Posted on 05/05/2011 10:01:32 PM PDT by OldDeckHand
While it took a little while for the Republican candidates attending tonight’s debate to get going, the sheer diversity on the panel guaranteed some spirited answers, paramount among them Rep. Ron Paul’s steadfast adherence to civil liberties, which somehow concluded with him supporting legalization of heroin to raucous applause– highlighting the thick tension between conservatives and libertarians on the GOP.
During a “lightning round” where candidates were asked to answer questions about the issues that would give them the most problems during the primaries, both libertarian candidates– Paul and former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson– were asked to defend their liberal stances on drugs. First was Rep. Paul, who Fox’s Chris Wallace confronted with his controversial position that drugs and prostitution should be legalized. His unapologetic response elicited cheers from the crowd, as he argues that, just as “you don’t have the First Amendment so you could talk about the weather,” civil liberties do not exist to protect personal rights upon which most agree. He later likened private freedoms like this to religious freedoms, prompting Wallace’s follow-up: “Are you suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty?”
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
Keep trying to draw those lines to justify holding the whip-hand over your fellow man.
Maybe in another 70 years you'll finally figure out that being principled is a hell of a lot more effective than being a Nanny.
And I can tell you that you're wrong. Plenty of people are able to use heroin while holding down jobs, without becoming hollow-eyed junkies and without becoming murderous robbers. I've known a few of them over the years. And most heroin users don't mainline it. They smoke it or snort it.
Does that include the 13A? Can own slaves?
How about nuclear weapons? Anthrax, can I have me some anthrax? Mustard gas - what about mustard gas?
I could go on.
This is what we get for not adhering to the "reasonable man" standard. No. You cannot own another sentient being as doing so violates their Rights. Nor are those Rights transferable, so you can't sell yourself either.
Everything else on your list, yes. As long as your doing so does not directly harm your neighbors. Want a nuke? Go for it. They'd come in especially handy if we ever make it into space and need large explosives to mine astral bodies.
Bla-bla-bla...
I've never seen someone so willing to tie themselves in unprincipled knots as a Nanny Stater trying to defend their Socialism.
And I have not seen anyone so unwilling to answer a very simple question - Is there a legal authority for the federal government to prohibit certain items, when that authority isn't specifically ceded to the federal government in the Constitution?
To me, it seems like a ridiculously simple question, but libertarian absolutists are always unable to provide an answer. In this regard, you don't disappoint.
When someone says, "sure you can own/possess a nuclear weapon", I think most reasonable people would take that as an admission that their argument is deeply flawed.
Well... Let's review...
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
Answer: No.
In fact, the Second Amendment quite explicitly states "shall not be infringed". However, Nanny State "collective" arguments have been used to uphold gun control.
Nice one Ace. Are you sure which side you are fighting on?
On the side of common sense. I think in this regard, I'm in ample company.
There is no one who's not a libertarian fetishist that thinks the current prohibitions against the un-permitted possession of nuclear material, and the absolute prohibition on the possession of nuclear weapons is not only a good thing, but a plainly "legal" and constitutional "thing".
The fact that this is the hook upon which you wish to hang your hat, is telling. But, when your against even the most commonsense applications of government regulation, what else can you do, right?
Bloomberg. Holder. Daley...
The fact that this is the hook upon which you wish to hang your hat...
If you don't like the logical refutation of your idiotic strawman, choose better arguments to start with.
I could have sworn this country was founded on the principles of self-determination.
I know lots of people who lose their volition when they consume alcohol.
Shouldn't we make that illegal again?
Whoa!
To defend liberty, we must restrict it.
So, self-determination means that you can't decide for yourself what path your life takes.
It's "straw man", and that phrase doesn't mean what you think it means.
The person I was responding to said...
""No! I don’t believe the State has the right to regulate what you own."
This is wildly sweeping statement. Asking someone to defend it (a dicto simpliciter), is not a straw man argument, it's deductive reason - If the government can't regulate what you own, then you can own a nuclear weapon. Res ipsa loquitur
If you can't see the complete, facile idiocy inherent in your argument than you have no hope of understanding much of anything else. Reductio ab absurdum and circular arguments aren't going to get you very far.
If you want the FedGov to outlaw something, pass an Amendment. Absent that, you cannot be "principled" nor "conservative". You are just another goddamn socialist.
Own somebody? Nobody does that anymore except cooks. Nukes yep if ya got the money tanks whatever!
Cocaine, heroin, whacky tobacky, nobody came down on you until the feds outlawed alcohol....
Yes, that would be a very convenient argument for you to make, unfortunately it's fallacious.
What I did was demonstrate that there are circumstances when the federal government will correctly assert authority to prohibit ownership of certain materials, even though that authority may not be specifically ceded to the government in the USC. Once that principle is established, the debate switches from "can they prohibit" to "what can they prohibit". It is from there that the contemporary legal debate - amongst people who aren't libertarian fetishists, like Ron Paul - ensues; What can be prohibited, when can it be prohibited and under what circumstances can it be prohibited.
The poster I was responding to, asserted the argument that the (presumably federal) government can't prohibit a citizen from owning anything. That, of course, is an absurd statement that needs to be met with absurdity.
"You are just another goddamn socialist."
Sure, me and Antonin Scalia - just two "goddamn socialists" in pod, or something.
Which is exactly what I said you said. Absent legit authority in one area, you feel it is perfectly justified elsewhere.
Just like a liberal. It doesn't matter what the Constitution says, it's all about what you FEEL it must do. Absent explicit permission via Constitutional Amendment, there can BE no "authority" for them to exert.
How about this - you make your arguments, and I'll make mine. I don't think there's "no legit authority". I think that in the application of the necessary and proper clause and the commerce clause, there's PLENTY of constitutional authority to regulate nuclear weapons as well as drugs. I was pointing out that liberaltarians don't believe there's constitutional authority to regulate these things.
"Just like a liberal."
Look, you can continue to call me whatever names you like - goddam socialist, liberal, whatever. But, the fact of the matter is that I haven't said anything that doesn't fit perfectly within conservative legal orthodoxy. My position in the context of interstate commerce and the necessary and proper clause as they relate to the regulation of Schedule II and Schedule II drugs, mirrors Scalia and Thomas exactly.
More proof, as if we needed any, that Libertarians like Paul and Johnson don’t define the word liberty at all like our founders did.
They don’t understand that without a moral basis, there is no law, and therefore, ultimately, no liberty.
There is no right to do wrong. Never has been, never will be.
That's because you are a liberal at heart. No principles, so you can invent anything you want.
The rest of us like the Founding notion of enumerated powers explicitly listed and restricted. You know, like that Constitution thingy states...
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.