Posted on 05/07/2003 4:17:39 PM PDT by HighWheeler
Conservatives: Want Freedom with Responsibilities.
Libertarians: Want Freedom without any Responsibilities.
Liberals: Want No Freedom with No Responsibilities. (Hillary's little people liberals don't realize this is where their leaders would take them)
Conservatives:
- Drive the speed limit, or something close to it, knowing the penalty for getting caught driving over the speed limit.
- Keep their house and property in good shape and up to the community standards.
- Like the Constitution and all it stands for.
- Dont' tolerate criminals, and want them all punished to the extent of the crime.
Libertarians:
- Drive whatever speed they want while smoking pot, if they hit someone, well too bad, they should have known there are no speed limits, and maybe now they learned something. EFF the world anyhow.
- Keep the house and property in good shape for growing pot, and protecting it from the neighbors who want to steal it. EFF the world anyhow.
- Only like the parts of the Constitution that don't say that pot is illegal. That old Constitution parchment also makes a great rolling paper. EFF the world anyhow.
- There are no criminals, nothing is illegal.
Liberals:
- Drive bicycles like in China.
- Keep their house and property, uh wait, the government furnished commune and surrounding federal land, in whatever condition they find it each day. Where's the super been the last couple months anyhow?
- Hate the Constitution except for the part about free speech...well before the government took that away after the Liberal Supreme Kort ruled that every word ever spoken offended at least someone, and therefore all speech was determined to be hate speech.
- All criminals are promoted to positions of liberal leadership.
But you're going to have to help me out -- I couldn't find that the "right to speed" or the "right to do drugs" shall not be infringed anywhere in the Constitution.
I thought the schools were doing the latter rather than the former.
A careless poster would claim they couldn't find a "right to do drugs" in the Constitution. THEN you could admonish the poster with your pat phrase.
But if I'm not harming anybody, why should I be arrested?
And if we can write laws which cover behavior that is potentially harmful, the why can't we write laws against drug use?"
The difference lies in the property that is being used. If I put a race track on my private property, I can drive as fast as I want, around and around. I can do it while I'm drunk, too. Public property, such as roads and highways, belongs to all of us, so we come to an agreement on rules for what is acceptable behavior on it. Nobody has a right to walk onto my private property while I am driving wildly around my race track, drunk as a skunk, popping wheelies, to order me to stop what I'm doing or face arrest. But, to intervene if I were behaving in such a way on public property is the right thing to do, because I would be violating the laws that we have agreed to.
Are you looking for a government program to help you stop driving like a madman? Ever leave your private property to steal from others to buy gas? Do you even care that your driving around like a madman, with your noise and smell and dust, interferes with your neighbor trying to live his life in peace? Is your yay-hoo driving influencing teens who, lacking their own private property, take that behavior to the public streets? Do you care about that, or is that their fault and they should know better? Maybe it's their parent's fault.
Now, granted, you can bring up that tired analogy of alcohol. Sure, alcohol does those things. But, why do you ask others to legalize other drugs which would add to the problem? I can't think of one good practical reason.
Recreational drugs, like alcohol or even cigarettes, are not restricted to private property. Your analogy sucks is lacking.
It's beyond approaching -- we have actually arrived.
But you are correct. You believe that the rights of the individual reign supreme (as long as they do not violate the rights of others). I believe the rights of the individual need to be tempered with the overall good of society in mind.
Mine is a more pragmatic approach. Yours has the appearance of anarchy.
Anarchy is the absence of government.
Other than a Judiciary to resolve disputes, do you see a need for one?
Actually, this would be the authoritarian type of person. My reasoning is the authoritarian makes you and me responsible for the wrongdoings of others.
Responsibility without freedom is when alcohol is outlawed because some people can't hold their liquor. You and I may never have been irresponsible, but that doesn't matter. Because some people will misuse a thing, that thing should be banned for all. Because some people exceed the speed limit, all automobiles will have govenors installed. Because some people don't have good money management skills, the government will manage all pensions and healthcare. Because some people overeat and become fat then caloric intake should be regulated. Because some people misuse firearms, no one shall be allowed to own them. This is responsibility without freedom because people are responsible for the folly of others. We are not given a chance to prove responsibility, because we are already responsible for those people who aren't. In this condition there is no need to grow up because everything is planned out. No one willgrow up because the experience of learning from choices is removed. What is there to learn when all choices are removed? Ergo, a society of children.
