Posted on 09/23/2002 8:56:33 AM PDT by Commie Basher
I begin to see the source of your misunderstanding. No, libertarianism is not an absolute philosophy. While there are indeed some who mouth absolute platitudes, it is rather more a Platonic Ideal, wherein there is a state of perfection that can never be reached, but one should never stop trying. It is, after all, a philosophy that is adhered to by humans, themselves flawed vessels.
Conservatism and Republicanism, aren't forms of absolute political philosophy. Get your -ism's in order!
I understand that, but it is a simple matter to find absolutists in the Republican party of of the conservative mindset. They are simply absolutist about certain issues, not party labels. Like certain pro-lifers, christian reconstructionists, etc...
That is an historically inaccurate statement. There were plenty of folks aghast at the 'horror' of alcohol, and the supposed culture that supported its abuse, and from the advent of opiates (morphine), it took their posterity more than 100 years to take steps against it.
Why would that be?
I have no misunderstanding about libertarianism. The tendancy is for the vast majority of libertarians to be absolutists. My experiences with libertarians has indicated, their desire to uphold the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty. IMO, that stands for unlimted and uncontrolled behavior. This basic libertarian idea, is what has formulated the Libertarian Party platform, which is based in the libertarian political philosophy, which can be found in its reactionary and absolutist nature.
I didn't even say it was relevant. In fact, in a social democracy such as the USA, libertarian philosophy can only be a marginal movement given that net tax consumers outnumber and outvote net tax payors--a trend which will continue until the treasury is exhausted. What is popular is not necessarily right, and what is right is not necessarily popular. (Ad populum, RM. Remember?)
But I digress. Let us return to my original question: What is the basis for your statement that the golden rule and the core libertarian philosophy of no initiation of force or fraud are "at the opposite ends of the spectrum?"
Yeah right, the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution in an atmosphere where 1960's glorification of drug use was in full force.(/sarcasm)
Sheesh get a grip on history.
On the contrary, libertarian principles state that everyone has the right to their own person and property, which carries with it the right to defend one's person and property, by force of arms if necessary. Furthermore, the inviobality of personal and property rights includes the right to exact restitution from those who trespass against another's person or property. Thus, your opinion that libertarian principles stand "for unlimited and uncontrolled behavior" is a non sequitur.
In a libertarian community, deviants would not be allowed to exist. Frauds would have their possessions seized. Vagrants would be escorted out of town. Would life be perfect? Would we no longer have deviants, frauds or vagrants? Of course not. But we would not be taxed to death to protect us from the deviants, frauds and vagrants which government policies themselves bring about.
Sheesh get a grip on history.
They wrote it at a time when there was commonplace (and age unrestricted) inebriation that was acceptable at all levels of society. This was mostly alcohol, of course, but was not restricted to it.
They were well aware of the societal consequences of addiction and irresponsible behavior, yet chose not to make prohibition a part of their documents and/or philosophy.
I get the distinct feeling that historical accuracy is not your strongest suit.
Really? Huh? The point is that Crawford Long didn't turn anesthseia into a "parlor game", he turned it into a medical useful procedure.
Yeah, yeah, you will say that marijuana is the "wonderweed", that will cure all the world's ills.
The evidence of the drug culture(in which marijuana is an integral part) proves otherwise, IMO.
Respectfully, I submit that you do.
The tendancy is for the vast majority of libertarians to be absolutists.
Kindly support your statement with more than personal anecdotes. I have not noticed this tendancy either in personal dealings with libertarians or the LP.
My experiences with libertarians has indicated, their desire to uphold the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty.
And your sample set is indicative of all libertarians? I find that difficult to believe.
IMO, that stands for unlimted and uncontrolled behavior. This basic libertarian idea, is what has formulated the Libertarian Party platform, which is based in the libertarian political philosophy, which can be found in its reactionary and absolutist nature.
This is, once again, factually inaccurate and indicative of my contention that you do not correctly understand the tenets of libertarianism.
In absolutely no way is 'unlimited and uncontrolled behavior' an aspect of libertarianism. Such a definition would by default not include either initiation of force or fraud, and both of those concepts are anathema to libertarianism, which you should already understand if, as you say, you are familiar with the philosophy.
Wow! Really? For some reason I do not think that Adams, Hamilton, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc. etc. would be waxing poetically about your glorification of the 80's drug culture.
Oh yeah that's right the Constitution was wrote on hemp and after the signing the Founding Fathers rolled the document into one big doob, where there was a communal pot party, according to you. (/sarcasm)
Whoops sorry about that. That should read 60's drug culture.
In the 80's with the leadership of Reagan drug use started to go down, but went back up with the cultural pollution of the Clinton's in the 90's.
Strange that you would feel compelled to misrepresent the truth. No one has indicated that any one of them did.
Oh yeah that's right the Constitution was wrote on hemp and after the signing the Founding Fathers rolled the document into one big doob, where there was a communal pot party, according to you. (/sarcasm)
Not in the least. Opiates were widely available in major urban centers at the time, and cannabis was certainly not unknown.
Regardless, why do you feel compelled to play so fast and loose with the truth?
The same reason Henry Anslinger did. Dane is one of those who believes everything in the movie "Reefer Madness" as fact writ in stone. For whatever idiotic reason, he also believes that the LP has drugs as its only issue.
One track mind. Another thing you will notice is constant attempt to derail whatever topic is currently in the thread, and shift it to the libertarian/drugs issue. Second Amendment, Taxes, the rightful role of law enforcement in society, ... he doesn't care. To him, it's all about the drugs.
Uh that is the pro-drug Libertarian parte, IMO.
I'm sorry, but that answer doesn't pertain to the question posed. Not only have you failed to demonstrate that Libertarians are 'pro-drug', but also that they are dishonest.
If you cannot remain factual or pertinent, there is precious little point in continuing.
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.