Posted on 05/23/2012 6:22:10 AM PDT by DManA
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) adopted a combative tone in a recent interview with NPR where he said that he is “doggone offended” by libertarians. He told NPR “I despise these people” and implied that he is happy to intimidate those that “dump on” him with threats of violence.
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
I embrace the concept of “exchange of ideas”. A well thought out idea has facts to support it, is logical, extends to a predictable and acceptable outcome, and is based on prior ideas.
Repeating a bad idea, and name-calling are a sign of a mind that is “stuck”. Brow-beating, frustration, insults and being mean simply add cement to the mind that is stuck. We can see many, many example of that here.
My favorite exercise today, was to take a Political Test as given in Post #43. I did it, I took the 6 page test and had my political viewpoint mapped. I mapped practically on top of Miltion Friedman.
I was then informed that I was not a Conservative at all, which would be kind of a shock to Mr. Friedman. But, there it is. To quote my famous “clone” - “I am a libertarian with a small ‘l’ and a Republican with a capital ‘R.’ And I am a Republican with a capital ‘R’ on grounds of expediency, not on principle.”
I’m quite happy with my company.
Hahahahahaha. If Libertarians were actually conservative they wouldn't be overwhelmingly supported by drug advocates, pornographers and sex stores owners.
Just declaring freedom from government is not conservative. Declaring love of God, country and family is conservative.
First there were plenty of drug laws by 1937, and the laws of 1937 were in response to a growing problem and the United States is much more libertarian today than it was back during the first 100 years when Christian fundamentalists, and social conservatives ran the nation and the society.
Unleashing the laboratories and advertisers in unrestrained, unlimited pursuit of market, is the childish fantasy of a leftist stoner, not a conservative.
We get bored talking to the left about their drugs all the time, explain your opening of the borders and the end of the border patrol to us.
While Nietzsche would certainly approve of your position, Darwinian survivalism is not the supreme good in a Christian worldview. We oppose abortion because we value every human life as a reflection of the image of God, not because we think every life will turn out good. Self-murder, whether through drugs or by any other means, is as anathema to a healthy culture as infanticide. Both deeds devalue life and undermine the duties we have to each other.
I do not want people dying, simply because they got trapped in a bad behavior. Yes, people who begin to do this later in life have to face the moral as well as the physical consequences of their stupid choices. But as I tried telling you before, many people are drawn into this as very young people. They know adults, mostly family, who are already in the abyss, and they are dragging them down into it before the child is really free to make their own “stupid” choices. And there is malice aforethought by those who provision such drugs to young people. It gives them power, because it gives them coercive control over people who would not make those choices if they were truly free. It is a way to breed slaves and wealth.
If you were truly interested in freedom, I would think you would be amenable to finding ways to prevent coercion of our young people into lives of corruption, and law is a valid and useful way to do that. Human law is nothing more than people agreeing on how they will live together. Unfortunately, because we are not yet in Heaven, such rule-making is necessary. Force must be met with force. Those agreements we call law have no power to protect us if they cannot be enforced. The will to enforce good law is foundational to conservatism, i.e., to conserving what is good. Capitulation only leads to further losses.
BTW, your last post is rife with assumptions that are not well-grounded in what I actually said. Addiction in its many forms eventually takes complete control, makes otherwise rational people do irrational things, not because it is cool or exotic or hard to get or classy or classless or whatever, but because you can’t not do it. The “cool” meme is just a thin papering over used to explain to ones self and others why there is no ability to say no. It’s a flimsy rationalization for a disturbing reality. That’s all. The reality under the façade is much darker. If you’ve never experienced it, you don’t know what I mean. Better for you if you don’t. But you do have it wrong.
Beautifully said.
A liberal....Someone who smokes dope.
A Conservative.......Someone who doesn’t smoke dope.
A libertarian.......a Liberal who no longer smoke dope or, a conservative that has started smoking dope.
You won’t find a single Libertarian who will support the idea of NOT saving a child. A child is incapable of making choices, as they do not realize the consequences, and have no power to enforce their decisions. This goes for kiddie porn, just like it goes for adults dragging kids into drugs. Those are unfit parents, and practically any Libertarian would support the Gov’t taking the child away from the abusive parent. At the same time, Libertarians feel it is not the Gov’t job to be involved either for or against Abortion. God is the judge, not me and not you. I and I alone will answer for my actions, and you for yours.
