[Exnihilo]

Here is an excellent example of someone pointing to the most extreme form of censorship of materials which have nothing whatever to do with the subject discussed by the author. I suppose the logic goes something like: "once they ban pornography, they'll ban War & Peace!!" I don't know about anyone else, but I don't find this line of reasoning very convincing.

[EBUCK]

You don't believe that our right to bear arms is in jeopardy? It all started with some very minute additions to the process and look at the NorEast now? Don't believe that it can happen?

EBUCK

[freeeee]

Here is an excellent example of someone pointing to the most extreme form of censorship of materials which have nothing whatever to do with the subject discussed by the author.

I thought we were talking about giving the government powers to ban and destroy objectionable material, and to use violence, or threat of violence, to enforce its will; aka censorship.

Am I mistaken?

I suppose the logic goes something like: "once they ban pornography, they'll ban War & Peace!!"

You've not noticed mission creep, incrementalism, or the slippery slope effect anywhere in our government?

Once the precedent is set of putting the First Amendment up to a popular vote, what exactly would protect unpopular speech?

[getsoutalive]

Who decides what is banned and what is approved? Not everyone has the same set of morals.

Libertarians live and die on a platform of principles. If those principles are broken, even for what may appear to be very valid and sound reasons, then they really aren't priciples at all. Many of the worst laws today began as valid and sound exceptions to liberty and somehow, over time, morph into something that was originally totally unintended. The idea of unintended consequences is precisely what makes me a L(l)ibertarian. It may seem cold and heartless, but over time weaknesses are ALWAYS exploited.

[headsonpikes]

We do live in decadent times.

Decadence cannot be arrested by GOVERNMENT action; state action 'conserves' decadence.

If one replaces an 'evil' with a greater 'evil', where is the social gain?

Really, a soi-disant 'conservative' ought not to be so filled with hubris that he imagines that 'the right sort of people in charge' would fundamentally change a single particle of our societal distress.

If you want something killed or destroyed, government's an excellent tool.

Used for any other purpose, it still kills and destroys. I thought American conservatives knew that.

[parsifal]

"I suppose the logic goes something like: "once they ban pornography, they'll ban War & Peace!!" "

And the same type of aglommerable, misgloperated, gloptitorial hepondistic, oh heck, whatever Bork called them type people say stuff like "But if you raise their wages to $8/hour, why not raise it to $100....parsy.

[Labyrinthos]

I suppose the logic goes something like: "once they ban pornography, they'll ban War & Peace!!"

Nah, they'll just ban Harry Potter.