Posted on 02/10/2012 9:16:22 AM PST by Superstu321
Jonah Goldberg makes the case that Libertarians are a essential to the Republican party and that conservatives and libertarians aren't that different.
(Excerpt) Read more at media.aei.org ...
We don't generally have legal obligations to our grandchildren nor our parents.
Our neighbors need to count on us being rational in any number of situations, as do our fellow shoppers, people at our workplace, and people at places of recreation.
No, they need to count on us being nondangerous, which is a considerably looser standard.
By the way, all your arguments apply to the drug alcohol - so what policies do you support regarding that drug?
You don’t live on your own personal island.
There's a reason liberals are so fond of that line; perhaps you should ponder that before embracing their argument.
“We don’t generally have legal obligations to our grandchildren nor our parents.”
-in some cultures we have some, regardless, we have moral obligations. I don’t need the state to tell me what to do in order to know what is right or what is wrong. If I don’t take reasonable care of grandkids/parents in need, the state does, or, they suffer or die. Not an acceptable outcome.
“No, they (our neighbors) count on us being nondangerous, which is a considerably looser standard.”
-No, I need the guy at the workplace to be sane, not nodding out or talking to people who aren’t there. I need my neighbor to tell me if my house is on fire. I need the guy on the road to flash the lights at me if there is a road hazard. I need the man camping next to me at Yosemite to treat me as a human being rather than deciding I am a vampire. And a million other scenarios.
As a society we rely upon competent adults who are sane and not retarded. We make allowances for the young, the frail aged, the retarded/damaged, and the crazy. There is not a lot of breathing room. It is criminal to deliberately retard yourself or make yourself crazy.
And no, I’m not going to wait for the nut or the retard to damage my property or me, or kill me, before I complain. I know crazy people can’t be counted on to be rational. I am not going to pretend otherwise so I can support Libertarian social theory.
“By the way, all your arguments apply to the drug alcohol - so what policies do you support regarding that drug?”
-No, they apply to drunkenness. A person who has had a drink or two or three, depending, is neither retarding himself nor making himself nuts. I support all the laws against public drunkenness and etc. If you are able to take a drug without getting “high,” then I am all for you taking it if you want. Then again, if it didn’t make you “high,” then you wouldn’t want to take it, would you?
“There’s a reason liberals are so fond of that line (no man is an island); perhaps you should ponder that before embracing their argument.”
I don’t need to ponder liberals’ thinking. I’ve had enough interaction with drug users/addicts to know that drug abuse is not normally “victimless,” and I’m not going to shut my eyes and pretend otherwise. I grant you there are times, days, even weeks when a user can use without harming anyone. So can a person driving down the wrong side of the road, they can go a long time without harming anybody. But they harm people often enough and consistently enough for me to continue to advocate for it being illegal.
in some cultures we have some, regardless, we have moral obligations. I don’t need the state to tell me what to do
The state telling people what to do is exactly what you're advocating: "for it being illegal."
No, they (our neighbors) count on us being nondangerous, which is a considerably looser standard.
No, I need the guy at the workplace to be sane, not nodding out or talking to people who aren’t there.
Your employer doesn't let him come in drunk, and wouldn't let him come in drugged.
I need my neighbor to tell me if my house is on fire. I need the guy on the road to flash the lights at me if there is a road hazard.
If you want me to work for you, pay me, don't enslave me.
I need the man camping next to me at Yosemite to treat me as a human being rather than deciding I am a vampire.
Like I said, nondangerous.
By the way, all your arguments apply to the drug alcohol - so what policies do you support regarding that drug?
No, they apply to drunkenness. A person who has had a drink or two or three, depending, is neither retarding himself nor making himself nuts. I support all the laws against public drunkenness and etc.
Unless you support laws against private drunkenness, you can't consistently support laws against private druggedness. And even public drunkenness laws don't apply to ANY degree of alcohol influence, whereas below you seem to suggest that ANY degree of drug influence is immoral and should be illegal.
