Hanging my head in disgust...
$710.96.. The price of freedom.
Posted on 06/20/2004 6:55:30 AM PDT by Undertow
A) Arrest them, put them in jail or rehab center
B) Legalize it, so they can do it as they freely. Create "volunteer" rehab centers where they can get help (HA!).
Republicans answer A.
Libertarians answer B.
Well, in that case, you need to be sure to get alcohol outlawed then... The fact is that driving while impaired/under the influence is what's illegal, not getting drunk. Do you propose reintroducing prohibition? I'm a strong supporter of tossing the people who are busted for DUI into jail for long sentances. That's for alcohol and/or drugs.
But if DUI is the problem you have here, then why even bother mentioning drugs?
Mark
The word irony is flashing in neon lights.
Hanging my head in disgust...
$710.96.. The price of freedom.
Dane,
Why to you always resort to hyperbole and distortion to argue?
People have been using substances to alter their reality for a long time in this country. It isn't just in the poor neighborhoods and that's just common sense and common knowledge.
You are missing the fact that I DON'T CARE what anyone is using or not using. I am not pushing the issue. I just don't want the cops kicking in my door at 3 AM in a case of mistaken identity, because my first reaction and last act will be to reach for the 20 gage and start shooting.
Exactly. They're *still* harping on the popular vote issue from 2000!
What is so hyperbolic about pointing out the truth that socially Bandarik is just as liberal, probably more so, than Specter.
You really get testy when someone points out the truth to you.
Well to test out your theory, would you mind the house next door to you or even your neighborhood be declared a "do any drug you want to" zone.
Surely you wouldn't mind.
Well, I wouldn't want the house next door to be a waste water treatment plant, or a feed lot either. That's what zoning laws are for. My house is in an area zoned as residential only.
Did my response answer your question? No, not exactly. But then, your response really had nothing to do with the original post either.
I agree that the WOD IS a far greater threat to my life, liberty, and property than is a "pot head or crack addict." You see, there are ways that I can protect myself from them. And if I can't do it alone, I can get together with my community to do so. On the other hand, remember that the government has a monopoly on using deadly force. No Knock Raids, confidential informants (giving unreliable tips), and asset forfeiture laws are not good things.
Mark
A vote against Bush's domestic policies?
Why don't you ask the people who died in the World Trade Center on 9/11, what they think of Bush's domestic policies.
Foreign policy overrides Domestic here bud.
If you think our country and your family will be safer from Al-Qaeda with Michael Badnarik as President, go ahead and vote for him. If you honestly believe that we'll be safer with him, I have no problem with you voting your concious.
But if you're going to vote against Bush just because he's not our "perfect" domestic policy leader, then I can't respect that.
The most recent poll I have seen shows Kerry with a 1% lead in Pennsylvania. Bush ain't your perfect guy? Oh well. Would you prefer Universal Health Care? 40-50% tax rates on the people who've earned it? The return of Pre-1994 Welfare?
You want all of that? Then vote for Badnarik, he's your man.
I know that Michael is not against gay marriage. He doesn't believe that the government should have ANY role in deciding who may marry whom. Do you know the history of marriage licenses in this country? When were marriage licenses first issued? Do you that they are racially based?
He is against the Federal Marriage Amendment, as am I. An amendment is the wrong solution to what wouldn't even be a problem if it weren't for the government meddling in our lives to begin with. The government created the problem by creating special rules and tax benefits in a corrupt tax system. Now the solution is just another step in trashing the Constitution and our Republic form of government.
Do you know the purpose of the Constitution? Does a restriction on 'the people' belong in a document that restricts the power of government (or is supposed to be)?
I may be incorrect, but I do believe that Michael is pro life based on his non aggression principles. Abortion violates the principles involved in our founding document.
Second mark(your words),
Did my response answer your question? No, not exactly. But then, your response really had nothing to do with the original post either
Uh yes it did. Ray said that he didn't care that people do illict drugs.
Fine take it a step further and ask his neighbors to make a "do any drug you want zone". Seems that Ray wouldn't mind.
You guys like DUmmies, IMO, really hate the intrusion of the real world.
