Skip to comments.
23 Ways of Poking Fun at Libertarians
Townhall.com ^
| August 3, 2013
| Daniel J. Mitchell
Posted on 08/03/2013 6:35:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380, 381-400, 401-420 ... 521-530 next last
To: Chickensoup
You are still playing games. Libertarians do not as a group ADVOCATE these issues. They allow them to be discussed and chosen OR NOT!
I think the point is we need to ask on a Federal level, "what would the Constitution say?" I think on almost all social matters, the Constitution would be silent and leave such things up to the States (as long as it does not violate the Constitution itself) or the people themselves. Take same-sex marriage, under our system you'd have States that would allow it legally, not allow it legally or just leave it to the people and not get involved. That's the ideal situation.
381
posted on
08/03/2013 6:54:11 PM PDT
by
Nowhere Man
(I miss you Whitey! (4-15-2001 - 10-12-2012). Take care, pretty girl!)
To: Nowhere Man
Actually in 1770, promoting abortion and homosexuality would have probably gotten the death penalty.
libertarianism would not have been well received, or even tolerated.
Before the 1960s sodomy was a felony in every state.
382
posted on
08/03/2013 6:55:15 PM PDT
by
ansel12
( The difference between libertarianism and conservatism is the libertarian liberalism, not economics)
To: Notary Sojac
For every one of them I think there are a dozen libertarians here....and three dozen more libertarian-leaning people.
To: Nowhere Man
I think the point is we need to ask on a Federal level, “what would the Constitution say?” I think on almost all social matters, the Constitution would be silent and leave such things up to the States (as long as it does not violate the Constitution itself) or the people themselves. Take same-sex marriage, under our system you’d have States that would allow it legally, not allow it legally or just leave it to the people and not get involved. That’s the ideal situation.
___________________________
Well-put!
384
posted on
08/03/2013 6:56:55 PM PDT
by
Chickensoup
(200 million unarmed " people killed in the 20th century by Leftist Totalitarian Fascists)
To: Yardstick
That’s not exactly Sowell’s definition is it? Sowell said it meant conserving stuff. What stuff? Any stuff.
Are there any conservatives that believe in preserving everything just because it passes once? No. Buckley didn’t believe that either.
If you have a bad definition of conservativism, then it’s not accurate to say that one rejects what conservativism actually believes. This is really a ‘straw man’ on his part.
I love Sowell, but this isn’t really the best argument against his conservativism. It is a good argument against his libertarianism because he explicitly cites a substantive policy portion wherein he disagrees.
385
posted on
08/03/2013 6:57:30 PM PDT
by
JCBreckenridge
("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
To: JCBreckenridge
You support permitting a 14 year old to buy alcohol just like she buys ice cream.
Legally, it is none of the Fed's business, it is a State, local and/or parental matter as the case may be. If it does not break any State or local laws and is OK with the parents/guardian, I have no problem. However, the 14 year old will be held accountable and responsible for their actions, alcohol or no alcohol. If you want to change the law in your State or locality, as long as it passes Constitutional muster) work within the system.
386
posted on
08/03/2013 6:57:58 PM PDT
by
Nowhere Man
(I miss you Whitey! (4-15-2001 - 10-12-2012). Take care, pretty girl!)
To: ansel12
So you want marriage to cease to exist, and to just let people call whatever they want, marriage.
____________________________
That is what they are doing now.
_______________________
And you want all of those relationships treated as and funded as marriage in the military?
___________________________
Again that is what they are doing now.
387
posted on
08/03/2013 6:58:52 PM PDT
by
Chickensoup
(200 million unarmed " people killed in the 20th century by Leftist Totalitarian Fascists)
To: cdcdawg
“there is no question that abortion is a matter left to the states,”
Again, the position that abortion is wrong because it kills a living person would reject this position altogether. If the unborn child is living then states do not have jurisdiction to kill them.
“We are so conditioned by the leftwing desire to federalize every issue”
Personhood is a federal issue. Do you contest this?
388
posted on
08/03/2013 6:59:22 PM PDT
by
JCBreckenridge
("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
To: Nowhere Man
“If it does not break any State or local laws and is OK with the parents/guardian, I have no problem.”
If a girl is old enough to get an abortion without her parent’s consent, then why ought she seek parental consent to purchase alcohol?
389
posted on
08/03/2013 7:00:34 PM PDT
by
JCBreckenridge
("we are pilgrims in an unholy land")
To: JCBreckenridge
. If the unborn child is living then states do not have jurisdiction to kill them.
______________________________________
Actually the death penalty is a good example of some states having it and other states forgoing it. The states do decide they have jurisdiction to make that decsion
390
posted on
08/03/2013 7:02:11 PM PDT
by
Chickensoup
(200 million unarmed " people killed in the 20th century by Leftist Totalitarian Fascists)
To: randomhero97; ansel12
Colonial America? Really? I go back to my other post. I see you long for the days of no due process where the local religious elders were judge, jury, and executioner.
