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 ...
Mentally handicapped and dependent elderly are similarly dependent upon those of us who are fit and intelligent to take care of them. As a society, we must do this.
No, certain of us elect to do this (for love or pay) - and I support punishing caregivers who addle themselves. But they shouldn't drink either; would you conclude that alcohol should be banned for everybody?
I am neither gay nor a doper. However, being a troll and posting comments like yours is against the rules here.
Then why do you vote to make it illegal, as you said in post #37 you do?
To anger nanny state libertarians like yourself
Rather childish.
who want to trample all over my right to representation on trying to have some public decency in the community I raise my children in.
You had no response to my reply in post #30:
I have the right to represntation on issues whereas I feel the behavior of others is harmful to myself or my family.
If "what is harmful" is whatever a majority votes to be so, then those who claim to be "harmed" by you not giving them your money have won the day.
Many libertarians act as if they know better and want to deny you this right claiming that you need to have some sort of absolute proof that someones actions are directly harmful annd that all arguments that use a causation approach to showing the harm are not allowed to be used.
Libertarians are all for causation arguments - they just note that some such arguments are unfounded, for example, "some drug users harm others, therefore all drug use harms others."
“No, certain of us elect to do this (for love or pay) - and I support punishing caregivers who addle themselves. But they shouldn’t drink either; would you conclude that alcohol should be banned for everybody? “
No, but I think public drunkenness and drunkenness when caring for dependents should be illegal.
One can have a drink or two or three, depending upon amount and time, and not get drunk. Drunkenness is a somewhat subjective call, so, a community just has to set a standard and enforce it.
Adulthood is another example of subjectivity. Some people are adults when they are 15; some never grow up. Our society has selected 18 as the age of majority, and I am content with that.
Similarly, at least in my state, we have deemed “drunk” to be .08, ok, I can live with that. Some may be ok a little higher, but a standard needs to be set. I’m open to tweaking it as called for.
I’m not a cupcake either moron but it still didn’t stop you from doing the trolling and posting the type of comments that you now claim are against the rules.
Go ahead and report me if you wish and let the mods read how it all panned out and how it was handled. I may not be online in the next day or so but i will be back by Monday.
And yet the majority of voters disagree with you.
A civilized society wants and needs a government that recognizes the basic Constitutional Rights of a free republic against the tyrannies of unlimited dope and booze.
That really pi$$es you off, huh?
The point is that I never made any effort to make a “drug use is harmful” argument
And yet you did, if you made any argument at all (and that is an "if").
No, but I think public drunkenness and drunkenness when caring for dependents should be illegal.
I agree - and I support the same restrictions, and no more, for drugs other than alcohol.
And yet the majority of voters disagree with you.
Ooh, argument by nose-counting. 50% of Americans Favor Legalizing Marijuana Use
A civilized society wants and needs a government that recognizes the basic Constitutional Rights of a free republic against the tyrannies of unlimited dope and booze.
Which clause in the Constitution addresses "the tyrannies of unlimited dope and booze"? Does it allow for greater restrictions on dope than booze?
Well if you want to claim that someone’s argument is unfounded then go ahead. I support your RIGHT to do so. I believe that we ALL should have an EQUAL right to representation on what arguments are sound and which are not in the process of deterimining law and on how we view behavior as being harmful or not harmful.
It is a shame though that in reality most libertarian arguments are not that a position is unfounded. Libertarians argue that we should have no right to make law at all on issue after issue. They seek to undermine my and every person’s right to representation on issue after issue.
Good one! I wouldn't have thought of that!
Wrong. I did not.
I don't use drugs (including alcohol), am a Bible-believing practicing Christian, and am totally against abortion and the homosexual lifestyle, but in no way do I need or want the government (at any level) to enforce my personal choices and morality on me nor anyone else. In some ways I think that a lot of folks want the government to make these types of laws and enforce them because it makes it “easier” to not have to take a firm stand beyond “well, it's ILLEGAL” (especially when raising children).