This contrasts with freedom without responsibility, in which the government shields people from the negative consequences of their actions. In this condition people have free food and free housing and free medical care. It doesn't matter how well or how poorly people manage their own affairs because the government is going to take care of them regardless. In this system people can eat until they are fat and the government will take care of their needs. No one needs to save money or plan for the future because the government is going to take care of them. In this condition people have license (not freedom) to do as they will and they are insulated from the wrongs. Vice is no longer its own punishment. Likewise in this condition there is no need to grow up because the consequenses are separated from the causes. No one will grow up because nothing is taught, what is there to learn with actions and consequences have no relation to each other? Again, a society of children. Note that authoritarianism is closely related to this.
It doesn't matter which method is used, in both conditions people are divorced from suffering the consequences of their acts. In authoritarianism the choices themselves are removed to eliminate the chance bad decisions will be made, and in left-license the results of bad decisions are corrected after the fact. But the results are the same: people are not free. They do not really have liberty either way because as you rightly put it freedom comes with responsibility. Freedom without responsibility is the condition in which people cannot learn from their mistakes and responsibility without freedom is the condition in which people cannot make bad decisions. In the end people learn about those things to which they are exposed, on one hand they learn to not think and on the other they learn to not care.
I consider constitutional conservatism and libertarianism to be essentially the same animal. I know that there is plenty of disagreement with this, but I consider the constitutional conservative at the very least my ally against the authoritarian socialist, if he refuses to be my brother. Brothers you are in my opinion. For myself to be called a republican on drugs is simply a part of sibling rivalry. We pummel each other a lot but when someone outside the family threatens us we close ranks.
Freedom with responsibility does not simply encompass keeping my house within community standards. This is an over simplification to the point of being useless. Freedom with responsibility means that I have a propert right to my house and land. I have the freedom to keep large dogs on my property, but if one of them escapes and attacks an innocent person I must be held accountable for murder. Freedom with responsibility means I may drive a fast sports car but I face criminal negligence at a minimum and murder if I kill someone. Freedom with responsibility means I may go to a bar and drink beer, but I may be pulled over and thrown in jail for many years if I am unable to drive. Freedom with responsibility means I may own firearms and be proficient with their use but if I accidentally kill someone I face manslaughter or if I meant to do it I face the capital of all punishments.
Freedom with responsibility does not mean that I have to conform to community standards, only the law under the constitution. However, this does not mean that I will not suffer the consequences of my careless acts. If through my carelessness I lose my job and I lose my wife, then that I have brought it on myself. If I don't suffer the consequences of these bad decisions I am not free, but likewise if I do not have the freedom to make these bad decisions in the first place I am not free either. In the condition of freedom without responsibility the wrongness of vice is countered by the ministrations of the state, while in responsibility without freedom the choice to indulge in a vice is already countered before the fact. I believe freedom with responsibility means that vice is its own punishment. A drunkard at home suffers from his vice, he has made the decision to drink to excess. However, one he steps behind the wheel he is a criminal and should pay the price for his crimes. Freedom and responsibility means that vices and crimes are both wrongness, but vices bring their own punishments whereas crimes bring the punishment of the law.
So, I would break this discussion down as:
Authority - responsibility without freedom
In liberty - freedom with responsibility
License - freedom without responsibility
Constitutional conservatives and libertarians may dicker over the trivialities, but the socialists and communists are on either sides.
Wow - what an intelligent argument.
[snip] "We support repeal of existing laws and policies which are intended to condemn, affirm, encourage, or deny sexual lifestyles or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles."
So, that brings us back to the original point in post #8. Libertarians may be opposed to the "active promotion" of the homosexual lifestyle by the government, but they don't object to it being promoted as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. Correct?