Well, I cannot read any minds here so I cannot vouch for anyone's take except my own but I don't want to trade one form of tyranny for another. I don't want us to become the USSR or Cuba nor do I want us to become like Salem during the days of the witch trials. One is as bad as the other.
391
posted on
08/03/2013 7:03:13 PM PDT
by
Nowhere Man
(I miss you Whitey! (4-15-2001 - 10-12-2012). Take care, pretty girl!)
To: Nowhere Man; Chickensoup
Take same-sex marriage, under our system you'd have States that would allow it legally, not allow it legally or just leave it to the people and not get involved. That's the ideal situation. That is a fantasy.
It ignores that the feds also have to deal with marriage issues and always have, and it denies the reality that states recognize each other's marriages, and that once it started, gay marriage became a reality for all states.
Only 9 states "allow" the concept of common law marriage, yet all 50 states and the federal government recognize them, as long as they were legal in their original state.
392
posted on
08/03/2013 7:04:33 PM PDT
by
ansel12
( The difference between libertarianism and conservatism is the libertarian liberalism, not economics)
To: Nowhere Man
Why quote and respond to a debunked, dishonest post?
393
posted on
08/03/2013 7:06:07 PM PDT
by
ansel12
( The difference between libertarianism and conservatism is the libertarian liberalism, not economics)
To: ansel12
It’s amazing because it’s like arguing or conversing with lunatics in a mental asylum. Only the lunatics think they’re the doctors....
394
posted on
08/03/2013 7:10:00 PM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
To: Nowhere Man
Why would you worry about atheistic Communism, or British witch trials which had nothing to do with America, those were a 100 years before the United States existed.
Do you really want to embarrass yourself this badly in an attempt to mock the founding of America?
395
posted on
08/03/2013 7:11:46 PM PDT
by
ansel12
( The difference between libertarianism and conservatism is the libertarian liberalism, not economics)
To: Eva
The problem that I have with many who call themselves Libertarians is that they dont support freedom of religious thought. They demand a political correctness on homosexuality that denies the freedom to support the religious tenets. They demand approval of homosexual activity rather than just tolerance. That is not very Libertarian.
If being pro-all vice and condemning those who condemn vice is not Libertarian, then why do libertarians believe in that? I don’t know how many people on FR claim they’re libertarians but don’t adhere to the Libertarian Party platform (although trying to get them to be clear on which parts they don’t adhere to is downright impossible), so why call themselves libertarian (large L or small) if they don’t adhere to the LP platform?
There’s either lying going on or people need to think of another name to call themselves.
396
posted on
08/03/2013 7:12:35 PM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)
To: muir_redwoods
What does the Libertarian party platform say?
Inform yourself. It won’t hurt.
397
posted on
08/03/2013 7:13:05 PM PDT
by
MrEdd
(Heck? Geewhiz Cripes, thats the place where people who don't believe in Gosh think they aint going.)
To: Chickensoup
Actually the death penalty is a good example of some states having it and other states forgoing it. The states do decide they have jurisdiction to make that decsion Really, the Death penalty and Abortion, the same thing?
This is insanity.
398
posted on
08/03/2013 7:13:46 PM PDT
by
ansel12
( The difference between libertarianism and conservatism is the libertarian liberalism, not economics)
To: JCBreckenridge
You do a good job of pointing out why “conservative” is as much of a misnomer as “liberal”. These days, “liberals” want more of the status quo and/or more government, while “conservatives” want radical change.
Sowell is a “libertarian” in the sense of the word as applied to the men by which he was influenced. Hayek wrote Why I Am Not a Conservative, and Friedman wrote The Tyranny of the Status Quo, for example. Sowell is probably a classical liberal (like Adam Smith) more than anything else, but to say that these days would create even more confusion. As the term relates to people like Sowell, “classical liberal” has been replaced in modern parlance by “libertarian”, mostly due to the progressive movement’s corruption of “liberal”. “Libertarian” in this sense, with the small “l”, is distinct from Libertarian Party, and I feel a little bit awkward even having to say that in a discussion with what I take to be an intelligent person. Forgive me if that was pedantic.
399
posted on
08/03/2013 7:15:05 PM PDT
by
cdcdawg
(Be seeing you...)
To: JCBreckenridge
If a girl is old enough to get an abortion without her parents consent, then why ought she seek parental consent to purchase alcohol?
Again, it depends on the law in that State. I'm pro-life BTW but under the Constitution, it is silent on the issue so it is (or should be) left up to the States. The only way the Feds can get involved is if the Constitution has been amended to address the issue. It's like Dred Scott, the decision, as terrible as it was to may, was most likely the correct one because it was before they amended the Constitution with the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.
400
posted on
08/03/2013 7:15:06 PM PDT
by
Nowhere Man
(I miss you Whitey! (4-15-2001 - 10-12-2012). Take care, pretty girl!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380, 381-400, 401-420 ... 521-530 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson