Posted on 03/09/2010 4:51:09 AM PST by Walter Scott Hudson
Semantic Blockage.
Thomas Jefferson. Thomas Paine. Patrick Henry...
Whatever helps you sleep better at night.
How about neo-libertarian change? ;-)
"Forced altruism" is just another way of saying theft. And on this issue, I agree strongly with Rand.
If I could find a group of (L)ibertarians that didn’t want to legalize dope, that wanted to protect our nation, that were NOT protectionists, that were pro-life personally and in policy, that stood for getting the government OUT of the marriage business altogether....Well that would be just about the best group of political thinkers I’d ever met. I THINK those people can be found if the GOP would adopt some of the Libertarian policies and if the Libertarian party would tell the potheads and liberals to GTFO. A melding of the two parties could be a force for good. But just a straight Libertarian movement based on what that party has become today? I’d rather not.
But I think drug legalization makes the order clear -- If you legalize first, society is likely to see an enormous burden of people using social services. That expands the budget (not what we want). On the other hand, if you remove the taxpayer funded social services first, then legalize the drugs, there will be no reason for the budget to expand as a consequence.
When possible, move in parallel, when one part needs to go first, make it the "shrink the government" part rather than the "expand my liberties" part.
Will this be the new purity litmus test for tea partiers? If you like some of the ideas of an atheist, you're out?
Really, this is grasping at straws. I realize a lot of Freepers who purport to be Christians don't like Rand, but we're not emulating her life here, we're taking note of the very sensible parts of her philosophy. Capitalism foremost of them all.
Interesting. I can see your point. When gov't takes and spends such a large amount of my personal earnings, and even to the point of spending future earnings this is definitely restricting everyone's liberty.
Obama has taken advantage of our free and open economy and is trying to systematically destroy it! He has to be stopped!
You're perception is incorrect. I am, in fact, responding to an assertion which could underlie such an attempt, not making the attempt. Biddle initiated the claim the Tea Party movement needs to shift its morality from the common Judeo-Christian ethic to an Objectivist ethic. I am quite content to include Objectivists in the fold. It is Biddle's prescription was excludes, not my response.
I appreciate your response, but it’s not a revelation that Objectivism has some differences from the Judeo-Christian religion. Those have been explored in the past, and it certainly does not hurt to continue to do so.
My point is that the interjection of this discussion into the context of the Tea Party is not helpful to the core reasons for the existence and goals of the Tea Party.
If you and I see the immediate need to work together to rescue an accident victim, it’s a very bad time to first start arguing the merits of why my opinion of the college football overtime rules is superior to your assertion that those in the NFL are better. That may be an interesting and relevant discussion, but it threatens the more important goal.
Let’s save the accident victim first.
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.