[unspun]

We don't need to be at war on this; we just need to act wisely and responsibly.

But, do you mean this kind of posting for instance? -- a response to a post from an apparent drug libber, who presented this standard for prohibiting legislation about matters that are... "above and beyond living peacefully and honestly."

A Libertarian standard would interpret this only as if it said "legislate only against the immediate, direct, and objective infringement upon the peace of others." An intellectually honest view, however is that traditionally, this does not satisfy free Americans who have always sought to promote the general welfare through responsible government action, from guardrails on highways, to banning intoxicants, to investing in vaccines, to outlawing sex with consenting minors, to banning the unauthorized ownership of deadly contagens, to prohibiting consentual fights to the death (even in dogfight events) to banning unauthorized tests of nuclear fission, and on and on.

Americans have been at work, choosing very carefully, from the get go, what negative behaviors to legislate, which lead to and result in the violation of our peace or freedom, and the deterioration of our welfare. We weigh these things in the balance. It is fundamentally dishonest to engage in destructive behaviors of all sorts and free, republican Ameicans have traditionaly treated these matters with liberties of all sorts in mind. In mind in good perspective, that is.

Any judge or justice worth his salt has understood this, with the very balance of consideration declared in the Preamble to the Constitution, its summarizing statement of original intent.

But I understand that this is "statism" and "socialism" to revisionistic Libertarians. Not to worry; I understand that. But the sovereign People do not need to be forced to exhalt the regard of our rights and liberties above our mutual responsibilities so as to disconnect the two. We do not need to be imposed upon to idolize liberties.

[headsonpikes]

"We don't need to be at war on this..."

Oh, yes, we do...but a war of words and ideas, I hope.

IMO, communities of people have always expected their members to adhere to certain behaviors, and to avoid others. Adherence to these various communal mores are not objectionable to me, at all. If the good folks of Hooterville despise the consumption of red meat, for instance, then Hooterville can decline to issue business licenses to butchers; if I think that's stupid, I can leave town.

In my view, the extension of this practice to the nation-state has been a grave error. Few nation-states are compact and uniform enough to legitimize such particularism in human behaviors.

Utopian perfectionism is a hideous distortion of the proper relationship between the citizen and the state. The history of the 20th Century is largely a history of nations gone berserk while possessed of this insane notion. Russia, Germany, China...these and others succumbed to a fearful psychopathy which was rationalized as the 'true' expression of national consciousness.

In America, Prohibition, the eugenics movement, the various insane economic nostrums of '30s-era radicals, and lately, the WOD, are manifestations of this psychopathy. Often, these movements are rooted in a crazed pseudo-scientific delusion of a 'true' understanding of social and political life.

That Americans have permitted their governments to 'establish' certain views to the exclusion of others is a tragedy, whose fruits can be seen in the hideous monopoly in public education by 'progressives', as well as in the hysterical WOD.

These trends represent American Socialism, as distinguished from German Socialism, Russian Communism, Chinese Communism, Italian Fascism, and all the other 'national socialisms' of our bloodstained planet.

Socialism is not merely an economic idea; it is the idea that human beings should be viewed as mere instances of a type instead of as unique individuals. Identity politics is the most obvious manifestation of this delusion in American public life, but it is implicit in all of the intrusive legislation of the past century.

Given current public discourse,I would describe myself as a libertarian Conservative, but would rather be seen as a 'disestablishmentarian'. That term was used to describe those who wished to 'disestablish' the Church of England three centuries ago, but I seek to 'disestablish' educational bureaucracies, health bureaucracies, and the very notion that citizens are 'human resources' to be nurtured and protected by high-minded civil servants.

We must plunge a stake through the heart of Socialism to ensure our survival as free people.

Of course, some folks value group solidarity above individual autonomy, but I cannot see how this can be justified by reference to the 'general welfare' mentioned in the Constitution.

Socialists, of course, have no such compunction.