Someone said quite some time ago: “you can't legislate morality” yet big government nanny staters from both sides want to keep trying over and over, no matter what the cost to our natural rights and liberty. The toll to our freedom & liberty that the so-called “war” on (some) drugs is catastrophic at this point (and that doesn't even begin to account for the enormous amount of economic resources that have been seized and squandered).
And now we see the same thing being done under the guise of “security” and “keeping us safe” from the “terrorists!” My response to this whole abomination is a simple quote from Ben Franklin: “Anyone who trades liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security.”
I self-identify as a Constitutional Libertarian and usually always vote for the Republican candidate, but as time goes by I find less and less candidates that I can vote for with a clear conscience.
As far as the name-calling goes, I chalk it up to the same reasons that we see that kind of behavior from the Left...
Well if you want to claim that someone’s argument is unfounded then go ahead. I support your RIGHT to do so. I believe that we ALL should have an EQUAL right to representation on what arguments are sound and which are not
The soundness of arguments is not determined by vote. If it were, then those who claim to be "harmed" by you not giving them your money have won the day.
in the process of deterimining law and on how we view behavior as being harmful or not harmful.
It is a shame though that in reality most libertarian arguments are not that a position is unfounded. Libertarians argue that we should have no right to make law at all on issue after issue.
I know of no libertarian who says you should have no right to make laws against genuine harms such as theft or assault. Do you?
The point is that I never made any effort to make a “drug use is harmful” argument
And yet you did, if you made any argument at all (and that is an "if").
Wrong. I did not.
As I said, if you can't see the logical conclusions of your statements, that's not my problem.
If this evil thinking, conservative libertarian may offer some advice-
While I have a great deal of sympathy for your concern, stupidity, risky lifestyle or a lack of common sense does not make a person incompetent. The best thing that people concerned for this person and her child can do is to check in on her and offer help-that is also, I believe, what we, as Christians are bound to do.
Perhaps a church group or concerned individual can work with her a few times per week on things like parenting skills, and check in to see that she has proper food and such for the child and herself? Maybe teach her some basic shopping and cooking skills-where I worked, we used to do that with mentally retarded adults who lived independently. It also allows them to interact with responsible adults and so serves as an example. This is not just Pollyanna psychobabble-it works.
I’ve had many clients over the years who were as bad or worse than you describe-we were taught to always err on the side of the client’s wishes, period, no matter who it pissed off.
The reason that such laws were passed in the first place was the abuse of the disabled and elderly by “normal” relatives-putting them in dangerous and abusive institutions, etc. to get them out of sight so they would not have to own personal responsibility (there’s that word again!). I’ve witnessed the results of that custodial treatment firsthand, and having done so will always put the clients wishes first-most of those places are worse than prisons.
Please do try to help the woman you referenced-she may be stupid and lacking in sense, but she is still a child of God, as are we all.
Libertarians are far from being strict constitutionalists. They have an agenda and they use the constitution to forward their agenda regardless of the harm it does. When it doesn't support their agenda they ignore it or lie about it. There are a lot of Republican "elite" who do the same thing. There are some social "conservatives" that are just as guilty. Out of those groups it's the Republican "elite" that have done the most harm to the Republican party. Libertarians are just gaining enough power to be a pain. Social conservatives are generally honest in their motivations.
Ya it's pretty obvious but I understand being angry. It's hard not to look at the state of our nation and not get angry. Just figure out who your friends are before you start taking it out on an ally.
Only if legalization led to a vast increase in use, which is highly doubtful. It stands to reason that most people who aren't deterred from using, say, heroin or meth because of the properties of the drugs themselves also aren't deterred by the possibility of jail time. One might anticipate a significant increase in marijuana use - because there the penalty for illegal use is worse than the drug itself - but not nearly enough to "destroy this country."
There are lots of bigger constitutional infringements than drug laws that need to be fixed
Agreed.
before we get to the point of worrying about it.
Why before? Why not in parallel with?
Only that subset that says "don't violate the individual rights of others."
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.