Oh you mean state legislatures being told by Judges that they can't define marriage. Huh not a very strong states rights sentiment from you Ray. Oh BTW, the Massuchusetts supreme court went over the head of the Legislature. You seem to have an animus towards populary elected legislatures.
Oh BTW, Mr. Bandarak is pro-abortion. He gives the same basic weasle answer all Libertarians do. Abortion splits Libertarians so we will just ignore it and take no position(i.e pro-abortion).
Are you stupid or do you just act that way?
Specter want to enshrine his liberal policies in FEDERAL LAW. And he wants to tax you to pay for it.
Badnarik says that it is up to an individual to live their own life without government coercion, free of government extortion, or benefits at the expense of anyone else.
There will always be gays, unless you are in favor or killing them now and at birth. There will always be women who get abortions unless you are in favor of their executions too. There will always be drugs users unless you are in favor of killing them now or at their next use of 'illegal' drugs.
Specter wants to subsidize and encourage the first two with your tax dollars and subsidize the WOD and punish the last one at your expense.
Please try to stay up to speed.
Who is using liberal like hyperbole now.(Give you a hint Ray, it's you).
Why the animosity to states defining what marriage is. You really don't like the 10th amendment do you.
Ray put your resume into the ACLU. You would fit in well the way you spit untrue hyperbole, IMO.
Instead of capitalizing on this the LP overplayed their hand by pressuring her to run for Governor and threw all their chips behind her instead of encouraging other LP candidates to run on a similiar platform. You hit the nail on the head - the LP is a joke because they spend too much time worrying about drugs and hookers.
Reagan, like the Framers of America's founding documents, was a Christian Libertarian.
He, and they, advocated self-government according to the biblical 'Law of Love', ie: "Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." [Rom.13:10]
And of course The Framers agreed with the biblical definiton of what constitutes harm to one's neighbor. We have laws against murder, theft, fraud, (marriage is a contract so adultery is fraud, by the way), etc., etc. [Rom.13:9]
So, if there is to be a decent, orderly society where the citizens don't harm one another, people have two choices:
[1] They will be free because they are self-controlled. They choose to be law-abiding. ( INTERNALLY controlled).
[2] They will be lawless. A relativist, a libertine, and an anarchist -- each want to determine for himself what he thinks the definition of love is and what the definition of harm is. Of course those who insist on being a law unto themselves will necessarily have to be externally controlled when they violate the only standard we go by and thus harm their neighbor.
Captain Rabbit: "And yet there are so many conservatives that hate libertarians. As somebody who considers himself between conservative and libertarian, I can't fathom why."
Conservatives and Christian libertarians are one and the same in their basic worldview.
It is not possible to be a conservative and be a relativist (whose ethics have no unchanging standard, but are instead situational). And, of course no conservative could at the same time be a libertine or an anarchist, either --- for the same reason.
"This country was founded on the principle that the American people would be self-governing! Those who wrote the Constitution clearly recognized (and stated openly) the self government applied to the INDIVIDUAL more than it did to the government.
It was pointed out that the Constitution was only suitable to govern a moral people and was wholly inadequate to rule those who were not self governed by a universally recognized moral code.
Long before the Constitution came into existence, William Pitt who was involved in the establishment of Pennsylvania stated:
"Those who will not be ruled by God [self-governed], WILL be ruled by tyrants!"
Our enemies, again mostly domestic, have long recognized and acted upon that knowledge and have been doing everything in their power to destroy what was once the crowning achievement of the Judeo-Christian belief system: the United States of America." ~ Albert Burns
Two terms of Clinton didn't end the republic. Why would one term of Kerry, especially with a GOP Congress?
I don't know why the LP just can't become a wing of the GOP. The GOP has a RINO wing and a Christian wing, surely there's room for a Libertarian wing.
Nah it gave us such great things such as selling military secrets to the chicoms and doing nothing about islamofascism.
What a wonderful thing.
Because libertarians leave out the most important part of the freedom equation that our founding fathers wrote so much about.....morality. Without our self imposed Judeo-Christian morality holding society together and keeping us from preying on each other, we in turn are able to be a free people. When we loose that morality society becomes dangerous and the stronger prey on the weaker in turn government must impose its demands on the society of proper behavior more and more and in the end the cost is our freedom.
Conservative contempt of libertarians is well deserved!
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.