First, let's not confuse the LP with all libertarians, nor the Objectivist libertarians with other, including Christian, "libertarians," because on this point I think they start to divide. But generally, the libertarian is going to ask which part of the government is in the position to actually "promote" homosexuality. If President Bush were to tell someone, whether 'on the job' or in private conversation, that homosexuality is fine and dandy with him, then the average evangelical Christian is obviously going to disagree with that, whether he's libertarian or not. OTOH, the Objectivist, probably an atheist, likely won't care about the private conversation thing; but when Bush goes out and creates an 18 billion dollar 'Homosexuality is Fine and Dandy Initiative' using taxpayer money, then they, like the other libertarians, will mind. They just don't believe that the government should ever be in the position to promote such things to begin with - schools, libraries, etc., are illegitimate uses of gov't power.
So then, if a private citizen wants to promote homosexuality as an acceptable way of life, then so be it - it isn't the job of the government to blow taxpayer dollars on telling that private citizen that he or she can't do that. The government shouldn't get involved until Bruce and Chester start humping one another in public.
Do you think that it is proper for the public schools to be teaching that the homosexual lifestyle is no different than the heterosexual lifestyle (ie, they're both equally acceptable)?
(-- back to labels --)
I was under the impression that large-L Libertarians and most small-l libertarians approved of this teaching practice. That was my only point.
(And the ironic point is that true (L)libertarians wouldn't approve of public schools to begin with.)
The role of government is to secure our rights. That is the exact opposite of making me pay to educate someone else's kid, whether that education be about reading, writing and arithmetic - or why Jenny has two moms.
Your impression is wrong. I do not believe any substantial poll has ever been taken on the subject. Libertarian, like both Republicans and Democrats, are a collection of a wide range of people with a wide range of private beliefs. As with both the Republicans and Democrats, there are probably a good number Libertarians who have private or other public interests, unrelated to their party affiliation, that are consistent with your impression. But like most people in the country, the majority of Libertarians find quite disgusting much of what they would allow other people to do, and do not readily give an approving nod to what is taught in public schools.
I do however believe that most libertarians would not feel threatened, or fear for their children, by such teaching in school, even where they find the teaching quite disgusting. But this is just the opinion of one Libertarian who finds the entire matter both disgusting and petty to the point of sillyness.
The "overall good" would be defined as that which perpetuates (or leads to) an environment in which an orderly community of like minded individuals can live and raise children.
Yes, sex, drugs, porn are religious issues. So are murder, stealing, and assault. Our laws are based on moral behavior, there's nothing new with that. It's just that some laws weren't necessary in the past because a moral person, a person with character, wouldn't think of behaving that way -- keep in mind that our Constitution was written for a moral and religious people.
Nowadays, unfortunately, people look to the legal system to determine their behavior. If it's not illegal, then by golly they're going to do it and don't you dare criticize them or pass moral judgements on them.
If you believe that the "rights" of the individual are supreme (as long as the behavior does not harm others), then we'll never agree. The reason being that you think individuals operate in a vacuum -- that their behavior does not have an impact on the rest of society.
Of course it has the appearance of anarchy. These individuals who wish to participate in this lifestyle are selfish, self-centered, immoral hedonists who couldn't care less about the effect of their behavior on others and look at legalization as legitimacy.
On this point, I agree with you in total. It was this exact point, after a good many years of arguing with libertarians, that changed my mind on libertarianism, and led me to become one myself (though I would continue for several more years to reject the LP).
As a political philosophy, libertarianism is the only one that affords people an opportunity (as a right), to form and maintain exclusive communities of like minded people, to live, work, and raise families, free of outside interference. You will not find this right and encouragement any where else on the political spectrum.
If you believe that the "rights" of the individual are supreme (as long as the behavior does not harm others), then we'll never agree.
On this, you sow the seeds that guarantee that people will never be allowed to grow communities of like minded people. You guarantee a perpetual power struggle, of which no complete community standard will ever be allowed to be tried out, let alone grow and prosper to a full maturity. You sow the seeds of anarchy, that will always exist in the one big community, where no individuals or communities can ever really successfully develop, in any meaningful way, a full moral code. Yours are the seeds of your own destruction.
...keep in mind that our Constitution was written for a moral and religious people.
Oh? Hardly so. But I'll leave this one for another time, I have to go to work.
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.