being hands off and apathetic towards local government can completely destroy communal values.
I don't know any Republicans that are for big government.
Allie, this was great!! What an interesting interview. I loved how respectful you both were to each other.
Very good debate. Thoughtful, intelligent, and respectful. Thank you
My favorite moment was probably the pressing “Why-” question at 54:21.
Very interesting and informative show. Thank you again
Conservative literally means to conserve. Some elements of power/government need to be used to do so, and conservatives believe that there are things that are morally right and wrong. This guy said “traditional conservative” and then mentioned free market capitalism and liberty. While those things are part of conservatism, they are not traditional conservatism at all, and from his social views etc, he would actually be considered more of a neo-Con. In other words, he’s got it backwards (as to what is “traditional”).
Exactly! "Libertarians" are gussied up "money-talks" ahistorical Libertines. They are not Conservatives at all. The USA's post-WW2 GOP was based on "Fusionism" fusing Traditional Conservatives and so-called Libertarians (post WW2 anti-Soviet imports). I studied this stuff at Harvard in classes. Traditional Conservatism is global and nothing whatsoever like Libertarians. You hit the nail on the head.
Free markets and liberty are conservative in the sense that we have a right to property and liberty and the burden of proof falls upon those infringing upon property and liberty.
The difference with libertarians is that they hold that burden of proof so high that property and liberty aren't restricted even when they should be
@@sivad1025 Here's one speech by a non-Catholic promoter of National Conservatism. Oh, and "nationalism" is not a euphemism for militarism. TV uses all these terms the wrong way. Nationalism is reciprocal, and American Nationalists start by honoring elections in Hungary, Venezuela and Costa Rica. *Yoram Hazony: Why National Conservatism? - National Conservatism Conference.* ua-cam.com/video/4cpyd1OqHJU/v-deo.html
very well said
@@scottmcloughlin4371 That fact you went to leftist Harvard explains your definition.
Brad does have a good point here...
He certainly does! And the best part is that he's not religious.
Libertarianism is a healthier and consistent philosophy than conservatism. The latter is focused on tradition and nationalism while the former is Enlightenment liberalism.
I agree. As a libertarian, I have tolerance towards anyone, even those who disagree, and we should be able to debate without attacking anyone’s character. I know that traditional values are important for many people, but my problem with conservatism is that that the ideology wants to implement the traditional beliefs into government. As a libertarian, I believe that libertarianism would be good for traditional values because we can allow them to live their lives, while people who are not interested in traditional values can also live their lives without any interference from anyone. I push back against both the right and the left, but it would be better to push back against those ideas without having to resort to attack someone’s character.
I like libertarianism in principle, but I've come to the John Adams view that a freedom-based system like ours is only adequate to govern a moral and religious people. It boils down to the "this is why we can't have nice things" problem: freedom is great until everyone starts abusing it.
But if the society does not have good morals you are going to be in an even greater nightmare under authoritarian system.
@@JB-pd3ir That's kind of the point; if the populace is godless and immoral then no form of government can offer you a good life. But I'd personally rather have a dictator who executes violent criminals than live in a world where violent criminals are free to run amok...
@@lukedornon7799 Have you ever looked into the concepts of positive and negative rights?
@@user-qp6lj6gu7s The point being?
@@lukedornon7799 None yet, it's a question. The reason I am asking is because what people call freedom varies a lot
I’m a conservative libertarian. We probably agree on most things, which is why I follow you. 😆
Meaning you support conservative values but don't want the government involved? Or you're a default libertarian who supports conservative values in some cases?
@@sivad1025 yes I support conservative values and I want the government involved as little as possible. Abortion needs to be abolished. Things that hurt people need to have action taken against them, but we need to be able to live our lives. Make sense?