Neitzche espoused that “God is Dead” - not a common thought amongst Libertarians. The idea of truly “free choice” is pretty much paramount to what many consider to be Christ’s plan for salvation. If you have no choice in matters, how can you make a ‘wrong’ choice? We grow from our mistakes, if we are prohibited from making mistakes, we cease to grow.
If someone opts to commit suicide, that is their decision. This is between God and them. That said, if someone cries for help, I am obligated to do my best to rescue them. If someone is contemplating suicide, I will strive my best to get them help, to talk them out of a rash decision. However, if they are determined to do so, who are we to say “Sorry, I can’t allow you to do this; because I don’t approve of what you are doing”. In my view, this is the most dangerous thing a human can do to another; for you are forcing him to make a very critical decision. Does he want to die enough, that he will willingly kill you in order to further his goal?
We each are on earth for exactly 1 lifetime. No more, no less. In our allotted time we must make decisions that will have eternal consequences. For me to make decisions for you is to rob you of your just reward (for good, or ill).
I disagree with your statement about the helplessness of an addict. We are not animals, we have an intellect, we have a will. We each will chose what we will chose, and there are consequenes to these decisions. Some decisions are mundane, some are very important. But, for someone else to interject their values upon someone else, is to enslave that individual. An addict isn’t “stupid”, he has made a decision (a stupid decision) that drugs are more important than anything else. At the point he realizes his error, I and many others, will rush to help and support him in his recovery. But, to force a ‘recovery’ on an unwilling subject is to enslave him.
“And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works” Rev. 20:13
What makes you think that Libertarians do not love God, country and family. Ever heard of Milton Friedman?
Wow .. is that the limit of rational thinking you are capable of? Really? Pathetic doesn’t begin to cover it.
Quite a few Libertarians do not, have not, nor ever have smoked pot, done any drugs and do not drink alcohol. I chose not to drink, I chose not to do drugs - I’m hard pressed to take an Asprin. I’m appalled that someone with more than a grade school education is this ignorant.
Libertarians espouse the rights that the Founding Fathers gave us, that have been gradually taken away by Goverment encroachment. We have the right to make individual decisions (even STUPID ones), as long as my decision doesn’t impact your ability to live your life as you see fit. Gov’t exists to provide for us, what we cannot provide for ourselves. As-is, both the RNC and the DNC have allowed the Gov’t to impact practically every single facet of our lives. Things that were never dreamed of just a generation ago, are now under control of the Gov’t. What you do with your land, getting ‘permission’ to improve your property, who you sell to, whom you can buy from, what you can eat, what you can say, the list goes on and on.
Libertarians are all about individual rights and liberty. I’d suggest spending 60 seconds scanning the Libertarian Party Platform, you may be surprised at how closely you may agree with some of these “radical” ideas. That way, when you chose to criticize other Conservatives, you won’t look quite so foolish.
An honest Libertarian will side with pornographers, drug advocates and sex store owners. It’s called “integrity”.
You see, “integrity” means standing for a principle, whether the principle is being used for good, or evil. A libertarian feels that the “individual” has something we call “inalienable rights”. You know, alledgely rights given by God. If those rights include making a living off pornography, or taking drugs - you are free to make those decisions. You see, it’s pretty simple stuff, you should have no problem figuring this one out all by yourself.
You are free to make stupid decisions. If you are not free to make stupid decisions, are you free at all? Each of us will answer for the decisions we have made. I will answer for mine, you will answer for yours. If I remove your ability to make decisions, I have enslaved you. I feel that neither one of us has that authority; this is the crux of what Libertarians believe. It’s root is “Liberty” - as established by our founding fathers.
I doubt you’ll find many Libertarians who do not declare a love of God, country and family.
That is why they have no integrity, they are just liberals.
Abortion, open borders, porn, crack, just childish, fantasy world liberals, that’s all.
You can see the libertarian party platform in post 54.
Noam Chomsky is a libertarians of course, as is Bill Maher.
It is rare for a libertarian hiding out here among conservatives, to confess to being pro-abortion, especially so radically, completely pro-abortion.
Well, that all depends on who gets to define “child,” doesn’t it?
Consider: You say you are for saving a child. May I assume that means you include in that protecting the child’s life through the force of law? If so, how old does the child have to be to warrant your protection? If your answer is “any age,” do you count birth as the beginning of that age, or do you allow that humans in the womb are “children” too?
If you say a child still in the womb should be protected from harm, you doubtless make an exception for the mother, because you allow abortion, and abortion is harm to the child. What is your authority for conferring that power of harming the child to the mother?
By that I mean this. One argument might be location. A child in the womb is relying on mom to provide all its survival needs. A child outside the womb might be somewhat more independent. Do you believe that dependency determines whether a mom may kill her child? If dependency is your rule, what degree of dependency in a post-birth child might warrant giving the mom a right to kill her child?
Or is it developmental theory that guides you? If a human being is sufficiently developed that they have the ability to survive on their own, is that when you would step in and protect them from their own mother? If so, what degree of developmental sophistication is necessary to earn them your protection? Mental function? How much mental function? Enough to smile at mommy? Enough to solve simple math problems? Conformance to some political orthodoxy? When and how does a human graduate from being a mere protrusion of cells inside the mother to being a person with a right to live?
Libertarianism as you have framed it cannot answer that question. You must rely on a liberal definition of human rights and how they are acquired. Humanist systems, even those using God-talk to sanitize their humanism, always ultimately rely on some human-created statutory authority, which in turn uses some arbitrary rule based on materialistic criteria, such as location, dependency, developmental maturity, etc., to define human rights. “Positive” law, as it is called, is the essence, the very heart, of liberal orthodoxy. Those with power can create any morality they can imagine, and impose it on anyone weaker than themselves, especially those too “stupid” to avoid self-destructive behavior. Survival of the fittest, baby, every man for himself. Hence the reference to Nietzsche.
Whereas conservatism can solve this dilemma. Unalienable rights are not conferred on someone by the power of another human being. No rule you or anyone else can devise can assign a right to live to an unborn child. They have that right from the moment they begin to exist, as it is their Creator who confers it. Not you. Not the Government. And not the mother. Only God.
That is the point of the Founders using the term “unalienable” as opposed to “inalienable.” There is a difference. The status of inalienable rights might change at the whim of a new law, but unalienable rights have a different source, and are literally incapable, even by the holder of those rights, of being surrendered, sold, or given away.
This is the foundation of Natural Law, and it defines the American vision. We do not facilitate the destruction of human life at any stage, or any degree of development, or any degree of dependency. We cannot save everyone, because the real world won’t support that. But we cannot allow ourselves the indulgence of smug isolationism. The laws we make to protect life, especially when they are consistent with the Natural Law, are good laws, and worthy of our support, including laws that limit access to serious agents of harm.
BTW, I did some research on the Netherlands. Seems they’re tightening down on their liberal drug policy. They’re trying to maintain a distinction between soft drugs and hard drugs, and while neither is legal (which surprised me – I believed as you did it was open-ended), the so-called “soft” drugs are prosecuted only minimally. But there is beginning to be such an adverse effect from the wide availability of hard drugs they are searching for ways to put that genie back in the bottle. If you’ll pardon the expression.
Odd thing though, you using a supremely socialist state as your model for drug policy.
Holland’s euthanasia practice is of course consistent with your views on suicide as well. Only there is an escalating tendency for family and others to hurry the process along. It seems people, even in Nirvana, just can’t keep themselves from coercing people at all stages of life to die at the command of another. That’s what happens when the value of human life is debased. It will be our own dark future if we let such policies take permanent root here.
“Wow .. is that the limit of rational thinking you are capable of? Really? Pathetic doesn’t begin to cover it.”
I guess satire is wasted on you.....humor, to be truely funny, always has an element of truth in it....looks like I struck a nerve in an apparent humorless individual.
Sorry about the monster paragraph dump. I had some html buried in there and neglected to preview before posting. Would really like a “delete” function. But I get why FR wouldn’t work if we did. Can you imagine all the “I never said that” defenses that would be raised? Yikes.
“Noam Chomsky is a libertarian of course, as is Bill Maher.”
Something that the “faithful” fail to see or acknowledge.
My joke about dope and the political spectrum stands. Whether anyone sees the humor in it or not!
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.