Largely libertarian

Another refugee from the 9th century is running for office.

Scott Esk is running for House District 91 state representative.

On his website, he says he is a conservative who wants to apply biblical principles to Oklahoma law.

But some are saying his views are extreme.

But? What do you mean but? Anybody who wants to apply biblical principles to any kind of law is extreme by definition.

Morris said, “This guy posted on Facebook that homosexuals should be stoned to death. My first response was you’re nuts, nobody would be stupid enough to do that.”

Morris says he found those postings from last summer on Facebook.

At the time, Esk had commented on a story about the pope saying “Who am I to judge?” on homosexuality.

Esk posted some old testament scripture that referred to homosexuality being punished.

Someone asked – “So just to be clear, you think we should execute homosexuals (presumably by stoning)?”

Esk responds – “I think we would be totally in the right to do it. That goes against some parts of libertarianism, I realize, and I’m largely libertarian, but ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death is very remiss.”

Worthy of death. That’s biblical principles for you.


  1. busterggi says

    You’d think someone like Esk might at least agree to raising the bible’s price for raping one’s daughter from 50 shekels to at least a dollar, but that would be like opposing Jesus’ stand against having minimum wages.

  2. Shatterface says

    But? What do you mean but? Anybody who wants to apply biblical principles to any kind of law is extreme by definition

    What the US needs is some kind of constitution that prohibits this kind of thing.

  3. says

    He’s “largely libertarian,” but he’s willing to strip others of their lives and liberties when a certain group of authoritarians say so. So much for libertarians being “consistent” defenders of individual liberty.

  4. Robert B. says

    “Some parts”? I have a my disagreements with libertarianism, but I’m not aware of [i]any[/i] part of it that would be okay with stoning people to death for being gay.

  5. says

    Thankfully, Esk is up against four other candidates, none of whom have been drinking quite as much of the Old Testament Kool-Aid.

    Incidentally, he also believes in imprisoning people who enforce the ACA.

  6. A Masked Avenger says

    Raging Bee,

    He’s “largely libertarian,” but he’s willing to strip others of their lives and liberties when a certain group of authoritarians say so.

    Being “largely libertarian, except when I’m stoning teh gayz,” is equivalent to being “largely feminist, except when I’m harassing my women employees.” I.e., it’s your basic hypocrisy.

    So much for libertarians being “consistent” defenders of individual liberty.

    I’ve met lots of libertarians, as I traveled in their circles for a while, and I can count on one hand the ones that didn’t turn out to be hypocrites. Nevertheless, this man’s hypocrisy doesn’t translate directly into an indictment of “libertarians,” any more than Shermer’s treatment of women would justify saying, “So much for atheists being ‘moral’ defenders of ‘human rights.'”

    My favorite test for libertarian hypocrisy, BTW, is to point out that one’s spouse is a free agent, and if they decide to have an affair, they are free to. Immoral? I’d say so. Grounds for divorce? Absolutely. But laying a finger on the spouse, their paramour, or either of their stuff, would be some combination of assault, vandalism, theft and harassment. No libertarian that I’ve tried this on has passed the test to date. All have confessed they would assault their spouse, or hir lover, or would destroy the spouse’s possessions or hir lover’s vehicle.

    For bonus points I sometimes phrase it in the first person, and say, “If your wife wants to talk to me, she’s free to. In fact if she wants to have an affair with me, there’s nothing you can do about it except divorce her. Assaulting her or me would be a crime.” Whenever I phrase it that way, they instantly become enraged and usually threaten my life for doing this in a thought experiment, let alone IRL.

    (For my part, what libertarian leanings I still have, and what feminism I’ve managed to develop, intersect in the realization that this is true of my wife. She can leave me at any time–including because she loves another man or woman–and my only recourse as a civilized being is to let her go. Surprisingly, this has done wonders for the quality of my marriage.)

  7. Gordon Willis says

    ignoring as a nation things that are worthy of death

    He’s a nutcase. A Rodger (my feelings, therefore kill) with pretensions to divine authority.


    nobody would be stupid enough to do that

    Not stupid, how dare he buck the issue like that! it’s downright wicked. And before anyone says “he’s not wicked, he’s sick ”, let me point out that entertaining wicked thoughts (like “I don’t care about stretch jeans but gag homo… yugh sex… retch — and I’m right ’cos Bible ”) makes you sick.

  8. Lonely Panda, e.s.l. says

    I was browsing his web site earlier this week. His views on divorce aren’t any better. He want to eliminated incompatibility as acceptable grounds for divorce.

    In business contracts, both parties are held to their part of the contract unless they mutually agree to scrap it. Why are we allowing for the treachery of the whim in marriages, which are much more important unions than business partnerships? I also don’t buy into the notion that it’s unfair to make somebody stay in a marriage he’s unhappy with.

    It seems like there might be some axe grinding

    Frivolous divorce raised its ugly head in the Esk home, and I am still trying to reconcile with Pam, considering that to be our only option from my understanding of the Bible on marriage and divorce. From my experience with the ‘family’ courts, I am dedicated to saving Oklahoma children from the chaos and misery of frivolous divorce, and am wholeheartedly against no-fault divorce.

  9. A Masked Avenger says


    There goes the Left, confusing the religious right and libertarians again.

    Technically, self-identified libertarians are slightly less likely (58% vs. 61%) to believe in a personal god than a random American, and quite a bit less than tea partiers (73%) and white evangelicals (90%). And yes, I note with interest but not much surprise that apparently 10% of white evangelicals are essentially atheist.

    They’re also less likely to be biblical literalists (19% versus 28% of Americans), attend church regularly (22% versus 31%), oppose abortion (43% versus 58% of Republicans). They’re also more likely to support marriage equality (40% versus 27% of tea partiers or 19% of Republicans).

    None of that adds up to “lets all go be libertarians,” but there are meaningful differences between libertarians, tea partiers, and Republicans. Differences that are somewhat obscured by the overlap between those three sets, by the tendency for politicians to portray themselves as belonging to more than one group at once, and by the fact that some people identify with one group on some issues, and another on others.


  10. iknklast says

    May I point out, this is Oklahoma? THAT Oklahoma? The same one that elected Sally Kern to public office, and elevated James “Global Warming is the greatest hoax perpetrated on mankind” Inhofe to the US Senate, where he has a prominent position on the science committee? This is the Oklahoma where I was subjected to mandatory prayer when we landed there in 1970 (1970!! – 6 years after the Supreme Court ruling – and I recently discovered that school is still doing it, but this time they got a nice letter from the FFRF). Oklahoma – where the BS goes sweeping down the plain…

  11. Davis Goodman says

    I respect Libertarians who whole heartedly embrace absolute liberty (even though I disagree with their rather harsh views on welfare). As long as they are equally concerned by corporate welfare as they are by medicare then they at least deserve our respect in terms of their integrity with their ideologies.

    However Scott Esk is a typical non-Libertarian who only wants the right to have the right to impose his own stone-age version of “libery” on others. But not just in terms of stonning gays. He’s divorced and yet would like to enact laws seriously limiting divore (and did we mention he’s also an alleged wife-beater?). He also seems to have no problem with the police shooting down immigrants who make too much noise (this is documented). He thinks currencies should be unregulated (states can create their own currency) but is weary of virtual currencies (even though any real libertarian should whole heartedly embrace them).

    There should be no respect for this man, not only because he’s a wife beatist racist homophobic biggot but also because he’s the worst kind of hipocryte.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *