Claimed the guy who STILL hasn't responded to my rebuttals in post #235.
Posted on 02/10/2012 9:16:22 AM PST by Superstu321
Jonah Goldberg makes the case that Libertarians are a essential to the Republican party and that conservatives and libertarians aren't that different.
(Excerpt) Read more at media.aei.org ...
“I said recreational driving. What are the benefits of recreational driving that don’t exist for recreational drug use?”
Oh seriously? This is getting old. I don’t know, let’s think.
Commerce couldn’t exist without it?
I am not willing to pay any costs for anyone else’s “right” to get stoned.
“But you’re willing to impose costs on others for your right to drive recreationally? Nice.”
Yes, we have to live and move around. We are not potted plants.
What I have seen, I already said, I’ve seen on COPS. A typical scenario would be cops called to a domestic disturbance, they generally show up an arrest the man for the violence if not other stuff, often drugs/alcohol involved, but if the victim (typically the wife/femal) is noticeably messed up they will actually arrest her for child endangerment due to her inebriation.
The kids then go to a presumably sober relative’s or foster care situation.
Drug abusers can’t foster. I wonder why that is? Children are just as safe in the home of an abuser/addict than a non-abuser, right?
Of course not. We both know it. Why do you continue to pretend? Are you handing your kids over to a drug-using mom or day care and pretending they’ll be just fine? Does your fantasy extend that far?
If you drop your kids at the sitter and she casually snorts some coke as you’re heading out, you’re just fine with that? Do you leave them with an aunt who smokes a bowl every night after dinner? Really?
“Red herring - prior incidents would negate your supposition that what you saw was evidence that a single episode of drunkenness qualifies as child endangerment. “
Asking you why a Libertarian would care about prior acts is NOT a red herring. Do you know what a red herring is?
A Libertarian shouldn’t care. So what if we know that excessive alcohol intake inhibits reasoning, makes a person lethargic or agitated, makes a person irrational and susceptible to suggestion, and reduces inhibitions? So what if we know a person is much more likely to abuse dependents when drunk than when sober? Leave the dependents there and let them deal with it. Otherwise a man’s right to drink himself senseless may be violated.
Oh seriously? This is getting old. I don’t know, let’s think.
Commerce couldn’t exist without it?
I am not willing to pay any costs for anyone else’s “right” to get stoned.
But you’re willing to impose costs on others for your right to drive recreationally? Nice.
Yes, we have to live and move around. We are not potted plants.
What, if anything, does the word "recreational" convey to your mind?
So that's your "evidence": "reality" TV?
Drug abusers can’t foster. I wonder why that is? Children are just as safe in the home of an abuser/addict than a non-abuser, right?
You're changing the subject from your claim that a single incident of drunkenness qualifies as child endangerment.
Asking you why a Libertarian would care about prior acts is NOT a red herring. Do you know what a red herring is?
"red herring
noun
something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand"
Fits like a glove. The matter at hand is whether you have evidence for your claim that a single instance of drunkenness qualifies as child endangerment - nothing to do with Libertarians.
“something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand” “
There were several matters at hand. I was introducing yet another matter. To introduce another matter is not to use a red herring.
A single act of drunkenness. Leave your kids with your drunken Uncle Al while you go out to dinner. Just do it once. Did you endanger your child? I think you did.
“What, if anything, does the word “recreational” convey to your mind?”
Going to the mall? Going out to dinner? Going to the theater? Taking the long way around to home because the view is nice? Visiting my Grandma?
“So that’s your “evidence”: “reality” TV? “
I said I’d seen it. I gave you California code. I gave you instances of it in the newspaper. I’m sorry if my evidence isn’t quite convincing enough for you.
Leave your children in the care of your pot-smoking neighbor. I’m just glad I’m not your kid.
OK. In answer to, "Why would a Libertarian care about prior acts?" - I never said a Libertarian would care, and I don't care whether or not he would care.
Oh seriously? This is getting old. I don’t know, let’s think.
Commerce couldn’t exist without it?
I am not willing to pay any costs for anyone else’s “right” to get stoned.
But you’re willing to impose costs on others for your right to drive recreationally? Nice.
