Conservatives VS. Libertarians VS. Liberals

May 7, 2003 | self

[HighWheeler]

Conservatives: Want Freedom with Responsibilities.

Libertarians: Want Freedom without any Responsibilities.

Liberals: Want No Freedom with No Responsibilities. (Hillary's little people liberals don't realize this is where their leaders would take them)

Conservatives:
- Drive the speed limit, or something close to it, knowing the penalty for getting caught driving over the speed limit.
- Keep their house and property in good shape and up to the community standards.
- Like the Constitution and all it stands for.
- Dont' tolerate criminals, and want them all punished to the extent of the crime.

Libertarians:
- Drive whatever speed they want while smoking pot, if they hit someone, well too bad, they should have known there are no speed limits, and maybe now they learned something. EFF the world anyhow.
- Keep the house and property in good shape for growing pot, and protecting it from the neighbors who want to steal it. EFF the world anyhow.
- Only like the parts of the Constitution that don't say that pot is illegal. That old Constitution parchment also makes a great rolling paper. EFF the world anyhow.
- There are no criminals, nothing is illegal.

Liberals:
- Drive bicycles like in China.
- Keep their house and property, uh wait, the government furnished commune and surrounding federal land, in whatever condition they find it each day. Where's the super been the last couple months anyhow?
- Hate the Constitution except for the part about free speech...well before the government took that away after the Liberal Supreme Kort ruled that every word ever spoken offended at least someone, and therefore all speech was determined to be hate speech.
- All criminals are promoted to positions of liberal leadership.

[Eris]

Yes and no.

Were roads owned properly by private entities, I'd have no problem with whatever restrictions the owners wanted. Even wearing purple on a Sunday.

But since they are owned by the state, and insurance is regulated by the state, and the state itself is immune for its responsibility in issuing driver's licenses, and the state has erred too much for political reasons on the side of caution to the point of .08 instead of actually imminently dangerous (.10 or so) as according to actual risk factors, yes I have a problem.

[paragtime]

the constitution was not written to enumerate rights..it was written to limit the government's power to infringe those rights...the bill of rights should never have been ratified as it gives too many people the idea that those are the only rights protected....any power not given in the constitution to the federal government does not exist (except by the use of force)

[katz]

I heard that the conservatives of today are like the liberals of yesterday and that the democratic party may be no more. We will have a conservative and a libertarian party in the future.

[ABQNM_Libertarian]

You get what you pay for. If you don't like the cirriculum that public schools offer, then pull your kids out. As I don't have kids in the system, my only involvement is being taxed to pay for it.

What really galls me are the Christians who want the Ten Commandments back into the public schools. If they want to be consistent about the issue, they'll make it the *Nine* Commandments, leaving out "Thou shall not steal." After all, they have no qualms about looting my paycheck to pay for their kids' education. And THEN they expect me to actually CARE about things like this, crappy results, etc.?!?!

[ABQNM_Libertarian]

If you don't want to be queer, then don't. Do you need a law or policy to force you to be straight? I thought you conservatives were all about individual responsibility. If you're not free to be responsible for your own actions, then this is only pushing another form of government-sanctioned baby-sitting, just like the Democrats are always pushing.

[ABQNM_Libertarian]

Try the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Wasn't Bob Dole a big supporter of those? At least that's what he said - and we all know that politicians never lie.

[ABQNM_Libertarian]

And if we can write laws which cover behavior that is potentially harmful, the why can't we write laws against drug use?

Isn't what the Democrats always say when they want to ban guns ? "How do we know you won't shoot someone by accident?"

[ABQNM_Libertarian]

"Your real issue appears to be 'If we don't control this behavior, then others may join in.'"

Close. My issue is that we be allowed to set standards for our community, provided the standards are constitutional.

What's this "we" garbage? If "we" as individuals don't have the right to do what "we" want provided that no other individual is harmed, then there is no "we". And that is as Constitutional as it gets.

[ABQNM_Libertarian]

But you are correct. You believe that the rights of the individual reign supreme (as long as they do not violate the rights of others). I believe the rights of the individual need to be tempered with the overall good of society in mind.

Mine is a more pragmatic approach. Yours has the appearance of anarchy.
............................................................
Spoken like a true socialist liberal Democrat. Here you go - go ahead and sign up:

http://www.kucinich.us/volunteer.php

[robertpaulsen]

"If you don't like the cirriculum that public schools offer, then pull your kids out."

That is certainly one solution (mine were never enrolled in public school to begin with -- unlike you, I paid twice).

Another solution would be to "pull out" the administrators who allow this garbage.

My kids may not be enrolled. But I have to live with the results of teachers promoting the homosexual lifestyle to kids who are enrolled.

[robertpaulsen]

"If you don't want to be queer, then don't."

I'm saying that I don't want my tax dollars to be used by the public school system to promote and equate the homosexual lifestyle as equivalent to a heterosexual lifestyle -- to state that one is no different than the other.

[robertpaulsen]

Thank God for the second amendment, huh?

[robertpaulsen]

"provided that no other individual is harmed,"

That's your standard.

Since the rest of us wish to live in a society that does not consist of selfish, self-centered, immoral, hedonistic individuals, we've added other laws.

[ABQNM_Libertarian]

My kids may not be enrolled. But I have to live with the results of teachers promoting the homosexual lifestyle to kids who are enrolled.

---

So you have no problem with usurpation of parental authority as long as it's a usurpation you agree with? How is this any different than what the liberal Democrats offer?

[ABQNM_Libertarian]

"If you don't want to be queer, then don't."

I'm saying that I don't want my tax dollars to be used by the public school system to promote and equate the homosexual lifestyle as equivalent to a heterosexual lifestyle -- to state that one is no different than the other.

---

So are you complaining about being taxed to pay for it, or you complaining that the socialist schools aren't doing things the way you want them to? As in, "it's OK as long as they do what I want"?

[ABQNM_Libertarian]

"provided that no other individual is harmed,"

That's your standard.

*Yes it is. Live with it.*

Since the rest of us wish to live in a society that does not consist of selfish, self-centered, immoral, hedonistic individuals, we've added other laws.

*Spoken like a true socialist Democrat - always eager to micromanage other people's lives. Have you decided to be honest with yourself and sent in your donation to the Kucinich campaign?

Here's the link:

https://www.kucinich.us/contribute.php
*

[ABQNM_Libertarian]

Thank God for the second amendment, huh?

---

Of all people to invoke the Second Amendment! Wasn't it YOUR guy - George Worthless Bush - who campaigned on supporting mandatory triggerlock laws, "closing the gun show loophole" via the McCain-Lieberman S.890, and renewing the Sept 1994 ban on "assault weapons" and high-capapcity magazines?

So here's the deal - first, he pledged to commit treason against the Constitution and Bill of Rights by signing off on this garbage. Now if such legislation DOES land on his desk, he changes his mind and refuses to sign it, how can you trust anything he says from that point on?

[robertpaulsen]

"Now if such legislation DOES land on his desk"

I call this, "Hyperventilating on a hypothetical".

Hey, clueless. Why don't to wait until it DOES land on his desk before you get into a spitting rage?

S.890 is gone. The AWB will not hit the Presidents desk.

Chill out.

[NMC EXP]

The AWB will not hit the Presidents desk

Riiiiihgt.

And the SCOTUS will overturn CFR.

Regards

J.R.

[ABQNM_Libertarian]

Doesn't matter if the legislation is dead in the Congress. Worthless said that "he" would support it if it landed on his desk. So much for him supporting gun rights.