Posted on 04/14/2010 10:23:23 AM PDT by NMEwithin
Well - we’re talking about vices. There is some “libertarian” logic in this. You cost society for this behavior, so you should pay in advance by taxes on this behavior.
I’m personally not so sure this isn’t that bad a strategy either. This is what we do with alcohol and cigarettes. We tried making alcohol illegal and found that didn’t work. So make it legal, but make people responsible for their behavior while under the influence to protect the rest of us makes sense.
The only problem that stops me from adopting this strategy whole heartedly is that the few countries that have gone down this path haven’t faired very well either. You trade one set of problems (theft, etc with drug abuse for instance) with a whole set of other problems.
From my experience, this guy is typical of “libertarian” atheists and new agers. His absolute hatred for religious freedom (centered around the respect for human life and moral conscience) is right up there with the Soviets and Chi-coms. Which is why I can not support libertarians into power.
Sane libertarians who understand and respect the constiution could disassocate themselves from these social radical atheist anti-constitution hatemongers. But they do not. They got the ideal of the founder’s individual economic freedom but totally missed the constitution’s design of individual social liberty. What a waste.
This is 100% true -- which is to say, neither is a necessity at all.
“Well - we’re talking about vices. There is some ‘libertarian’ logic in this. You cost society for this behavior, so you should pay in advance by taxes on this behavior”
I’m not saying that such a thing as a sin tax shouldn’t exist—though it can get out of hand, as with cigarettes lately it’s been bordering on abuse. Although I think it’s less a strategy to deter use than it is easier to suck money out of unpopular groups. Joe Lunchbox asks, “Who cares about druggies, anyway? Let ‘em suffer!” Meanwhile, Uncle Sam laughs his self-satisfied laugh, counting his money. This is how government grows, on the backs of the unpopular.
Back to the main point, I don’t theoretically oppose taxing legal drugs. I just wish that wasn’t one of the first justifications to be offered. Maybe if higher revenues ever helped balance the budget, reduce deficits, or curtail spending (in the long run), but, alas, they don’t.
What do you think I've been trying to do on this thread? I've been pointing out how their "philosophy" is not libertarianism but a mish mash of things based on personal bias. (You are correct that it seems to boil down to a hatred for God.) It isn't even logical or internally consistent. I put them firmly on the left with those that mis-call themselves "liberal".
I consider myself a Christian libertarian. I know where our rights come from and I fully understand the dangers of government. It is others who don't bother to think too deeply about the inherent contradictions and inconsistencies in the positions of these so-called "anarchists" or "left libertarians" or "libertarian socialists" that lump them in with rightists who want small government. Some of those people may call themselves libertarians. They're stupid for doing that if they are rightists because it is self-defeating.
My preferred word would be "liberal", but the left has largely destroyed that.
And miss Glenn Beck?? Never!
I understand. Are you in the leadership of the Libertarian Party? Are you giving speeches to Libertarian as a leader?
Personally, I would be a “Christian Libertarian” as well if it were not for the hate-mongers leading the charge of the party. After getting involved in the party, I was horrifed at the dominate Marxist spirit of hatred and intolerance for the constitution’s design of social freedom. This is what is meant when a libertarian proclaims themselves a “social liberal and economic conservative.” The social liberal is a Marxist and so we have an ideology that is a house divided against itself.
Apply that logic to licking your own balls and murder and then get back to me.
I am not a Libertarian. I’m a libertarian. I don’t often think about the party but rather the philosophy.
I am a social conservative and an economic conservative, but also against government coercion because I believe that ends in slavery and/or genocide.
I am not surprised that the Libertarian party has become corrupt. Human institutions become corrupt after a while. Humans do evil.
1. You own your own body
That is unless the government wants to pass legislation that takes that ownership via the guise of health care.
Yep, this guy’s #3 directly conflicts with his #’s 1 and 8. He is truly a maroon.
Yes they do.
None of them “conflict” if the goal of espousing these views is to see yourself as morally superior to others.
LOL...where is my trophy??
Oddly, Point #1 loudly proclaims the feminazi’s mantra: “It’s my body”. Yet, he is willing to turn his body over to a faceless, nameless bureaucrat who will tell him what to do with “his” body.
True dat.
The feminazis may say that,
but what they mean is
“I had a RIGHT to do what I did. I DID! I insist that I did!”
Whenever I argue with them, all they seem to have is emotionalism. They feel one way and then they just want to rationalize those feelings, regardless of any facts you provide that counters their feelings. It really is not very convincing or attractive. I usually walk away after realizing I'm dealing with an unreasonable, close-minded person.
People probably haven't noticed from my postings, but emotions don't go far with me when people try to use them as arguments.
You want to understand it?
They’ve HAD AN ABORTION.
They KNOW THAT THEY KILLED A CHILD.
They DON’T WANT ANY REMINDERS.
Does that explain the “emotionalism” that you encounter?
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.