Posted on 04/08/2010 9:27:19 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
Ok they, what provision in the Constitution allows the drug laws? You sound like a lefty defending the Constitutionality of Obamacare.
rbmiilerjr... proud, ardent, and zealous supporter of societies laws...
...including health care, and if cap-n-trade passes, that too!
LOL
Please make a more coherent argument...I mean that is just silly.
I ll respond when I get back from my son’s baseball practice.
Obamacare is socialism.......I have my own insurance.
Oh, I see... “conservatives” don’t have to justify their favorite government programs constitutionally... only the liberals. Suddenly when someone asks where in the Constitution Congress is authorized to enact drug regulations, “conservatives” don’t care about the Constitution.
You can find any justification for violating the Constitution, and your motives may even be pure, but it’s still no excuse. You apparently love big government way to much to call yourself a conservative.
I’m beginnng to suspect that these so-called “conservatives” who love big government, are actually a liberal fifth column, here to undermine our unity.
Most of the discussions on liberty by John Stuart Mill center upon individual freedoms within a society such as you find in England at the time of his writing. The principle of negative liberty is often laid at his feet. I am not familiar with Mill’s position on international affairs. Burke would be worth studying on this issue since he was involved with the issues of colonization and war. He was opposed to the intervention of England in America, but he was not opposed to colonization or British force. I do not know enough about Burke to speak intelligently upon how he combined liberalism and colonization. Locke was the primary philosophical force behind Jefferson and others of that time. Locke was more about the social contract than anything else. I do not know what Locke’s views were on international relationships. My view is that Washington’s views on political affairs was based more upon commonsense and experience than upon a political philosophy. It seems to me that the issue with which we are debating is the relationship between Liberalism and international or global nexus. This is my question. Is the use of military force in international affairs contrary to Liberalism?
Yeah, we must not be conservative because we believe in strictly obiding by Constitutional restraints on government, opposition to the nanny state, and opposition to nation building hopskotch throughout the globe. Back in Barry Goldwater’s day they would call us conservatives but somehow these guys are now the “conservatives” lol
The Social Contract tells us that individuals have their natural rights and loan it to government. But government cannot have powers loaned to them that the people themselves do not have. (We can have police enforce laws against armed robbery, because I as an individual can protect my property and self against armed robbery so I can “loan” that power to my government... On the contrary, I cannot steal money from my neighbor to help a person in need as that is theft; therefore, I cannot “loan” that power to the government either... i.e. redistribution of wealth is still theft).
If we take that view of legitimate government powers must originate from the individuals that loan those powers to the government, then how can I justify a non-defensive use of force against another country? If I, as an individual, cannot attack my neighbor then I cannot authorize my country to attack another country. However, if my neighbor attacks me I can defend myself and if a nation attacks the United States we can defend ourselves.
Most libertarians do not oppose national defense. Ron Paul voted FOR the operations in Afghanistan for example. However, that doesn’t justify “nation building” in Afghanistan or pre-emptive war in Iraq through the lens of the Social Contract.
“Dope is against the law for good reason.”
Sure, but the law has done zero to keep people from getting dope.
I join the other posters who hate dopers and dope, but hate the “War on Drugs” just as much.
Here's a hint: It took an Amendment to wage a "War on Alcohol".
If you come back with "commerce clause" I swear to the Gods I will reach through the Internet and slap the stupid off of you.
If your neighbor threatened that he was going to rape and kill your wife and daughters, would you wait until he acted? We have a different understanding of the scope of a social contract. I do not agree that as an individual that I do not have the right of self-preservation that includes preemption. My social contract with the government is to act in my best interest, which would include preemptive actions. We no longer live in a world that allows us to be reactionary. The consequences of failure to act in a preemptive way is simply too grave. If you want to debate whether or nor a specific situation requires preemptive action, that is another matter.
Nothing new.
And what is true of the leaders is even more true of the rank and file of the movement. The relative ease with which a young communist could be converted into a Nazi or vice versa was generally known in Germany, best of all to the propagandists of the two parties. Many a university teacher during the 1930's has seen English and American students return from the Continent uncertain whether they were communists or Nazis and certain only that they hated Western liberal civilization....
While to the Nazi the communist and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits made of the right timber, they both know that there can be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom.
- FA Hayek The Road to Serfdom
And that would be...what?
That'd be...who?
Let me know when you run across a Libertarian on this board who is a 'dopehead'.
Have another martini, LOL
Ron Paul did vote for that measure. However the resolution said nothing about 'building democracy' in Afghanistan.
Mission creep has started to turn that conflict into something that looks a hell of a lot like Vietnam.
Calm down Corpse, no need for that.
Simply point out that the Commerce clause has no effect on the present legality of alcohol. Any regulation at all of alcohol (by the states) required constitutional amendment. Namely, the same 21st Amendment that repealed Prohibition.
Idiots that argue the commerce clause have to explain why the 21st Amendment was written in the manner that it was.
“If you believe in freedom as a moral concept then then extending that liberty and freedom to others means that sometimes you’re going to have to allow folks to do things you don’t agree with. Allowing them to do it doesn’t mean you support it, it just means you oppose controlling others. At the same time, society owes you the same respect and should not control you. Government intervention and control isn’t okay simply because its intentions are something we agree with... government intervention and control is wrong whenever it extends beyond the purpose of keeping the peace.?
The words just needed to be repeated for quite a few folks on here (mainly thinking of the anti-smokers).
I agree, that’s why I said the resolution doesn’t justify “nation building” in Afghanistan.
That’s an accurate assessment of Bush but (much as I dislike his record) I wouldn’t call him a neocon.
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.