Posted on 04/07/2010 5:26:04 AM PDT by listenhillary
I used to be a Kennedy-style "liberal." Then I wised up. Now I'm a libertarian.
But what does that mean?
When I asked people on the street, half had no clue.
We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support "nation-building."
And so-called liberals? They tend to be anti-gun and pro-choice on abortion. They favor big, powerful government -- they say -- to make life kinder for people.
By contrast, libertarians want government to leave people alone -- in both the economic and personal spheres. Leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don't hurt anybody else.
Ironically, that used to be called "liberal," which has the same root as "liberty." Several hundred years ago, liberalism was a reaction against the stifling rules imposed by aristocracy and established religion.
I wish I could call myself "liberal" now. But the word has been turned on its head. It now means health police, high taxes, speech codes and so forth.
So I can't call myself a "liberal." I'm stuck with "libertarian." If you have a better word, please let me know.
When I first explained libertarianism to my wife, she said: "That's cruel! What about the poor and the weak? Let them starve?"
I recently asked some prominent libertarians that question, including Jeffrey Miron, who teaches economics at Harvard.
"It might in some cases be a little cruel," Miron said. "But it means you're not taking from people who've worked hard to earn their income (in order) to give it to people who have not worked hard."
But isn't it wrong for people to suffer in a rich country?
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
It means that he doesn't care about anything other than the money side of conservatism, he is still mostly a liberal.
He is indifferent to America and it's people and sees it as merely a public place for the world's peoples to conduct business in.
Apparently, to be a libertarian is to deal in straw-men.
In his earlier life, when he was hardly famous, he did hang out with the Ayn Rand crowd in New York.
But as chairman of the Fed? No way. The Federal Reserve system, almost by definition, embodies the antithesis of libertarian economics.
I haven’t seen anybody inject into the discussion on legality or illegality of drugs the common sense notion that not all drugs are the same. Yet to a considerable extent we treat them the same.
It would be possible to develop a spectrum showing the negative effects of the presently illegal drugs on users and society, if they were to be legalized. Crank would probably be on the high-damage end and pot on the low-damage end. Then we could make rational decisions about how to treat such drugs from a legal standpoint.
But arguing about “drugs” as if they are a single item is just silly.
A very minimal definition or starting point for investigating what Conservatism is...
There is an enduring moral order.
Human nature is constant, knowable and understandable.
Truth is absolute and moral truths are permanent.
Civilized society requires order.
Therefore:
Conservatism rests on the rock of “Ordered Liberty,” which includes the following listed without explanation:
Individual Liberty
Economic Freedom
Permanence
Prudence
Continuity
Prescription
Variety
Imperfectability
Private Property
Voluntary Community
Restrained Power (small limited gov)
Restrained Passions (rule of law)
Reasoned and Temperate Progress
Strong National Defense
JW
It doesn't bother me when I see someone living in a $900,000 home in a nice neighborhood pulling out of their driveway in a brand new Lexus. I'm glad they are successful. I may envy them and wish that were me, but I don't hate them, nor do I wish to take away what they've earned.
When liberals stop telling me what to buy, when to buy it and what quantities I can buy it in, when they stop trying to use the power of the Federal Government to steal my wealth, when they stop using my tax dollars to support atrocities like abortion, when their Hollywood pals stop wallowing in their own hypocrisy by telling Americans they need to live a certain way while they live it up, when they stop destroying the economy under the guise of enviromentalism, when they stop telling us what to think and what not to think, then maybe we'll find some common ground.
Until then, they can kiss my backside.
I don't believe it can be. If "civil rights" are defined in the negative sense the Founders used. Things the government isn't allowed to do to individuals.
If we take them in the "progressive" sense of rights to housing, medical care, food, etc, etc, then they require imposing moral wrongs on some in order to provide the "rights" to others.
There is no "moral value" in legalizing alcohol, presuming we can define what is "moral" or "immoral" about using mood-altering substances -- I suppose you could argue there is no "moral value" in legalizing chocolate, or coffee.