If you truly believed the arguments you're advancing for the current drug laws, you'd have to support much stronger laws than are currently in place against the drug alcohol. Do you?
If you are able to take a drug without getting “high,” then I am all for you taking it if you want. Then again, if it didn’t make you “high,” then you wouldn’t want to take it, would you?
Most of the alcohol consumed in this country is consumed for the purpose of feeling its mental effects (sometimes euphemized as "relaxing" or "unwinding").
There’s a reason liberals are so fond of that line (no man is an island); perhaps you should ponder that before embracing their argument.
I don’t need to ponder liberals’ thinking.
No, clearly you do need to - whether you will is of course up to you.
Yes, JSNTN, alcohol, caffeine, heck a candy bar affect the mind. Libertarians want everything black and white. That is not reality.
A person who has a glass of wine or two, is not retarding themselves or making themselves crazy. A bottle of Jack? Yep. Our society plugs it at about .08 alcohol in the blood, give or take. Arbitrary? Somewhat. Yet, a line must be drawn. In a real world.
Lines get drawn in somewhat arbitrary fashions. For instance, what is an “adult?” I was pretty much an adult by 16. Some 20 year olds I know are not any sort of adult. Most of us fall somewhere in between. Society “arbitrarily” chooses 18, right now. There have been variations and exception in human history. Yet, a line must be drawn. In a real world.
Can you function perfectly nicely after having one hit or two of pot? I think so. Society could perhaps choose a level of inebriation, a thc blood content or something, to rather arbitrary define the difference between unwinding and stoned out of the gourd. I’ve seen people so stoned on pot they are incoherent. I’ve seen the long term effects of paranoia and uselessness that accompany pot. But will one hit do it to you? No.
You’d like to pretend that we can get high to the point of stupidity or crazy and it won’t affect others. That is a false belief. It is not a conservative belief. And my beliefs are not liberal.
They are realistic. You need to get out of the realm of the theoretical and live a real life. Where people must interact with each other and there must be a minimum of trust, sanity, and rationality.
Otherwise, the nuts rule the world. And nuts are not usually very nice.
That line is for being in public. Our society lets you get drunk as a skunk in the privacy of your home (or that of any willing host) - regardless of your severly diminished ability to look out for your fellow citizens.
Again, if you truly believed the arguments you're advancing for the current drug laws, you'd have to support much stronger laws than are currently in place against the drug alcohol. Do you?
Can you function perfectly nicely after having one hit or two of pot? I think so. Society could perhaps choose a level of inebriation, a thc blood content or something, to rather arbitrary define the difference between unwinding and stoned out of the gourd. I’ve seen people so stoned on pot they are incoherent. I’ve seen the long term effects of paranoia and uselessness that accompany pot. But will one hit do it to you? No.
So there's no basis for regulating marijuana more strictly than alcohol - right?
You’d like to pretend that we can get high to the point of stupidity or crazy and it won’t affect others. That is a false belief. It is not a conservative belief.
"Affect" others is a liberal test, not a conservative one. If you're not violating any rights nor posing a clear and present danger, you're not the proper concern of government.
“That line is for being in public. Our society lets you get drunk as a skunk in the privacy of your home (or that of any willing host) “
True, unless you have dependent children or dependent adults in the home.
“you’d have to support much stronger laws than are currently in place against the drug alcohol. Do you? “
No, I just support enforcing the ones already in place. I don’t see why I’d ‘have to.’
I see people who are really high as a “clear and present danger.” Because they are out of their heads and can’t be counted on to respond rationally to a given situation; indeed they tend to start situations that are hazardous.
As I said, we’d have to come to a consensus on what “really high” is, depending on the drug.. Would 1/100 of a tab of acid be ok? Maybe. But then again, no one ever takes that little, do they? They take drugs to get high.
“Affect” others is a liberal test? So say you. I am a conservative and will consider how other people’s decision affect me AND vulnerable people, without apology.
True, unless you have dependent children or dependent adults in the home.
I know of no law that our society has enacted to ban drunkenness for those with dependent children or dependent adults in the home. Please cite any such statute at any level of American government.