@@breannawilliamson9787 It is important to realize that a lot of ground has been lost in the last 50 years and I do blame part of that on libertarian naivete; so now more than ever is the time to wield political power to conserve the good, the true, and the beautiful. The libertarian inclination of "less government is always better" or "as long as it doesn't effect me personally" has only helped Democrats. We have to realize that there is no such thing as small government in a country of 330 million people and we will continue to lose ground if we do not start to bring the fight to the Democrats instead of simply playing defense.
Brad is beyond Allie’s league! He is more knowledgeable and consistent.
Love that he has Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics book! I am slowly chipping away at it.
I was just watching an interview and Thomas said he recommended that book over all his others. Bought instantly
Hands down, Brad Polumbos perspective and vision of how we should function as a society would genuinely be THE SAVIOR of our planet. Its BALANCED. It has the ability to mesh with everyone, if only everyone could be as open minded and emotionally intelligent on BOTH sides.
Not saying that Allie Beth is wrong, its just that there are a lot of us in the center that identify more with the right, but also find it so hard to commit because of its rigid and unforgiving nature.
Enjoying the listen.
He believes sex and gender are different?! Yikes!
But it is though
@@nelsonvazquez8104 nope
@@cappylover192 but they are your biological sex is your consists of your sex chromosomes, sex hormones and genitalia. While your gender deals with with your psychological identity of your your own assigned sex. The reason why scientists differentiate the two gender and sex is because you could have Gerald swyer syndrome were your a person could be born as a girl with female genitalia but has XY chromosomes but they identify with being a girl or a person who has XX male syndrome is born a boy with male genitalia but has XX chromosomes but identifies as a boy still
That's not what he said. He said there's a difference between sexual orientation and gender identity. Which there absolutely is.
@@yellowjello7501 that’s exactly what he said. You just repeated what I said.
Personal becomes interpersonal really quickly because sin always affects others. There are NO private, personal sins.
Yes there are lol. The bible speaks a bazillion times against lust. But if you lust at someone and they never know how are they or anyone else hurt? They're not lol. You've just offended God and defiled yourself. But you havent harmed anyone else.
Depends on your definition of sin. Not everyone agrees on that.
@@dg-sl5jb yeah, what’s in your heart totally doesn’t affect your actions and how you treat people. Not at all. You’re right.
🤨
@@GratiaPrima_ yes sin hurts others and that is wrong but sin hurts God the most. There are times where sins don’t hurt others but it’s kept hidden but it’s not hidden from God.
...Eh, I do not like that argument.
There MUST be remoteness or limits of liability otherwise we are justifying a totalitarian state-be is communist or fascist or theocratic in nature.
Emergency Please join me in prayer for all those affected children families in dire earthquake in Peru may God help them they desperately need your prayers please pray for them God bless you all
Praying
Straight forward comment - one must use government because government will be used against you - as the ideology that the gun you didn't use is the gun that will be used against you. It is not a bad thing to defend yourself with the same tactics.
However, I do agree a more civil course could be used. Unfortunately, we've gone so far down the hole that what's the alternative.
Great discussion and keep up the great dialog.
Hi Allie, we appreciate your podcast! There is a whole group of Theonomic Libertarians out there, such as The Gospel Liberty Podcast, who do not root libertarianism in anything besides God's special revelation in Scripture. Just want to make sure that your audience knows that Libertarianism isn't in-and-of-itself a godless ideology. It depends what type we are talking about. Blessings!
I get that some people believe we should all have a core understanding that God is the foundation of our country's democracy and giver of our freedoms. The problem is, this assumes we all believe in a higher power, or the same one, and that there are no lunatics who will use that to further their own warped agendas based on perverted religious beliefs and politics. As an example, the KKK has historically used the "God, flag and home" gospel to fuel fear and insecurities and attract people to its cause of protecting white Protestant supremacy. I think we can agree that we are all born with certain inalienable or natural rights and freedoms. It's the privilege of being human. IMO, we don't have to agree on the why or the source. To say that we must have consensus on this only encourages religious intrusion, intolerance and abuse of power.
I agree with you!
People don’t even seem to understand the point of freedom anymore. Freedom is so you’re free to do the right thing. To follow God’s will. The point is NOT that you’re free to do your own will.
You are confusing the free-will given by God and political freedom. Political freedom is freedom to worship or not worship whomever and however you want. Freedom to speak out against those you disagree with. Freedom of speech even if it offends.
@@pbmechura the concept comes from a political freedom situation. Moses told Pharaoh to let God’s people go (from their political bondage). He said okay, but leave your cattle. Moses said, no dice. We don’t know what God is going to ask of us to worship Him, we have to be completely free with all that we are.
Liberty not licentiousness. Amen
@@ariellochner4479 amen, absolutely.
Well, I think freedom to not harm others. If you choose to go against God's will at your own expense, you're permitted to do so. The government is supposed to wield the sword of justice, not legislate morality.
Well damn, maybe I'm a libertarian.
It's funny because over here in Europe, Libertarians are Marxist borderline anarchists. Their prime example was the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo (National Confederation of Labor) as the confederal militias, together with POUM [Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista] (Workers' Party of Marxist Unification)
All of which peaked during the Spanish Civil War in Catalonia.
In contrast, in America, libertarians are ultra right-wing.
Enjoyed the debate .. Brad is an honest gay with an opinion not swayed by what is expected as a gay man! An an important note, Brad has great eyebrows. 😁
It’s tough. I want to be consistent with pushing against mandates & censorship, but of course not ALL actions ought to be tolerated; we need to be sure where the line is properly drawn. Conversations / interviews like this one are food for thought.
At the Constitution. If it's not an article 1 issue, leave it to the states. Conservatives and Christians really struggle with this, but abortion is a good example of something that's not a federal issue. It was never intended to be and never made one. If you want to change abortion, you have to start on the city level and state level first. It has to be a moral shift that brings the country together. Because using the fedeal government to make unpopular mandates, even if for a good cause, will only tear the country in half and further distance the people you're trying to reach
There are plenty of actions that should not be tolerated but WHO should be doing the pushback: private actors within civil society or the government?
Thought he was Steve-O at first glance 🤣
Conservatives tend to see power and rights from God.
Libertarians see it from the individual
I'm an Atheist, and still a conservative!
Social Conservative or economical Conservative?
About the gay wedding cake thing, the problem sounds less to do with the slippery slope of gay marriage and more to do with private actors being allowed to discriminate.
Instead of fighting against gay marriage, you should have fought against that clause in the Civil Rights Act disallowing private discrimination.
That 'innocent person's life' comment was a low blow, Stuckey.
Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that he was buried and that he rose again the third day praying for everyone everyday God bless you all.
36:54 Good on Allie for pushing back on this tired platitude that we can just decide for ourselves what to value, it really exposes the fundamental emptiness of the libertarian view. Conservatism isn't inherently good, it is only good because what we aim to conserve stems from Biblical values.
Also RIP "based", it had a good run 😔. I'm still holding on to it though.
@1800s kindaguy Could you expand on what you mean? My point was that those so-called "morals" have no real basis; you can't arrive at them from reason alone. Without a divine justification for right and wrong, the moral compass has no true north.
@1800s kindaguy Nah, you definitely don't sound religious 🙄. So what I'm getting from the claim that morals are the product of evolution is that they are based solely on utility; they make humans more productive and fitter for their environments. Of course, this necessarily implies moral relativism: under this definition of morality, tyrants who seize power and subjugate their citizens are living morally because they are thriving in their environment. Why by your terms is this not the case? Seems like you are making a Foucauldian claim whereby the ability of someone to gain and act on power is the only moral law.
The idea that we can be guided by gut feelings is similarly shortsighted: things like gut feelings and even one's conscience is heavily, if not solely influenced by the social rules in which we are raised. A fundamentalist muslim in Iran would have the gut feeling that he should stone a woman accused of adultery, is he acting morally for following that feeling?
@1800s kindaguy You sound like you're in denial my friend. You correctly point out that letting your spirit within guide you is an important part of morality (because if you follow your biology, you're merely reacting, not choosing).
