Posted on 06/24/2010 9:12:15 PM PDT by Walter Scott Hudson
The central conceit of the Left is their regard for outcome above principle, results above rights. “Progressivism” repackages the age-old idea that society has a collective right superior to the individual’s. We saw this in the argument for universal health care, where the Left regarded the outcome of “universal coverage” above the principle of personal liberty.
Unfortunately, this conceit is not limited to the Left. Social conservatives are willing to borrow à la carte from statist arguments when the results suit their taste. No issue evokes this phenomenon more than drug control policy.
NewsRealBlog hosted much debate on the legalization of marijuana over the weekend. The discussion was prompted by Sarah Palin’s recent statement that private in-home consumption is a negligible concern. Calvin Freiburger objected to the characterization of prohibition as a liberty issue, citing among his supporters Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, and John Locke. Though Calvin is clearly not a statist, his argument depends upon a fundamentally statist belief.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsrealblog.com ...
Move to Saudi Arabia then. They no likee alcohol there.
We no likee statists in America.
Well, I know better than to waste my time arguing against tee-totalers. Most anti-alcohol nuts are really liberals.
Then you can work to overturn the kiddie porn laws along with NAMBLA.
I am not exactly a tee totaler. That just an assumption you make to avoid a substantive reply that you have no capability of making. Bringing up child porn is another evasion of the weak minded.
Why wouldn’t you be a tee totaler if you think alcohol is so destructive as you happily explained.
Banning Kiddie porn is just statism isn’t it? As are bans on public nudity, urinating in a street drain, marrying your brother, living in a teepee in Times square, and starting a Taliban Booster club.
Child porn involves the inherent harm to others for its existence so it doesn't pass the liberty test.
Public nudity is legal in many places and shouldn't be a criminal act.
Living in a teepee in Times Square would be a violation of other's property rights. That doesn't pass the liberty test.
Starting a Taliban Booster club should be, and probably is, perfectly legal. So is being an Aryan Brother or a New Black Panther. Are you suggesting that the right to associate with others or freedom of expression should be outlawed? It wouldn't surprise me that you did.
I’d go along with returning the power to control drugs (or not) to the states. I think that is where the majority of this sort of power should lie.
No, no questions, just to say I don’t consider drug abuse private behavior.
It can be, at certain times and under certain conditions. But there is usually a large public component. I’ve given lots of examples, although some on this thread accuse me of “cherry picking” when I do so.
That's because people wipe their butts with it and leave their organic waste on it.
Apologies, I thought you were presenting yourself as a Libertarian. You do hold the classic Libertarian position:
“We favor the repeal of all laws creating “crimes” without
victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.” (Libertarian party platform)
That is only one Libertarian Party position for one thing. For another the Libertarian Party is not a very consistent reflection of classic libertarian views. More importantly, to me, creating criminal codes for victimless crimes is antithetical to the founding principles our Founding Fathers fought so hard, in war and in counsel, to make the law of our land.
By whose definition is this harmful? What about 12 year olds together, voluntarily, paid handsomely, making a film for perverts to watch? Oh that's right, it's still going to be illegal BECAUSE WE MAKE THE MORAL JUDGMENT that is wrong and therefore ban it along with all other types of kiddie porn.
Public nudity is legal in many places and shouldn't be a criminal act.
It is? At a few beaches, mostly private. Should you be able to walk buck naked into a Starbucks? Into the next screening of The Princess and the Frog?
If that's your definition of liberty, you need to find another country, ace.
Living in a teepee in Times Square would be a violation of other's property rights. That doesn't pass the liberty test.
There's plenty of City owned (ie public) spaces within times square. Set up your teepee there. Oh wait, you mean its a moral judgment and therefore law that we do not want people to occupy public spaces with their semi-permanent presence. No stick hut residences in Central Park? No tents on the intersection of 43rd street? Man, what statists!
Starting a Taliban Booster club should be, and probably is, perfectly legal.
I guess not.
Former NY student gets 15-years for aiding al Qaeda
http://thetvrealist.com/gossip/Former-NY-student-gets-15years-for-aiding-al-Qaeda-2711205.html
12 year olds are minors and do not enjoy the rights and privileges of adults. That may be a moral judgment to you but a reasoning adult can easily see that it is more properly a pragmatic distinction based on objective definable differences between adults and minors.
It is? At a few beaches, mostly private. Should you be able to walk buck naked into a Starbucks? Into the next screening of The Princess and the Frog?
There are many communities where it is legal everywhere as evidenced by recent stories from Boulder, CO and Eugene, OR. Starbucks and movie theaters are private property (a concept you seem to be having a real hard time understanding) and should be able to set their own rules in a free country. If you have a problem with that Cuba would be a good choice for you, chief.
There's plenty of City owned (ie public) spaces within times square. Set up your teepee there.
The city owned property is such because the people have decided it should be so and as a public thoroughfare is subject to regulation. How you can equate civil laws governing a public thoroughfare with a moral judgment is beyond my ability to imagine the chain of convoluted logic necessary to arrive there.
Former NY student gets 15-years for aiding al Qaeda
If you're going to alter your premises from post to post you can twist your irrationalities to any end. You cited a "Taliban Booster Club" as your example. Obviously that is a far cry from materially aiding and abetting a foreign-based terrorist group. Or did you purposely use a vague and misleading name for your example to try and lamely win a point? That was a rhetorical question.
Our fundamental disagreement is, I don’t believe drug abuse is a victimless crime.
I won’t repeat the stories and examples I’ve already posted in this thread.
Just to say, if I believed drug abuse was victimless, I would agree with you.
Yet those same minors can star in the remake of Lassie or Shane. Why is it they can't star in even simulated porn with one another? Face it skippy, our laws are based on MORAL judgments - at least the good ones are.
There are many communities where it is legal everywhere as evidenced by recent stories from Boulder, CO and Eugene, OR.
ROFL. You pick two of the most liberal, statist communities to boast about their decency laws? Damn that's funny. Some headlines: Eugene bans Smoking. Eugene bans Malt Liquor. Boulder Bans All City Travel to Arizona. Boulder bans Nerf Guns. How frickin pathetic. Maybe you could move to these statist utopias.
How you can equate civil laws governing a public thoroughfare with a moral judgment is beyond my ability to imagine the chain of convoluted logic necessary to arrive there.
Gee. 43rd Ave might be a thoroughfare, but Central Park? I thought it was a park. Even Times Square has 'green spaces" that would work nicely for your teepee. What's that? You mean it is NOT OK for you to exercise whatever you deem as your freedoms in these spaces? Surely your Teepee will not be in the traffic.
I know, I'm just a statist. A statist who has advocated reducing the size and scope of the federal government to strict constitutional limits for years.
I’ve knocked down all of your red herrings and your further equivocations don’t add any support to them. It is clear enough that when you abandon the subject matter completely to make your points you have no real points to make.
When any action results in harm to another there are ample criminal and civil remedies already in place to address them. The criminalization of the actual possession and use of drugs is unnecessary. It just creates the incentive for a black market and government corruption where crimes that do violate other’s rights inherently proliferate. That is a simple fact that can’t be rationalized away.
Your so full of crap, it’s oozing out your ears.
Laws are, by and large, moral judgments. Even mundane contract law - you can’t job the other guy. I suggest you quit drinking altogether though. Not every one is cut out for it.
Because you can’t convince the conservatives that we should approve of your dope smoking, you think somehow we are statists.
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.