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 ...
You beat me to the punch on that one-see my post above. I’ve been here since 2000, so I should not be surprised when the mob appears, either...
Yes, I have a problem with the Constitution. I have a problem with it being used like toilet paper
Which clause in the Constitution authorizes the federal government to regulate intrastate drug making, selling, or using?
Especially since even the lightest libertarian is a rabid 2A proponent by comparison to your average GOP RINO.
I guess when you continue to demolish their arguments year after year, they kinda run out of crap to throw at the wall.
Tribal dynamics. In order to keep your tribe completely in line, it is necessary to discredit all positions of those in the opposing tribe. One of the methods of doing that is to demonize the members of the opposing tribe, so naturally any views held by them are, of course, evil.
Anyone will notice that for every libertarian (and many progressives and Marxists today) this statement is paramount to all of their political philosophy. It is aligned with the Marxist philosophy of ‘Relative Morality’ and seeks to make everyone “Equal” to the extent that even all forms of morality are equal. Do whatever feels good is what they want to preach to our children.
Which part of "political" did you not understand? Libertarianism doesn't say that “Do As Thou Wilt But Harm None” should be anyone's personal morality, but only that harm prevention (more precisely, rights violation) is the test for the morality of government action.
Who is "protetcted" - and from what exactly - by laws against porn, prostitution, sodomy, bigamy, polygamy, drug abuse, and drug trafficking?
I don't hide behind the constitution, I defend it in name and in principle. Not only is it the basis for our government, and the basis for my political ideology, it is also the basis for conservatism.
Is any part of this unclear to you?
“who is protected . . .by laws against porn, prostitution, sodomy, bigamy, polygamy, drug abuse, and drug trafficking? “
Children, mostly. Also mentally handicapped, dependent elderly, and in some cases those of us just trying to go about our business in public. Also those of perfectly sound faculties who have a right not to be presented with sexually graphic material in public, where it can not be avoided unless we walk about with our eyes firmly shut.
So you think if you stamp your feet and demand to expand the argument into other areas then you’ll get your way? lol. I am at work coming near the end of the work day and I expect to possibly have no internet access tonight and possibly tommorrow as well so I am not going to enter into arguments on specifics.
Sorry about that. Maybe another time.
Well said-Tribal dynamics might be okay in Afghanistan or parts of Africa where such things are still part of the political landscape, but they really don’t make a lot of sense here.
Generations of worshipers have "modified" Bazuzu's writings to, in some cases, mean the exact opposite of Bazuzu's explicit instructions.
Anyone wanting to get back to Bazuzu'z original writings is nailed to a pole for the fire ants to eat...
Sound familiar?
That I support gays serving in the military is your misreading - my position is that the part and parcel of the Constitutional authority to raise an army is the authority to say who can and can't serve.
I am not going to get into a case by case argument as to whether a certain behavior is harmful or not.
I only asked about a single case, which YOU brought up.
So you think if you stamp your feet and demand to expand the argument into other areas
No expansion - just continuing on a subject YOU brought up. Your fleeing is duly noted.
“You said we should cooperate them, then said 2/3 of their philosophy is inhuman, and I really dont see how doing that will get them to the table.
Half of those morality issues dont harm people who arent interested in being harmed, so why does the government need to enforce that morality?”
Yes, I confronted them about the inhumanity of their foreign and social policy. That should get them to the table, to defend their positions, and hopefully conclude that their positions are indefensible.
I completely disagree that half of these morality issues don’t harm people. That is a ridiculous assertion. They are devastating to the human race.
Do you support the legalization of drugs like marijuana, cocaine, meth, and so on?
Look at the posts by ....Nannies. He too is a strict Constitutionalist. But his views on drugs are immoral and therefore he is no Conservative.
Let me re-make this point abundantly clear.
Libertarians are not socially conservative. Therefore I want no part of them in my Republican Party. They (Paulites) are harming and damaging real conservatives like Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich and others. They are doing nothing but advancing the RoPaul agenda which is benefitting Mittens.
And - I repeat - they call themselves Strict Constitionalists as they eff up my country.
I’m starting to get pi$$ed off here. But I guess you know that.
Democrats and Republicans both spend as much time demonizing their opponents as they do arguing the merits of their own position.
I saw an interesting show one time about tribal dynamics in a hospital. The nurses didn't want to be constrained by the rules on how much drugs particular patients should receive. They felt that the patient's comfort was the prime rule. The pharmacy department insisted on strict compliance with the rules. Both sides engaged in efforts to discredit the arguments of the other side, including resorting to demonizing the people in the "other" group.
"You're either with us or against us" goes on ALL the time. Considering it to be associated with traditional "tribes" misses the reality of the tribal dynamics going on all around us every day.
Children, mostly.
Children are protected by laws against providing to children. Using that as an excuse to ban things for adults is immoral and counterproductive - kids report that they can get marijuana (illegal for adults) more easily than beer or cigarettes (legal for adults).
Also mentally handicapped, dependent elderly,
So ALL adults should be subjected to the limits appropriate for the mentally handicapped and dependent elderly? Better ban alcohol, then - and guns, knives, power tools, and cars.
and in some cases those of us just trying to go about our business in public. Also those of perfectly sound faculties who have a right not to be presented with sexually graphic material in public, where it can not be avoided unless we walk about with our eyes firmly shut.
No libertarian I know of says that the right to do ABC implies the right to do it in public. But banning sexually graphic material for even private viewing goes too far.
Im not fleeing and I didnt bring up drug use specifically but just how certain behaviors were deemed harmful or not. Libertarians seem to think that they can dictate the means by which something is considered harmful or not. I disagree with their notion.
But as I said I wont be online much longer and I am not sure if I will internet access later.
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.