But... how can you have a spirit that understands morals without a creator? With no creator, you're just a meaningless carbon based machine following its programming. You aren't moral or special and you certainly don't have value because you haven't been bestowed value.
Neal's point is that these values make sense under a monotheistic worldview because you now have a source of your intrinsic value and a guide for your moral preceps.
@@sivad1025 we are given a God given conscious and we even go against our own Conscious….so we need accountability from someone beyond human laws.
Even if you believe in God, there's no objective morality. There's just God's morality.
TOLERANCE IN THE SIGHT OF EVIL IS EVIL,no NUANCE HERE
Good and civil discussion, but she is very ignorant and presumptuous when it comes to the “why?” Do we have these inalienable rights I.e. freedom, liberty etc.
The assumption that basic human rights need to be ordained by god/religion shows an extreme naïveté or perhaps narrow-mindedness. Brad doesn’t do a the best job of pushing back on this either.
Morality isn’t exclusive to religion. And this debate is far older than America is; see John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Thomas Hobbes…
I think ABS does a good job of flushing out the particulars here, but also I think she does herself and other conservatives a disservice by trying to highlight these differences and that there's a fundamental problematic difference. ABS says she considers using government due to fears of how the left will use government. Fear is not a good decider. If we take the power from government, we do not have to fear what they can do with it.
Can one be a nationalist and populist at the same time? It seems like everyone has different definitions for these words and nobody knows what anyone means
You cannot make a truce with the world,the world will love its own
amazing video
We need an honest government, not playing the stock market and making your family rich,
You have just stumbled across the modus operandi of the "New Britons"; their sole loyalty is to their family, their clan and their tribe. The nation as a whole means nothing to them. Milk the state, game the market. Vote Corbynite, live capitalist. The mentality of the crafty peasant.
A Christian can be a libertarian, but NOT a libertine. Many libertarians are really libertines - the idea that there are no rules on morals. Anybody who believes in following the U.S. Constitution is libertarian. The type of government prescribed by the Bible is libertarian, but not libertine. For practical effectiveness libertarians should be Republicans and try to move the Republican Party towards smaller government.
The Constitution isn't exactly libertarian. It has a scale of libertarianism. The greater the power, the more limited it is. This is why the states had such broad rights under the original understanding of the Constitution
@@sivad1025 - The FEDERAL government would be libertarian if it were followed to the letter. The federal government would be very small. State governments could be libertarian, but not necessarily.
The Constitution isn't libertarian. It gives way too much power to the States.
@@Nimish204 Agreed.
There ARE rules of morality but they RIGHTLY distrust the government from enforcing them.
What a perfect example of overton window shift the way he mentioned making gay marriage illegal.
But we love liberty. The irony is palpable.
@@Nimish204 Back when it became legal I was moderate left. But I was shouting no, don't do it. I moved more left years after. Then saw the right push back and said told ya so. I don't want to get into details but the Cathoic church/pope and CNN etc are sick. I'm planning to vote republican next time but not feeling good about either side
And "Based" did not originate in the black community at all 🤣
Tucker is a conservative populist. I get what he means by Nationalist now. *update* I wrote this before he said it lol
This dudes crazy eyes are scaring me.
What does Mr. Polumbo mean by "common good?" Catholics believe a common good is indivisible one that everyone can have equally. For example, everyone in the audience can enjoy an opera.. The Catholic Church probably give that example. But you see what I mean.
Emergency Please join me in prayer for all those affected children families in dire situation in north Carolina fertilizer plant out of control fire mass evacuations firefighters pulled back they desperately need your prayers please pray for them God bless you all
Loved all the pushback Allie!
This episode was like pulling teeth. The numbers and enthusiasm behind the liberty movement is not the Brad types. It's the likes of Ron Paul, Dave Smith and Michael Malice.
As far as Allie goes, how is it possible to be so firmly pro-life, yet support a GOP that has killed millions of men, women and children over the decades in evil wars of imperialism and war profiteering?
