Posted on 02/22/2013 11:53:58 AM PST by Mozilla
"License" is the mealymouthed equivocation of closet statists who want to illegitimately restrict the word "liberty" to only those actions they approve of. Their real argument is that freedom is scary.
Libertarians formed a party in 1971, it represents libertarian ideals, it is where the rubber meets the road.
JR as a conservative was correct to label libertarians as “they” and as not being conservative, and to point out how they serve the left.
Libertarians want to import and create more liberals and broken people/communities in the strange belief that they will start voting like religious conservatives, it is perhaps the most bizarre fantasy in politics, from anywhere on the planet.
Perhaps the only correct thing you've said.
it represents libertarian ideals
Many libertarians reject a number of elements in the Libertarian Party platform.
JR as a conservative was correct to label libertarians as “they” and as not being conservative,
As has been pointed out to you before, "not the same as" does not equal "anti."
and to point out how they serve the left.
JR as a conservative was also correct to call them "our good friends" who "have some pretty good ideas about constitutionality, freedom, Liberty, etc."
“License” is the mealymouthed equivocation of closet statists who want to illegitimately restrict the word “liberty” to only those actions they approve of. Their real argument is that freedom is scary.
You’re probably WRONG about other things too...
License is the FREEDOM to have Chaos..
The Liberty to run WILD... you know to be “FERAL”..
To make logical decisions while DRUGGED.. on “something”..
They call it “DOPE” for a reason...
Including the mind-altering drug alcohol?
Because of theodicy: from Wikipedia
an attempt to resolve the evidential problem of evil by reconciling the traditional divine characteristics of omnibenevolence, omnipotence, and omniscience with the occurrence of evil or suffering in the world.....
Or in other words, "Why do bad things happen to good people?"
Since we see Obama in office and the liberals ascending, its hard to think God is on our side.
These eternal questions can only be answered on (and by) faith...not logic. You can only state that we cannot think as God thinks and so announce that his works are ineffable.
An Objectivist can only look to that which is known. A is A.
I don't think Rand was as anti-religion as people make her out to be. As with Thomas Jefferson, as long as it does not pick our pockets nor breaks our legs, who cares.
But I think she was very against shutting down your mind, throwing up your hands and saying, "God's will"!
And The Church™ admonishment to sacrifice yourself to altruism also (rightly) rubbed her the wrong way.
I guess you hadda be there ...
Here is the libertarian agenda.
“”COMPLETE PLATFORM TEXT
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL ORDER
IMMIGRATION:
The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.””
To make logical decisions while DRUGGED.. on “something”..
Including the mind-altering drug alcohol?
Whats your point?...
You did have a point?.. or are you trying to divert from libertarians are for drugs.. although some libertarians equivocate, meaning change the subject.. alcohol IS a drug.. quite different from other dope.. POT opens the door to LICENSE.. Society has lived(well) with alcohol for millenia.. NOT so harder drugs..
Alcohol is part of most cultures.. other drugs ARE NOT..
Its like sex.. between a man and woman is acculturated..
Sex between others and animals and machines, is license..
PORN is not good for society.. it degrades it..
In the same way alcohol can be good other drugs BAD...
Even alcohol can be bad if not controlled..
Libertarians are for LICENSE... therefore Chaos..
Any Libertarian thinks in a shallow way about these things..
Libertarians are doofuses that just want to get “High”..
UNless they are renegades from the democrat/republican train wreck..
But they still may want to get high.. because they are demoralized..
Good post.
“First of all, for alleged individualists, you’re very mob-like,” Coulter said. “Second of all, it is my business because we are living in a welfare state … Right now, I have to pay for, it turns out, coming down the pike, your health care. I have to pay for your unemployment when you can’t hold a job. I have to pay for your food, for your housing. Yeah, it’s my business!”
Using the liberals' argument that everything's our business because we have to pay for it isn't very convincing. I wish Stossel would have called her out on that. There's reality and there's the man-made situation we live in -- they are different.
For Pete's sake. Next she'll be telling me to stop smoking because it will raise her taxes. Not a very deeply-founded philosophical belief. Nothing more than an appeal to self-interest.
It's a matter of taste, but to my eyes, the woman is not "hot." Even adding needed pounds would not solve the basic facial structure problem.
Your mileage, of course, definitely varies.
Of course, most libertarians will not admit it.
But then, in America “liberal” is a Newspeak word at this point - socialists coopted the word in the 1920s, according to William Safire. Before then, “liberal” had been the correct word for what is now abused as “conservative.”“Conservative” is a term of abuse in America, for the simple reason that American “conservatives” conserve American traditions of freedom - and a Constitution which explicitly promotes progress (by giving Congress the right to establish the Patent Office for the purpose of promoting “the progress of science and the useful arts”).
American “conservatives” promote fracking, while the “liberals” want to abolish the freedom to do so.
Journalists reserve the term “objective” for themselves, but apply any other label they can think of - especially “liberal,” “progressive,” “moderate,” or “centrist” - to pelicans who attack the middle class. Which is precisely what the journalists attack.
Journalists reserve the term “objective” for themselves, but apply any other label they can think of - especially “liberal,” “progressive,” “moderate,” or “centrist” - topelicanspoliticians who attack the middle class. Which is precisely what the journalists attack.
Including the mind-altering drug alcohol?
Society has lived(well) with alcohol for millenia.. NOT so harder drugs..
American society lived at least as well with other drugs for centuries before they were criminalized. And since over 40% of Americans have used marijuana, it looks like we're living well with that drug today.
Even alcohol can be bad if not controlled..
So let's control drugs - not remove them from the possibility of effective control by banning them. Note that since teens report that they can get pot more easily than beer or cigarettes, it looks like the most effective way to keep pot out of teens' hands (and still-developing brains) is to legalize it for adults - so sellers have an incentive not to sell to kids (namely, the loss of their legal adult sales).
Sad to say, some self-professed “conservatives” will relabel freedoms they disapprove of as “license” and loudly bray for their governmental suppression.
So let’s control drugs - not remove them from the possibility of effective control by banning them.
“You protest TOO MUCH...” <<— could be you have no idea what I just said..
Dangerous Drugs are NOT banned.. Trafficking in them “IS” banned...
Banned as it should be banned.. free use of Opiates and other easily addictive substances IS INSANE....
Alcohol CAN BE addictive BUT it takes HUGE effort to become addicted..
It is not easy to become addicted to alcohol you must try very hard..
Did I say; “YOU PROTEST TOO MUCH”?...
Maybe you should try decaf...
True... I’m drugged on caffeine... in some mornings.. sometimes in the afternoon..
I’m also drugged on “pickles”.. I’m partial to vinegar treated food..
And get high on chocolate OFTEN..
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.