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.
As long as those "like minded people" prefer uninhibited rampant homosexual and heterosexual sex, all drug use, prostitution on every street corner, and explicit pornography on television, theaters, magazines, etc. -- and wish to have their children exposed to these things -- then yes, libertarianism is indeed the only philosophy that affords people this kind of opportunity.
No.
I was under the impression that large-L Libertarians and most small-l libertarians approved of this teaching practice. That was my only point.
Not in public schools - because most don't believe in public schools to begin with! As for whether most personally believe there's a moral equivalence... well, I don't see where most Objectivists would... object to it.
(And the ironic point is that true (L)libertarians wouldn't approve of public schools to begin with.)
Nope... which makes me wonder why you think they'd want the schools to teach an eqivalence between sexual practices. For all I know, you may be right and the LP (which I don't belong to, and don't really keep up with) may generally be for this kind of thing on a local scale until schools are privatized.
Of course I could counter that Christians are either all hypocrites or closet homosexuals, teaching their boys that looking on women with lust is wrong (adultery). Only thing is that I know that such an exaggeration is equally not true.
Libertarians are the only ones that defend a person's right to discriminate in the conduct of their affairs. As such, it is the only political philosophy that defends Christian rights of association, to include organizing communities, with any restrictions so desired, except of course denying an individual the right to leave (quit) such a community.
We just don't believe that such restrictions should be imposed from top down. We believe such restrictions are only legitimate when they are voluntarily entered into from the bottom up. It is this understanding that has attracted Christians to the LP. The only party that in actuality is not anti-Christian.
How big can my "community" be before Libertarians start to take notice -- can my "community" be as large as a state?
While it is remotely possible for it to be geographicly as big as a state, it is highly unlikely that such would ever occur.
Correction - I doubt anyone would enter into such an open ended contract. People would seek to limit restrictions going in right from the start. Libertarians would for the most part, want most all of the same restrictions that most Christians would be willing to put upon themselves.
Government election? Private election? Covenants? I'm talking about a state within the United States. Hello?
Someone circulates a petition ... starts a referendum. An issue then appears on the ballot, "Shall gambling be allowed in our state (community)?" A majority vote no.
Man, you can't get more bottom up than that. You can't get any more democratic and legitimate and voluntary than that.
But no good huh? Not unless each and every resident approves, I guess is what you're trying to say. Then it's OK, right?
Now, how do you propose to get everyone to approve? You going to break them up into little enclaves? So we've got gamblers here, non-gamblers there. Drug users here, non-drug users there. Prostitutes here. No prostitutes there.
Uh-oh. Where do we put the gambling prostitutes that don't want drugs around? Hmmmm. Separate enclave, I guess, huh?
And the non-gambling, drug-using prostitute? Yet another enclave.
You're a pretty funny guy.
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.
You just have to learn to read.
I never suggested that Libertarianism is going to provied you a free welfare check, in the form of giving your property and values special special protection. You will have to earn that yourself. Libertarianism only will protect your right to invest toward your particular desires and values. It will not provide them for you. That will have to be of your own doing.
You ask:
Where do we put...
We Don't ! ! !
Instead, you decide for your self only, at your own expense, where you want to be.
And yes, a state would have lots of enclave, pretty much the way it is now. Just most of them would be better defined, and have better legal protection against outside interference.
We do not want a mommy state to take care of us, as you seem to want.
WHAT??? I haven't asked for special protection from squat! I said the people vote for the way they want to live. Where do you come up with these strawmen?
You don't want a group of "like-minded" individuals setting rules (as you so stated). You want a group of "identically-minded" people setting rules which would only apply to them.
In theory, this sounds nice. As a practical matter, it's impossible to do. And that's Libertarianism in a nutshell -- all theory, no practicality.
That is a contradiction. A free responsible people choose the way they want to live.
You don't want a group of "like-minded" individuals setting rules (as you so stated). You want a group of "identically-minded" people setting rules which would only apply to them.
Now you fantasize about what I want. You fantasize what I could not possibly imagine, and then place it upon me. Your imagination runs wild.
...all theory, no practicality.
I see you are incapable of honest arguments. Or maybe that never was your intention. Fanatical extremists never like to freely exchange ideas, they want every thing their way and their way only. You seem to be one.
Close. My issue is that we be allowed to set standards for our community, provided the standards are constitutional.
"What we have now is a society where murderers, thieves and violent criminals are being prematurely released into society to make room for potheads (the majority of people processed and jailed)."
So the prison are full, no matter what? Then how is the WOD providing "job security for police and prison officials"? You're so flip about making these statements, you don't realize you're contradicting yourself.
"... the State of Nevada shows no more societal breakdown than any other State inspite of legal gambling and prostitution."
I would guess that the vast majority of the people who gamble and use prostitutes in Nevada come from out-of-state, wouldn't you? Now, why would you look at the state of Nevada itself to form a conclusion like that?
This is the thinking that gets us gun control.
Very true. Thank God for the Second Amendment.
I take it this means you are against the DWI laws because they punish behavior that is potentially harmful?
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.