I share a personal belief in evangelical christianity, yet I cannot pretend that conservatism is more in line with my religious beliefs than the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism.
He correlated Tucker to big government. Lol
PANDORAS BOX IS ALREADY OPEN
14:00
Ok bye
There are many areas in which I do find his argument lacking, albeit, his are more complex & must be properly thought out and have knowledge of what many of the words truly mean- such as Rights & Liberty.
Speech rebuttal to Biological males who claim they are female being allowed in female spaces and teams IF it is a private institution/ business, is not truly the same harm, overall, and where speech does sincerely cause harm, we do have laws that govern.
For example- Libel/ Gossip, smearing of someone’s character to destroy them w/o objective evidence-> even scripture says Gossip/ libel slander are mortal level sins because it ‘kills’ the soul of another.
Having rights are not a free pass to do whatever. With rights comes responsibility. The greater the harm (ie- national media w/ 10’s to 100’s of thousands of viewers vs some kid or some private citizen posting on social media to their 1,000 followers have very different harm potential, and should not be equally punished); or regarding “let live”.. Well it depends upon what we are permitting to ignore. Gender reassignment surgeries is medical butchering of healthy organs of someone who is clearly not in a strong mental situation. Because of the grace harms that can occur, which are permanent, the regulation over this must be far stricter and have very strict guidance over when such procedure is justified (1 of which must be that the person knows it will not make them truly this other gender)
For one,Drag Queen hour is SINFUL
That is no reason to make it illegal
@@joaogabryellrucks3788 what should we do then?everything the LGBTQIAP+ is outside of GODS WILL and outside of THE GOD GOVERNMENT ORDAINED WILL,this is purely wicked
This guy is bogus.
He is not based at all. John Doyle would eviscerate this guy. Would really really like to see him get on this podcast
John Doyle is a little tyrant
LOL when this guy said something about basically the auth right, I instantly thought of Doyle.
Doyle is based
John Doyle is a fanatic anyway. And the guy said he no longer aspired to the term "based."
Too civilised for my liking.
If your society does not have the standard of God's work in the law, the society will fall apart....
Based is just slang for “good point”, no?
The bottomline is this,the Spirit of ANTICHRIST is at work here,Making way for thee ANTICHRIST
Being a voluntaryist, I find both of them to be logically and morally inconsistent.
This guy is purely IMMORAL
@@TheLifeOfMrT we don't where the limiting principle is. It's surely not God.
He's definitely not! Just because he's not religious, doesn't mean he's immoral. TF?!
Allie using modern lingo. "Based." Lol 🤣
Theological foundation ???
For what purpose was "the sword" given?
Was it given so that those in authority can pick winners and losers with tax policy? Or with regulation? Or trade policy?
The danger of using "the sword" for charity is that it is impossible to draw a firm line and say "I will do this much good, and no more"; and the only way for those in authority to do more good is to have more power and more resources to do good with. There is no ideological or philosophical limit on doing good.
At 37 minutes... We see the practical purpose of separating civil and ecclesiastical authority. The civil authority which bears the sword only uses it to fight against those who do evil. This is the structure which permits religious liberty. The lower boundaries of human behavior are policed with the sword, and the higher virtues are extolled with persuasion by religious authorities. Call it a separation of labor if you wish.
The sword is given for God's judgment. So I tend to agree.
Although, I think Leviticus 19 does provide a good foundation for using the government for redistribution to the poor in some capacity. Not in the way our welfare state works, but there is a Biblical precedent for compelling charity to the poor to avoid the hoarding of goods. That's my understanding at least
@@sivad1025 - Did that "redistribution' go through the king, or through the temple?
