Posted on 12/30/2001 1:25:13 AM PST by NoCurrentFreeperByThatName
Prohibitions on private non-criminal activities or on privately held property violate a number of individual constitutional rights. As we see in the drug war.
...and also of tobacco. At the turn of the last century, the Temperance movements would, from time to time, get hold of the legislative reins of one state or another, and pass prohibition laws. It generally didn't last long, because other states are too easy to get to, and the pressure from general annoyance and loss of business & tax revenue in prohibitionist states could get intense.
Would you begrudge them their fan dance?
So much for the inalienable right to life, which apparently is not inalienable if people can choose to abrogate it. Your statement is an excellent example of the cruel moral-liberal mind-set which places no value to human life and thereby makes a mockery of the whole basis of the Constitution.
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws..."
Due process is following the law.
The reason the temperance forces federalized in the first place was that they couldn't make prohibitionist states stay prohibitionist. Leaving it to the states is, as a practical matter, with plenty of historical precidence, the effective end of prohibition. A-B comparison of drug policies will be the end of drug policies, for the same reason they are coming to an end in the european neighbors of Holland.
I wasn't aware that this was even debateable. Free people can choose to give up their inalienable rights any time they want. Agoraphobics imprison themselves, some people choose not to own a gun, vegatarians restrict their own diet, others choose not to vote etc... The list goes on and on. This things neither bother or effect me. So why should I care if someone smokes crack until they croak? Seriously. I'm not a moral liberal, but I am not out to save humanity either. All I can do is take care of my own.
--- "And Libertarians are not druggies. Libertarians call for an end to the drug war. There is understandable logic behind this."
Can you refute his words? I'd bet not.
As if these irrelevant socialistic nations are anything to emulate.
No, and I would not even try to, since I agree with them. Libertarians are not all druggies; but they are all essentially moral-liberals and moral-cowards.
This is the most twisted way of stating the communist manifesto, and claiming it is in the Constitution, I have ever seen. At least the Supremes had the respect for tradition to justify drug prohibition with the Commerce Clause. Let's just recall the actual words we are debating:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."
How in the world you could twist this around to suggest that the right to life gives the government license to abrogate Liberty and Happiness is beyond understanding.
You replied:
Drunken drivers are probably less than 1% of the motorists on the road.
MadameAxe responded:
Your analogy is a non sequitur.
To which you replied:
No, it's right on the money.
No, that's a perfect example of a fallacy:
Dangerous drunk drivers comprise 1% of the population.
Libertarians are 1% of the population.
Therefore, Libertarians are dangerous.
Roscoe, just because drunk-divers and libertarians may comprise 1% of the population, it does not follow that libertarians and drunk drivers are the same one percent. (As an aside, I believe this is the fallacy of the undistributed middle, not a non-sequitor.)
Whatever in the world does liberty mean to you? I'd love to see a definition.
Of course you are wrong. People have no right to end their own lives just as they have no right to consent to slavery. That some people have the POWER to end their own lives is not the same as exercising a right. They may have the power to rape and rob and murder, too, but we don't assign rights to those activities, either, at least not yet in this this current moral slide advocated by libertarians.
Would you begrudge them their fan dance? - 103-
----------------------------------
How comic. -- You see CJ fan dancing, in order to 'yes man' JR's statement without looking like a fool over his own, made earlier on this thread.
No. Calling someone a moral-liberal implies that they live a morally liberal lifestyle in their own homes and personal life. That is not fair as it is not necessarily the case.
Well said, and I agree. I am, at heart, a federalist. I believe that the state and local level is where this debate belongs.
It is worth noting that Mr. Robinson said that "Libertarians are not druggies" which is a clear a call for civility as one can imagine.
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.