Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 02/20/2009 6:01:36 AM PST by rabscuttle385
oh horse crap...
I am a social conservative before anything else (politically) and I think this is crap.
yes and no..
ATT would keep track of all the data going from his node out to the web. I have not read this bill but that info coming from a wireless access point (let along an anonymous public one) is pretty useless in criminal prosecutions. They would need the MAC address or at least something to tie a specific member of the wifi network to a site..
And tinyurl
And that’s a liberal impulse that Cornyn was channeling?
yup, not a social conservative one..
Ah yes, the whole world is disintegrating in front of out very eyes, but let's worry about the internet because at least it's for the children.
BASTARDS. The lot of them.
Which will do absolutely *nothing* without controlling the operating system... Since Linux is *international*, with global scope, and is truly amorphous, with no particular place to serve it notice, Linux will ignore such useless bleating. The very same can be said for the rest of the Free Software community. If they chop off a head, it grows two more.
Until the whole world is under one dominion, there will be internet, and it will be accessible regardless of censorship.
Speaking of which, you left the neocons out of your earlier diatribe.
NeoCons ARE Globalists. They are Baker Moderates and are the scourge of true Conservatism. I spit upon them (PTOOEY!)
Shredding the constitution in the name of “fighting the war on terror” doesn’t sit so well with the Libertarians either. Neither does their interventionist foreign policy.
As a Reaganite, you will find my record here holds great sympathy for the Libertarian cause. I am mortified by the treatment you receive at the hands of the Republicans, and particularly, what you must endure from your fellow FReepers... It is a shame and a caution.
That being said, while I recognize your points as legitimate, and while I deplore the Bush administration for many of it's actions, I remain resolute and in favor of the GWOT, and largely in favor of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
My position comes largely from the observation that we will not be done with the Arabs until they are defeated. This is a Crusade, and *not* one of our making. If one believes that this mess will stop short of serious annihilation, one need only look to history to understand our certain fate.
With that in mind, and considering the certainty that Constitutional liberties will be taken in times of war (it is quite the norm), I would submit that it is likely no war beyond our borders would be comfortable to the libertarian mind, and I quite understand that- But I would submit that your mind might have been greatly eased had these things, having been deemed necessary, been executed with a Reaganite at the helm, and a Reaganite Congress (if not a Libertarian one) minding the store.
I believe that it is the method and the lack of trust which stirs you to great ire- It is a far different thing if there is just cause and a promise of restoration of liberties that one can rely upon. Both of these were given poor service by Geo. Bush and the NeoCon Revue, and the rah, rah section will only get you so far.
I see what you mean about open wireless connections but I thought we were talking about your personal ISP from home. That’s a different story.
Not at all! I just have a great faith in the ability of hackers (in the classic sense of the word) to stay in front of the tech. For instance, the biometric reader is a simple machine. It can be disassembled and fed anyone's biometric information. This is, BTW, exactly what will drive the beast to "chip" everyone in Biblically prophetic "Mark of the Beast" fashion, before it is all done, IMHO...
I'm disappointed in Cornyn.
Perhaps Texas will have something to say by next election (I surely do hope so). It is for reasons such as these that I am no longer a Republican, and not likely to ever go back.
Reagan needs a new house.
LESS
warehousing of criminals?
Good idea! Let's just let the criminals out on the streets. Oh wait, California is going to do just that! Let's see how easy it will be for the criminals to find jobs -- legal ones -- not the ones where they rob your house or mug you on the street at knifepoint.
There is nothing wrong with social conservatism in and of itself. As you pointed out, it defines the conservative Judeo-Christian community, a community with values that largely comprise the foundational bedrock of American society, aside from Enlightenment philosophy that gave rise to the Declaration, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and Adam Smith's free-market capitalism.
However, one must be careful to note the dangers of the "I know what's best for you, better than you do" attitude. Maybe there's a fine shade of difference between authoritarianism, totalitarianism, Big Brother-ism, mercantilism, Marxism, Socialism, Communism, monarchies, dictatorship, oligarchies, etc. but the fact still remains, all of these general means of organizing power stem from the same attitude. And, that's why it's especially important for all to note that the same governmental infrastructure that one faction creates to enforce its own values can be turned against the faction that created it...by another faction, in its time of power, and no faction is guaranteed to be in power at all times.
In other words, expanding Big Government is a dangerous business, since Big Government is the ultimate legally-sanctioned monopoly. You may be able to use it to achieve your own ends now, but that's not to say that your opponents can use it against you later.
