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 ...
“I believe costs already exist,
Are you willing to continue imposing costs on others for your right to drive for the sake of driving? “
Yes, I am willing to have everyone who wants to drive pay auto insurance, or post a bond; in my ideal world we’d have (decent) debtor’s prisons for those who choose to drive uninsured and wreak any havoc, but since victims at this point don’t have this recourse, I think we should all pay for auto insurance.
“As I said, I’m talking about innocent people suffering and dying in accidents that wouldn’t have happened if the car wasn’t on the road. Are you willing to continue imposing those costs on others for your right to drive for the sake of driving? “
As I said, if we all stayed home and didn’t drive the negatives of that would exceed the negatives of the accidents.
“No help for you there - commerce can exist without those. “
Commerce can exist without a lot of things. If we had no airplanes, we’d still have commerce. If we went to horse and buggy, we’d still have commerce.
However any time you cancel an activity you generally negatively affect commerce.
As for the paraphenalia bought for drug use, yes, there is some commerce there. But
As I said,
the benefits of that are very much exceeded by the negative impact of the drug abuse.
Perhaps you think that a Sunday drive has as much negative impact as smoking crack. Well, you’re wrong.
Posting a picture of a chicken is just perjorative and stupid.
I’ve responded to your posts. Exhaustively. I am happy to defend my opinions.
You just don’t like my responses. Well, I won’t be changing them for you.
How about you respond to my questions? Who died and put you in charge?
Start with this one:
Are you leaving your child in the care of a bowl-smoking neighbor? Is your dependent parent at a day care in a crack house? Would you leave your kid at a babysitter’s who is sitting there snorting Coke when you leave?
If not, why not?
Time for you to answer a question or two.
That's it, I'll get out of your way...((Persevero))
As I said, if we all stayed home and didn’t drive the negatives of that would exceed the negatives of the accidents.
Irrelevant. Would you say that if we all didn’t drive just for the sake of driving the negatives of that would exceed the negatives of the accidents?
That was YOUR standard - if you're now backing away from it, feel free.
Perhaps you think that a Sunday drive has as much negative impact as smoking crack. Well, you’re wrong.
You don't think anyone gets killed by Sunday drivers?
Claimed the guy who *STILL* hasn't responded to my rebuttals in post #235.
Are you leaving your child in the care of a bowl-smoking neighbor? Is your dependent parent at a day care in a crack house? Would you leave your kid at a babysitter’s who is sitting there snorting Coke when you leave?
No, no, and no.
If not, why not?
Not because I think it would rise to the level of legal child endangerment, but because it's less safe than sober alternatives.
When will you respond to my rebuttals in post #235?
“When will you respond to my rebuttals in post #235? “
I already responded. I am not going to continue to repeat myself.
“You don’t think anyone gets killed by Sunday drivers? “
I’m sure they do. That’s why we have auto insurance, although I’d rather not be killed. We could legislate against Sunday driving, but the amount of time, effort and money it would take to VERY poorly enforce this law (I suppose there’d have to be a checkpoint at every corner? Affidavits about points of departure and planned destinations, with time stamps? The mind boggles) would put it into the billions of dollars.
You know all this. You are just blustering because you want conservatives on this site to become Libertarians. It isn’t going to happen. Libertarianism does not work in the real world, except on a large part of the economic plane, which was admitted right off and continues to be admitted by FReepers across the board. The sanity of their basic fiscal policy is why Libertarians are tolerated.
Telling people like you to stay the hell out of other people's business is not "utopian", it's simply correct.
I already responded.
Asserting that your evidence is fine is not a response to my rebuttals of that evidence.
I’m sure they do. That’s why we have auto insurance, although I’d rather not be killed.
So if drinkers and druggers bought insurance that would recompense the victims of drunk or drugged crimes, or their next of kin, that would satisfy you? Or is it somehow worse to die at the hands of a drugged person than beneath the wheels of a Sunday driver?
We could legislate against Sunday driving, but the amount of time, effort and money it would take to VERY poorly enforce this law (I suppose there’d have to be a checkpoint at every corner? Affidavits about points of departure and planned destinations, with time stamps? The mind boggles) would put it into the billions of dollars.