There is certainly economic value in legalizing drugs, in the same sense there would be economic value in legalizing drinking. You can make money selling drugs, and selling alchohol. But the use of both also costs society time and money, and it's an open debate whether the economic gain trumps the economic losses. I'd argue that's not a question for government to decide.
No analogy is perfect, and it depends what part of the argument you are dealing with which analogy is useful. The driving analogy is useful when looking at the question of "increased risk of harm to others" from an activity, and my point was that we accept increased risk of harm to others based on how much "value" we put on the activity; As you note, you put no value on drug use, so you would probably have a very low tolerance for "increased risk", while you probably put a high value on driving, so you would have a higher tolerance for "increased risk".
Exactly right. Open immigration with our welfare state is the end of this country.
Don't confuse Libertarian Party with libertians.
Most libertarians don't while the LP does...assuming that the current welfare state was done.
Have you never heard of statutory law? Where do you reside in this great nation of ours where there exists no such thing as statutory law? And before you even pose the question, statutory law falls fully within the bounds of libertarian philosophy: it is the law, codified by the legislature, which is elected by the people, by which society agrees to regulate itself so that rights are both protected and preserved.
You're doing your absolute damnedest to promulgate an argument along some pretty flimsy ground, my friend. I salute your doggedness, but might I suggest you also apply some common sense as well? Libertarianism is NOT anarchism. Libertarianism does not yearn for NO law or NO government, but limited law and limited government.
The mark is moved.
Then I guess you think we should outlaw any food going to other countries, right? I mean, there is proof of fraud involving “oil for food” in Iraq, and we need to avoid fraud as it causes harm. Where do you draw the line?
As once stated, by one of those old useless, and clueless Founding Fathers, those that would give up a little freedom for a little security deserve neither and will loose both! See our current laws as PERFECT examples! The WOD drugs has innocent people having thousands of dollars confiscated as “drug money” and forfeited without ever being charged! Because the police declared the money as such, you must disprove a negative, and show that the money was never going to be used for drugs! How do you disprove a negative in court? How about those innocent members of your “society?”
Back to your argument, about mental and physical harm, so we should outlaw fast food as well? Again, it has caused extensive physical harm in America - heard of the obesity issue here? Quick lets outlaw these reckless companies before they do any more harm to our society!
Your argument, although well intentioned, is asinine in application! You cannot save the world from a “possibility” that is not intentioned. Attempting to do so is as bright as trying to capture the wind and all while using MY tax dollars!
So we limit or prohibit the sale of drugs to minors, the same way we limit or prohibit the sale of alcohol and tobacco, and don’t let under-16s drive cars.
Legalizing doesn’t have to mean completely unregulated sale. I would actually expect that a drug pusher would still be illegal, as you’d have taxes, and regulations, and would sell drugs in stores.
On the other hand, I do not believe that in general minors are being forced against their will to do drugs. And certainly the libertarian view would allow government to punish people who forced others to use drugs.
I’m not really one who argues for legalizing drugs, but I do understand that the criminalization of drugs is a direct assault on my liberty, and one that is, in my case, totally indefensible. Government has absolutely NO reason to fear my use of a drug, and no rational basis for prohibiting me from growing a marijuana plant in my back yard.
LOL...how...uninformed!
Sure, the legal way to get cocaine, oxycodone, vicodine or other pharmacological grade drugs is to see your doctor, get a prescription, and pay for it. In Colorado, same for Marijuana.
When that dam fetus can go out and earn a living and pay taxes then it can have its liberty!
/S
“But arguing about ‘drugs’ as if they are a single item is just silly.”
You are absolutely correct! Think about over-the-counter as compared to prescription drugs. There are things that need tighter controls, but to simply outlaw all drugs because a few users “might” do something illegal is just stupid!
A good example of this is beer; it is legal and yet people have died of alcohol poisoning involving this drug. Yet, there are absolutely NO records of anyone EVER having died of marijuana overdose or marijuana poisoning!
So, tell me how and why beer is “good” or “acceptable” and marijuana is “bad” and “wrong!” Personally, I think is public relations! Yep, beer has a better PR man than MJ!
Isn't that what courts are for?
Libertarians simply want restoration of the Constitutional government, not what we have now.
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.