Yes, we have to live and move around. We are not potted plants.
What, if anything, does the word "recreational" convey to your mind?
Going to the mall? Going out to dinner? Going to the theater? Taking the long way around to home because the view is nice? Visiting my Grandma?
I'd say driving for the sake of driving, as some people do. Commerce can exist without such driving, and we don't have to do it to escape potted-planthood. What are the benefits of such driving that don’t exist for recreational drug use? And are you willing to impose costs on others for your right to drive for the sake of driving?
I explained the flaws in your "evidence" in post #236, to which you haven't replied.
the arguments you’re advancing for the current drug laws equally support much stronger laws than are currently in place against the drug alcohol. If you accept only some of the logical implications of your arguments while rejecting others, they’re not genuine arguments but flimsy rationalizations.
No, they don’t. You may think they do, but they don’t.
Point out which parts of your argument from post #200 don't support alcohol restrictions that are just as strong as restrictions on other drugs:
Our neighbors need to count on us being rational in any number of situations, as do our fellow shoppers, people at our workplace, and people at places of recreation. People who are retarded or crazy are liabilities and need special attention wherever they go.
If they aren’t making themselves retarded or crazy on purpose, I have no problem making allowances.
But if they are deliberately retarding themselves or making themselves irrational, they are affecting others virtually all the time. We can’t have the laws go in and out depending on whether Mr. Crackhead [or Mrs. Alkie - JSNTN] is asleep or awake, alone in the house or has a sick wife with him, driving down an empty road or a full one, working at a bank or working all by himself in a field, had a parent nearing dementia one day and over the line the next, sitting in a classroom or sitting in a cave.
“Point out which parts of your argument from post #200 don’t support alcohol restrictions that are just as strong as restrictions on other drugs:”
A glass or two or three of alcohol depending upon the size and duration does not keep you from rational thinking, or have any but beneficial long term effects.
All other drugs do; save for a puff or two of marijuana; which I’ve never heard of or seen someone do; ‘cause they always go until they are high; but if you want to allow for a person to take a puff or two and be held just as liable for a glass or two or three, put me down for that.
As I have stated before.
“I explained the flaws in your “evidence” in post #236, to which you haven’t replied. “
There are no flaws in my evidence. The law is clear. Easy to find newspaper stories about drunken/high adults being arrested, or having their kids taken away, due to the fact that they are drunk/stoned/high when in charge of minor children, abound.
As I stated before.
“I’d say driving for the sake of driving, as some people do. Commerce can exist without such driving, and we don’t have to do it to escape potted-planthood. What are the benefits of such driving that don’t exist for recreational drug use? And are you willing to impose costs on others for your right to drive for the sake of driving? “
I believe costs already exist, in point of fact, in terms of the payment of auto insurance.
As for commerce, you are using gas, wheels, oil, seeing places you might like to go sometime, stopping even if you hadn’t planned to, discovering new routes, etc.
I really wonder if none of this even occurs to you? Or are you just arguing for the sake of being argumentative?
All other drugs do;
Alcohol was used exclusively in irrationalizing doses when that drug was illegal. It's not the drug, it's the incentive structure.
save for a puff or two of marijuana; which I’ve never heard of or seen someone do;
I've done it myself in the past - so again you FAIL.
but if you want to allow for a person to take a puff or two and be held just as liable for a glass or two or three, put me down for that.
"Just as liable" means legal to sell, buy, and possess. Glad to have you on board!
Claimed the guy who STILL hasn't responded to my rebuttals in post #235.
I believe costs already exist,
Are you willing to continue imposing costs on others for your right to drive for the sake of driving?
in point of fact, in terms of the payment of auto insurance.
As I said, I'm talking about innocent people suffering and dying in accidents that wouldn't have happened if the car wasn't on the road. Are you willing to continue imposing those costs on others for your right to drive for the sake of driving?
As for commerce, you are using gas, wheels, oil, seeing places you might like to go sometime, stopping even if you hadn’t planned to, discovering new routes, etc.
No help for you there - commerce can exist without those.
As for commerce and recreational drug use, you are buying the drug, a pipe or other apparatus for using the drug, some munchies and music, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.