Funny, several tens of billions is what you're apparently happy to spend on poorly enforcing drug laws.
What's utopian is thinking that government force can significantly decrease consensual vices. Even China and Iran have drug problems - what could we possibly hope to accomplish while remaining a free society?
“So if drinkers and druggers bought insurance that would recompense the victims of drunk or drugged crimes, or their next of kin, that would satisfy you? Or is it somehow worse to die at the hands of a drugged person than beneath the wheels of a Sunday driver? “
It would help. But I support the arrest, and the removal of driving privileges from, EVERY person who drives impaired. Whether they are impaired from alcohol, pot, or speed.
One can drive unimpaired after a glass or two of wine. But not after getting drunk, or high, or impaired, whatever you want to call it.
Your continual effort to equate light alcohol use with the use of marijuana, coke, meth, whatever is wearying.
I do equate drunkenness with the use of illegal drugs.
As I said.
I support the illegality of drunkenness. Not of casual drinking. There is a big difference, although you don’t seem to want to see it.
“Funny, several tens of billions is what you’re apparently happy to spend on poorly enforcing drug laws. “
The enforcement of our drug laws, if as you say is in the tens of billions of dollars, does not just reduce the number of people getting high on a given day.
It reduces all the crimes they would have committed when they were high.
The murders, the rapes, the molestations, the thefts, the drunk/drugged driving, the assaults, etc.
So yes, I would pay tens of billions, if necessary, to reduce all that. That is a legitimate function of government and tax dollars. To reduce crime; to protect the innocent.
The fewer drug abusers and drunken sots running free on any given day; the fewer violent and property crimes.
It would help.
Not the question. Again: would that satisfy you?
But I support the arrest, and the removal of driving privileges from, EVERY person who drives impaired.
The issue is not impaired driving but your imposition-of-costs argument. Again: I'm talking about innocent people suffering and dying in accidents that wouldn't have happened if the car wasn't on the road. Are you willing to continue imposing those costs on others for your right to drive (unimpaired) for the sake of driving?
I do equate drunkenness with the use of illegal drugs.
As I said in post #258, to which you haven't responded:
A glass or two or three of alcohol depending upon the size and duration does not keep you from rational thinking, or have any but beneficial long term effects.
All other drugs do;
Alcohol was used exclusively in irrationalizing doses when that drug was illegal. It's not the drug, it's the incentive structure.
save for a puff or two of marijuana; which I’ve never heard of or seen someone do;
I've done it myself in the past - so again you FAIL.
There's no evidence that it actually accomplishes even that little.
It reduces all the crimes they would have committed when they were high.
The murders, the rapes, the molestations, the thefts, the drunk/drugged driving, the assaults, etc.
So yes, I would pay tens of billions, if necessary, to reduce all that. That is a legitimate function of government and tax dollars.
Wrong - subjecting to possible arrest ALL members of a certain group (drunks and drug users) because of what SOME of them MIGHT do is an utterly ILlegitimate function of government.
“Wrong - subjecting to possible arrest ALL members of a certain group (drunks and drug users) because of what SOME of them MIGHT do is an utterly ILlegitimate function of government. “
I disagree, obviously. These folks are deliberately lowering their inhibitions, and/or making themselves largely unemployable yet desperate for drugs (and thence drug money - an legalizing it doesn’t make it free), and/or making themselves irrational, and/or making themselves permanently crazy. All of those demonstrably foments criminal behavior.
Just like I want someone arrested for waving a knife in my face because he MIGHT cut me, just like I want a drunk driver arrested because he MIGHT hit me (or others), just like I want person who plans an assassination arrested BEFORE he carries it out, just like I want people banned from putting out attractive nuisances like unfenced swimming pools in their front yards because kids MIGHT wander in and drown, I want people who deliberately stir up their crazy BANNED from doing so. I see it as a necessary and functional part of government.
“It would help.
Not the question. Again: would that satisfy you? “
Please see my full answer:
-It would help. But I support the arrest, and the removal of driving privileges from, EVERY person who drives impaired. Whether they are impaired from alcohol, pot, or speed.-
So no, AS I SAID, it would not fully satisfy me, I want people who deliberately drive impaired arrested for it. Even if they haven’t done any property damage or hurt or killed anyone (yet).
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.