Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 08/05/2014 10:27:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
It’s just that some Libertarians are insane, like Ron Paul. My issues with Libertarians fall around the role of the military, and the border.
You are committing the "Strawman Fallacy," since welfarism is not a tenet of Libertarianism. In other words: You have no justification in laying the blame for the Welfare State (and resultant tide of welfare mothers, deadbeat dads, etc.) at the feet of Libertarianism.
In short: The abuses of the Welfare State are not the fault of Libertarianism, nor is it logical to cite them as reasons to dismiss Libertarianism.
Regards,
Every single thing you named is a crime with a victim.
Let us say that welfare doesn't exist and that the children of indulgent bums who prefer to be under the influence have no safety net. This touches near to me because it is exactly the situation I and my siblings grew up in. We had a worthless drunken father who would not support his family, and preferring to party instead of work.
So Libertarianism considers this situation an improvement? We damn near starved to death. Yeah, that's much better. Obviously the man's conduct was not harming us.
Seriously, this is a non realistic view of human society. It is unnatural for humans to watch other's children starve without feeling a compulsion to do something about it. It is inflicting emotional pain, as opposed to physical pain. It is robbing our pocket through emotional distress.
Why should we as a society put up with these people twisting our emotional arms because they feel like they have a right to do any damn thing they please?
How does libertarianism address this issue? God forbid that we should force people to take care of their f***ing responsibilities!
Taking the tax payer's unwilling pocket out of it, there is still harm done.
Libertarianism is equal to human decency?
Ha ha ha ha ha.... (whew)
Moral Absolutes bump.
(I’m outta town)
I noticed a conspicuous absence of reference to “religious charities”.
By your reply I can see that you did not read beyond the title
jimt wrote:
“<<... child abuse, spousal abuse, elderly absue, doctor malpractice, hospital malpractice, cops invading ol’ granny at 2 a.m., any federal agency not operating within the Constitution...>>
“Every single thing you named is a crime with a victim.”
That is correct, but if you were to listen to the ‘dumptruck’ liberals, these would NOT be so!!
The ‘timeline’ has been too long; the ‘number of ‘individuals, aka perpetrators’ has risen too high.
We need no more courts, no more laws, just simple justice of a group bent on selling and distributing POISON, which many of these drugs are, and summarily executed, on the street corner.
All else is one’s massage therapy to one’s own body part.
Opium wasn't criminalized until 1875, and marijuana in the '30s. We tried criminalizing alcohol in 1917, but the effort proved to be too costly.
I also think about the fact that anyone, of any age, can huff paint if they want to. But very few do.
'This Is Working': Portugal, 12 Years after Decriminalizing Drugs
FTA....
And this is why libertarianism is a philosophy of human decency.
___________________
Oh I read the article all right. And libertarianism is still a joke.
And here you are again telling that same bald faced lie. American involvement in hard drugs was insignificant until the Civil war when massive numbers of soldiers were exposed to these substances to relieve the pain of their battle injuries.
Subsequent drug activity became a continuously growing problem until the early part of the 20th Century when we deliberately banned these substances and thus avoided the utter societal collapse which destroyed China.
That you keep SAYING there were minor problems is evidence of a deliberate attempt to deceive people who have not studied this period of history. You are wrong. You have an agenda, and you cannot be trusted to tell the truth because the truth does not conform to what you want.
If the problems were minor, then why did we ban these substances? Even the agreed upon facts dispute your account of the events. 
1900 - Opium, morphine and cocaine in many patent medicines leads to addiction and death. Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup kills many children each year due to overdosing on morphine. Morphine is the syrup’s primary ingredient but it is not listed on the label.
http://www.goodmedicinebadbehavior.org/explore/history_of_prescription_drugs.html
Are those part of Libertarian philosophy? No? Then what do they have to do with a conversation about Libertarian philosophy?
And here you are again telling that same bald faced lie. American involvement in hard drugs was insignificant until the Civil war
Exactly my point - thanks for the confirmation.
when massive numbers of soldiers were exposed to these substances to relieve the pain of their battle injuries.
Which, let's note in passing, doesn't fit your 'epidemic' model of drug use.
Subsequent drug activity became a continuously growing problem until the early part of the 20th Century
There is no evidence for any growth - in fact, the available evidence that I have posted says it was shrinking.
If the problems were minor, then why did we ban these substances?
Your liberal faith in government shows again ... if evil businesses weren't a major problem, why do we have so many business regulations? Conservatives know that government is happy to invent crises to expand its power.
They were estimated as 2% of the population back in 1900, they are still ~2% today.
We need no more courts, no more laws, just simple justice of a group bent on selling and distributing POISON, which many of these drugs are, and summarily executed, on the street corner.
I have heard the theory that this is a self-correcting problem, but I am aware of the fact that it did not self correct in China. It would appear that it is not a self correcting problem.
In China it was legalized around 1840. By 1900 half the population was addicted. And you are wrong about Opium being criminalized in 1875. It wasn't criminalized until after the Harrison Narcotics act in 1914.
As for the comparison between Alcohol and Heroin, that is nonsense and is not worthy of commentary.
I also think about the fact that anyone, of any age, can huff paint if they want to. But very few do.
It doesn't have the addictive qualities of cocaine or opium or meth. And that's why they don't.
'This Is Working': Portugal, 12 Years after Decriminalizing Drugs
Ah yes, the Socialist government of Portugal says their new policy is working splendidly! Libertarians have responded by repeating this claim in their world wide echo chamber ever since. Is it true? Libertarians do not care. It favors what they want to believe, so that's good enough.
No dude, you aren't being confirmed, your allegations are being disputed. You point to the 1700s as a time period when drugs were legal and imply they didn't cause any problems, as evidence that the large quantities capable of being supplied now won't either. This is deliberate manipulation of differing circumstances and misleading people into thinking they are the same thing.
Which, let's note in passing, doesn't fit your 'epidemic' model of drug use.
And here you are lying again. You do not know whether it does or whether it doesn't because NOBODY KEPT ANY GOOD RECORDS AT THE TIME. (Except the British regarding their Opium Shipments. They kept very good records.) You falsely conflate a lack of records as the equivalent to there being no problems. The fact is, by the end of the 19th Century, people were noticing all sorts of problems. You just refuse to acknowledge this.
There is no evidence for any growth - in fact, the available evidence that I have posted says it was shrinking.
Again you are lying. Your "Available Evidence" says that it was increasing, but you used the numbers they gave and concluded that it was decreasing. At the very best, that "evidence" you posted disagrees with itself, but you are portraying it as a vindication of your position when it is nothing of the sort.
This is why I hate arguing with Libertarians, because they are fast and loose with the truth. Here is the article to which he is referring.
And here is where he posted the link to it.
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.