[text omitted by Persevero: Again, if you truly believed the arguments you're advancing for the current drug laws,] you’d have to support much stronger laws than are currently in place against the drug alcohol. Do you?
No, I just support enforcing the ones already in place. I don’t see why I’d ‘have to.’
Because the arguments you're advancing for the current drug laws equally support much stronger laws than are currently in place against the drug alcohol. If you accept only some of the logical implications of your arguments while rejecting others, they're not genuine arguments but flimsy rationalizations.
I see people who are really high as a “clear and present danger.” Because they are out of their heads and can’t be counted on to respond rationally to a given situation;
If their given situation is sitting in their home, there's no danger.
indeed they tend to start situations that are hazardous.
They, like the drunks you want to regulate much less strictly, have been known on occasion to do so - but to go far beyond that and say they "tend to" is a claim that requires actual evidence. Have any?
As I said, we’d have to come to a consensus on what “really high” is, depending on the drug.
Fine - and then we’d have to apply the no-being-really-high rules consistently. Since there's no evidence on the table for any no-being-really-high-on-alcohol rule inside private homes under any circumstances, there's no basis for such a rule for any other drug. And of course no basis here for completely banning any of them.
Would 1/100 of a tab of acid be ok? Maybe. But then again, no one ever takes that little, do they? They take drugs to get high.
But not necessarily “really high.” Again, most of the alcohol consumed in this country is consumed for the purpose of feeling its mental effects (sometimes euphemized as "relaxing" or "unwinding").
I missed your answer to this one:
Can you function perfectly nicely after having one hit or two of pot? I think so. Society could perhaps choose a level of inebriation, a thc blood content or something, to rather arbitrary define the difference between unwinding and stoned out of the gourd. I’ve seen people so stoned on pot they are incoherent. I’ve seen the long term effects of paranoia and uselessness that accompany pot. But will one hit do it to you? No.
So there's no basis for regulating marijuana more strictly than alcohol - right?
“Affect” others is a liberal test? So say you. I am a conservative and will consider how other people’s decision affect me AND vulnerable people, without apology.
Almost everything you do during the course of a day "affects" somebody - if you hold that all those actions are properly subject to government regulation, you're no conservative.
“I know of no law that our society has enacted to ban drunkenness for those with dependent children or dependent adults in the home. Please cite any such statute at any level of American government. “
It’s called “child endangerment.”
If I have knowledge that you are in charge of a minor child in your home and you are drunk, I can call the cops, they’ll do a welfare check, and if they determine you are drunk/high they will remove the child. And rightly so.
“the arguments you’re advancing for the current drug laws equally support much stronger laws than are currently in place against the drug alcohol. If you accept only some of the logical implications of your arguments while rejecting others, they’re not genuine arguments but flimsy rationalizations. “
No, they don’t. You may think they do, but they don’t.
“If their given situation is sitting in their home, there’s no danger. “
Generally true, unless they are thinking up trouble. Like the speed freak killers whose victims’ bodies are being pulled out of an old well in California this week. I know, they’d have killed all those people even if they hadn’t been out of their minds on meth! Yeah, right.
“Fine - and then we’d have to apply the no-being-really-high rules consistently. Since there’s no evidence on the table for any no-being-really-high-on-alcohol rule inside private homes under any circumstances, there’s no basis for such a rule for any other drug. And of course no basis here for completely banning any of them. “
Disagree, alcohol is normally used without negatively affecting a person’s rationality or long term mental stability. Marijuana is normally used to get stoned, and long term makes people stupid and paranoid.
I grant that marijuana, the softest of the popular psychoactive drugs and therefore the Libertarian’s favorite subject, CAN be used for a toke or two once in a while and then be “just like alcohol.” But the FACTS are, that is not how it’s normally used.
And that’s the difference.
“Almost everything you do during the course of a day “affects” somebody - if you hold that all those actions are properly subject to government regulation, you’re no conservative. “
That is true. If a butterfly flaps its wings in Peru, there’s an earthquake in China, so to speak. We all affect each other, in positive and negative ways, purposefully and unintentionally, all day long.