One of the many real dangers of "doing good with the sword" is that it is nearly impossible to draw a firm line and say that you will do this much good, and no more. If you wish to do more good, you will need more resources and more power. There is no ideological or philosophical limit to the amount of good that can be done if you have the resources and power to do it; and thus there is no limit to the resources and power that someone may seek in order to do more good. This dynamic is seen in virtually all government programs whose purpose is to "help" those in need. There will be some who find themselves just outside of a qualifications window, and they will petition for themselves to be included in the program. For the politicians spending someone else's money, the urge to do more good is difficult to suppress. But, they will need just a smidgen more resources and power in order to do more good. The program expands.
With the structure of charity going through the temple, those who are in a position to distribute charity never have the sword at their disposal, in order to prevent the corrupting temptation to compel others to do good.
@@jamesbuchanan3888 See, I agree with all that. My point is that there is a legislative mandate in the Bible to give up a proportion of your goods to the poor. That tells me that God intends for there to exist prohibitions on hoarding.
Does this mean that the government should spend other people's money? Well, probably not. I vehemently oppose the welfare state. But I think you could perhaps to justify mandated charity giving or use the government to break up monopoly power.
You do run into the limiting principle issue. But pure economic libertarianism is just as bad. You have the same issues only now the abusers are private individuals and not public ones.
@@sivad1025 - Note our different focus. I am focusing on structure, and how it can provide balance between extremes. Returning a portion to God is a means to do several things simultaneously.
1 - The wealthy regularly acknowledge the source of their wealth, which helps provide humility.
2 - It provides the crippled, widows, and orphans a place to go for daily bread and a structure for their lives. They were still expected to do what they could do, despite their limitations.
3 - It keeps the priests busy with real world problems instead of ivory towers.
4 - Example to other nations
5 - Emergency storehouse for times of drought or famine
A prohibition on hoarding ??? God did that with rot, decay, rust, and death. The prohibition is against having your faith rest in material possessions.
@@jamesbuchanan3888 You're arguing for a world where the rich can buy all the resources in the world and prevent the lower class from having any means to a healthy life. I agree that Christians should give charity. But I think it's absurd to have no government intervention to protect the poor from the most powerful in society.
GOVERNMENT WILL GET WORSE AND WORSE DECEIVING AND BEING DECEIVED
They are no 2 types of people (those that follow CHRIST and those that are ANTICHRIST)In ADAM OR CHRIST,THE BOND WOMAN OR THE FREE WOMAN,RIGHTEOUS OR UNRIGHTEOUS,GODLY OR UNGODLY,LIGHT OR DARKNESS,BITTER OR SWEET,MOUNT SIANI OR MOUNT ZION,GOD OR MAMMAN,GOOD OR BAD,RIGHT OR WRONG,they are no NUANCES IN THIS.
Do you guys know that "based" has a definition? It's about not caring of what others think of you. Elijah is right: Based is cringe now.
These people need the GOSPEL,nothing else
Allie,you need to REBUKE REPROVE EXHORT WITH ALL LONG SUFFERING AND DOCTRINE,this guy needs to REPENT
Lol I’m a growing more and more annoyed with this dude’s normie takes 😂😂
I went to school with him but he doesn’t believe in god and that clouds his judgement. Smart fella tho
WHAT AMERICA NEEDS TO DO IS REPENT
“I don’t want to use the Government to shut down my enemies” - Let’s use the Supreme Court.
😂 ok buddy
He doesn’t see the irony in that at all, you’re using the gov, just in a way you’ve been taught is acceptable for your ideology.
Allie put this poor guy through the ringer lol
"Based debate"? HAHAHAHAHAHA
libertarians like him are not allies. He's basically a liberal
He supports freedom of speech, religious toleration, open and free markets, cutting government spending, lowering tax rates, opposing wokeness, lowering regulation, and pursuing a non-intervention foreign policy. How is that liberal? You don’t know what you’re talking about!
@@skylarhillman1455 conservatives don’t know the difference between liberals and libertarians.
@@FernandoRodriguez-ts3oy And that’s why they are clowns
Allie: “Whah whah liberty but everyone agrees with my neo-conservative Christianity whah whah.” Authoritarian Christianity