Too bad the Republicans were too short-sighted to realize this during the past eight years, though as of late, based on what I've heard from Rush Limbaugh, after some clarification, I strongly believe that he's gotten the picture.
It has always been so. Not saying I had a misspent yoot, but IF I had a misspent yoot, back before wireless, I might have thought to load all my gear into a dark-windowed van with 100 ft of cable or so, and tie into an ext. utility jack out back of a college, business, or even a personal residence from time to time... It has never been a problem getting access. Of course one never logs on from one's own residence...
“Republican politicians on Thursday called for a sweeping new federal law”
I miss small government conservatives.
*shuffles* Just let me take off my Reagan hat and put on my SoCon hat for the sake of this argument...
You are right, of course. I get this argument from my Libertarian FRiends quite often. But libertarianism is not without it's own pitfalls...
I will fall back on a small quote from one of the Founding Fathers:
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -John Adams
Libertarianism, without a strong influence by a moral ethic, invariably devolves in one of two predictable ways: It becomes libertine (todays liberalism, almost), burdened by its own excesses, or it will become anarchy (think American Wild-West). The true Libertarian must admit the necessary "evil" (in the libertarian mind) of a general submission to an ethical code of some sort, not personal only, but generally accepted.
It must be admitted that laws are made in large part, to restrict freedoms, by their very nature. They are reactionary and preventative, coercing the populace through pain of some sort, to refrain from some act which has been deemed to be deleterious to the population as a whole. This act, having been committed when it was legal to do so, is made illegal because it caused harm to the sensibilities of the populace as a whole.
It is impossible to divorce morality from those sensibilities. There is no "moral neutral". One is writing someone's morality into law, no matter what one does.
It would seem likely then, as the good and honorable President John Adams has astutely surmised, that it is incumbent upon a libertarian minded government to govern over a good and ethical people- Otherwise the government cannot stay small and unobtrusive. It must grow, one law upon another, with each offense lending cause for yet another law, yet another ordinance.
So Libertarianism, the Constitution, and the Federalist government in and of itself is not enough either, FRiend rabs. It must, by it's very nature, be taken within the context of the ethical code in which, and by which it was written. That is the Judeo-Christan Ethic. We are children of Jehovah, or we are *nothing*.
Without the decidedly Protestant Christian root from which we grew, we are left with the same "enlightenment" which sprung forth from the French Revolution and lead to Communism, Socialism, Fascism, and the rest. It is the rotten root of Rome, and it must be deplored.
It is not the Christians you need to fear. We were there with you at the foundations of this nation. It is God's own Justice that makes our Constitution timeless. Without He, who was called upon to witness our Declaration of Independence, without the sure knowledge of His Inspiration, and His Divine Hand upon our forefathers as they wrote those immutable words, there are no rights at all, you see... There was no witness, and the document becomes nothing but a meaningless arrangement- Words written by men, that men are free to change.
No, we share common foes, you and I. I truly believe our common foes are those who wish to change that which we both endeavor to preserve. You preserve the structure of our founding, and I preserve the Spirit thereof. IMHO, the two are both timeless and sacred, and cannot be split apart, one from the other. They rely upon each other.
Now here's the tricky part: You have to oppose me. That is your job. And I must oppose you- That is my job. There is enough caution in the Founding Father's papers to see their intention in that. Having come from a place where religion and government were one thing, their driving passion was to curb government, and to be allowed to practice true religion... That's you and me, pal. And they put the two at odds with each other on purpose.
But by the same token, that opposition was amicable- God's laws were observed universally. He was given deference in the highest halls and courts throughout this land. The Bible was taught in schools, and used as law in our courts. Prayer was universal. The Sabbath day was observed by law, and in many localities, that continued all the way into the 1960's.
It isn't until Liberalism's absurd assertion that the "separation of Church and State" was to be final and forever, never to be compromised, that we see real animosity between the Libertarians and the Christians.
It was Reaganism which started to heal that rift, and without that healing, there can be no Conservatism, nor can there be an America- It takes BOTH, equal, and amicably opposed, before the conscience of America is fully healed. And it will take both, lifted up before America, to battle the fruits of Liberal Multi-culturalism.
So while you are correct about where "I know what's best for you, better than you do" can go, and while you are correct to oppose excesses against freedom (as is your duty, bound to your ideology), Take care to know your friends, and take caution not to go too far the other way.
Come and get them.
We are no longer a free people and have not been for some time.
“We need to do something right now!”
Today’s Youth Act,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Youth Act?....As in Hitler Youth?
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.