Posted on 12/01/2012 11:34:53 PM PST by george76
I find it helps, when I read stories like this one, if I repeat over and over, “Our diversity is our strength!”
>> libertarians are not conservative
Nonsense. I’m a conservative libertarian. You’re probably a conservative statist.
A statist because I don’t think 12 year old, dope-smoking prostitutes should be legal.
Makes you all upset.
You are left, we aren’t.
I meant, he probably thinks there is nothing wrong with illegal alien 12-year old dope-smoking prostitutes in a gay marriage.
Liberaltarian and all that.
:P
Why are you staining FR with that nonsense?
>> You are left, we aren’t.
Both you and the Leftists require the force of govt to apply your values. I’m for small govt.
That’s the key phrase: consenting adults. These girls are neither. These sex gangs should be deported back to their middle eastern sandboxes, to live with hideous, middle-aged ladies in black bags.
Libertarians condone neither force nor fraud. These sex gangs use both.
I know nothing about UK hookers, but I am very familiar
with Amsterdam’s red light district.
My KLM flights from Memphis landed in AMS.
Since I had plenty of time before an ongoing flight, I would take a quick train ride into the city.
The red light district was a very short walk from the main station.
It was interesting to see the girls in their display windows, but there was also areas off to the side where foreign girls worked.
I passed one such house that was populated with girls from the Dominican Republic.
One enticed me to come up to her room.
While I had no intention of engaging her in sex, it was interesting to see her room and how they operate.
Everything was very clean.
As I was ready to leave, she started unzipping my pants and undoing my belt.
I started making a quick retreat with her chasing me down the hall.
It was an interesting lesson learned.
Anyway, it is interesting to stroll around the district and see the sights.
liberaltarians keep saying “consenting adults” but they aim to end the age of consent too
Something similar is happening here in the good ole USA:
“WJLA.com: The young woman you interviewed for your story was just 16 when she was recruited by the Crips. Tell us how it happened?
Pamela: The young woman I interviewed was a straight-A student from an upper-middle class family from Fairfax, Va. One day in the summer of 2009, she was standing at the Springfield Metro station bus stop and was approached by a Crips gang member. She says he was very charming and made it seem so “normal” to make money by having sex. Ultimately, he was preying on her vulnerabilities as a young girl who had low self- esteem and was still unsure of herself.”
Institutionalized white guilt is also a major factor helping the thugs enslave their prey. 40 years ago this young white victim would have not given the Crips gangbanger the time of day, but now to do this is considered to be “racist” so he was able to get his hooks into her.
...interesting model, but I think viewing this on a continuum expresses it better. Totalitarianism (Communism, other forms of despotism) to the far left, followed closely by Fascism. ...a bit to the right of that: Socialism, then Corporate Socialism, etc. (Democrats are Socialists, Republicans are generally Corporate Socialists.) The other extreme would be Anarchy, not Libertarianism.
For those not comfortable with Libertarianism, try “Natural Law” instead. There is not much difference, and Natural Law relies on morality. The Founding Fathers were clearly Natural Law proponents. They repeatedly referred to the Creator and Providence. The Declaration of Independence is the greatest expression of Natural Law ever penned - although I wish Jefferson had not dropped “property” from Locke’s original.
Remarks appreciated. Definitely a coarse graph, but could probably support the plot points you mentioned.
The important thing to point out is the diverging transparent axes: the horizontal axis represents the moral divide. The vertical axis represents enforcement. Unless there’s another dimension, the plane should suffice.
>> For those not comfortable with Libertarianism, try “Natural Law” instead.
I’m getting tired of the belligerent bullshit on this matter. I have no intention of sacrificing definitive meaning for the sake of idiocracy.
Hopefully, you brought home a package of tulips.
You might want to go back and look up what the Founders actually did, the laws that they passed.
In today's world they would be considered extremist right-wingers when it came to "imposing their morality" on others.
The problem here is that we extrapolate from the Constitution to their views on society and laws in general. The Constitution is (from an historical perspective) a wildly libertarian document.
This is not because the Founders were libertarians but because they wanted a limited federal government. With rare exceptions the state governments were not limited at all, and used their powers enthusiastically to impose morality.
The Bill of Rights didn't even apply to the states till after the Civil War, and states violated them all the time. For instance, southern states made it a crime to speak in favor of abolition and prohibited abolitionist newspapers, both violations of the First Amendment.
The facts are...libertarianism makes the same mistake that those statist forms of government make. They replace God’s law with human reasoning and consequently we can expect the same results should they ever achieve power.
Why is everyone picking on the librarians ?
Two issues to ponder.
Looks to me you wish to be King. What laws will you impose?
One great feature of Libertarian thought - You are responsible for your actions.
You do drugs, you get no support from the G’ment.
You break the law you are prosecuted to the full extend of the law.
And yes Libertarian principles do not work in the real world with real people who have many faults
The reason is simple: They cannot be truthful. Truth interferes with their cherished, preconceived ideas, and Leftists tend to be convinced that they can improve on truth because their intentions are good.
Honest people, committed to truth for its own sake, with open minds, in free and unimpeded exchange of ideas, can sometimes find the best possible solution to a problem--but of course this is anathema to the Left--just as it is anathema to any other brand of religious fanatics--because truth often conflicts with cherished dogma.
Leftists--and other religious fanatics--love their dogma, those things held as axiomatic, those things that their "faith" recognizes as truth; they have no interest in truth because it often conflicts with dogma.
If Leftists were capable of recognizing and accepting truth--truth for its own sake--they wouldn't be Leftists in the first.
However Leftists have only contempt for truth, so in love are they with dogma.
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.