So the question is, when is it legitimate to interfere with someone else’s behavior. There’s the basic idea, you can swing your fist until it touches my face.
Liberals might say, you can’t swing your fist at all, unless you have a permit and the government gives you a glove, and the government can swing maces and smash faces, but you have to ask permission to use your fist for anything but shadow boxing in a legal area.
Libertarians might say, you can swing that fist. You can stand at my property line, swing it at me every day when I come get my mail, curse and follow me, naked. Until and if your fist makes contact with my nose, you are within your rights.
Conservatives might say, you can swing that fist. Swing it at home, swing it as you walk, box professionally, pound your desk for emphasis, threaten with it if someone is threatening you. But don’t menace me with it. Me or my kids or any other innocent people. You don’t have the right to menace me.
A person who deliberately makes himself irrational or in a stupor is a menace. They have no right to do that.
If I have knowledge that you are in charge of a minor child in your home and you are drunk, I can call the cops, they’ll do a welfare check, and if they determine you are drunk/high they will remove the child.
For a single instance of drunkenness? I doubt it. Have any evidence?
No, they don’t. You may think they do, but they don’t.
Point out which parts of your argument from post #200 don't support alcohol restrictions that are just as strong as restrictions on other drugs:
Our neighbors need to count on us being rational in any number of situations, as do our fellow shoppers, people at our workplace, and people at places of recreation. People who are retarded or crazy are liabilities and need special attention wherever they go.
If they aren’t making themselves retarded or crazy on purpose, I have no problem making allowances.
But if they are deliberately retarding themselves or making themselves irrational, they are affecting others virtually all the time. We can’t have the laws go in and out depending on whether Mr. Crackhead [or Mrs. Alkie - JSNTN] is asleep or awake, alone in the house or has a sick wife with him, driving down an empty road or a full one, working at a bank or working all by himself in a field, had a parent nearing dementia one day and over the line the next, sitting in a classroom or sitting in a cave.
Generally true,
So no support there for a "clear and present danger" argument for the current sweeping drug bans.
unless they are thinking up trouble. Like the speed freak killers whose victims’ bodies are being pulled out of an old well in California this week.
I can point to vile crimes committed by drunks - but that's no support for a general ban on the drug alcohol.
I know, they’d have killed all those people even if they hadn’t been out of their minds on meth! Yeah, right.
We'll never know. You don't think the sort of people predisposed to commit violent crimes are proportionally overrepresented among the sort of people predisposed to use a drug like meth?
Fine - and then we’d have to apply the no-being-really-high rules consistently. Since there’s no evidence on the table for any no-being-really-high-on-alcohol rule inside private homes under any circumstances, there’s no basis for such a rule for any other drug. And of course no basis here for completely banning any of them.
Disagree, alcohol is normally used without negatively affecting a person’s rationality or long term mental stability.
Irrelevant to a discussion of defining "really high" - unless you're saying that defining "really high" was just a red herring on your part.
You have yet to present any evidence that being irrational or in a stupor due to alcohol while in one's home is against any law. Do you support making drunkenness at home illegal?
“You have yet to present any evidence that being irrational or in a stupor due to alcohol while in one’s home is against any law. “
Yes, I have. It’s called “felony child endangerment.” While a probable cause or warrant it needed, it is indeed a felony (against the law).
“Irrelevant to a discussion of defining “really high” - unless you’re saying that defining “really high” was just a red herring on your part. “
No, it’s not irrelevant. Irrationality and rationality are on a continuum, just like adulthood and childhood. You need to draw a line somewhere, or nowhere. I pick “somewhere.”
“Irrelevant to a discussion of defining “really high” - unless you’re saying that defining “really high” was just a red herring on your part. “
No, it’s not irrelevant. Irrationality and rationality are on a continuum, just like adulthood and childhood. You need to draw a line somewhere, or nowhere. I pick “somewhere.”
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.