Posted on 08/05/2014 10:27:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
There’s probably not many situations where someone had a HOA forced on them...
Usually those are drawn up before the houses are built, and people buying the houses know they are buying into the HOA.
Not a perfect analogy, but I think it’s pretty apt at describing the nanny-state mindset.
Everybody in a nation suffers under God’s wrath when a nation embraces behaviors God abhors. Victimless? The exact opposite.
So “libertarian Christian” must be oxymoronic.
Libertarians, Kicking the Welfare People, (Both queens and busineses) out of the government “garden of welfare eden” and telling them to take care of their own damned selves.....
By this I think you mean criminalization of drugs? If this is what you mean, then you have absolutely hit the nail on the head when you ask "Which is worse?"
The Libertarian argument is that what we have now is worse. But I can point you to a time and place in history where they did the exact opposite of what we have done, and it was, in fact, the exact thing the Libertarians are asking for now, and it produced results far worse than anything we have experienced up till now.
So your question is a valid point. We should chose the path that is most likely to give us the best result, meaning the least misery and suffering overall.
If history is taken into account, it would appear that criminalization is the better path, though we are suffering through a great deal of abuse in it's implementation now. I would argue that we can curtail the abuse, but the fundamental concept of criminalizing drugs cannot be done away with without creating a far worse disaster.
I believe the right road to take is the road we’ve taken with cigarettes: legalize, control, prohibit advertising, and anti-pot PR campaigns.
Currently for me, the danger of Pot is an enigma. I don't have any solid answers regarding whether or not it will produce results as bad as hard drugs, but regarding hard drugs, that question has been long answered to my satisfaction. They will destroy any nation that permits them.
It is a strawman argument to say I know children who's parents lay around all day smoking pot, who live on welfare, and who don't pay their own bills?
It's a strawman to say such children are the victims of their parents foolish indulgence, and so are taxpayers?
I don't think you understand what is a strawman argument.
Dear Oberon,
I view the ‘homeowners’ associations’, with the same cold eye, that I viewed the neighborhood kangaroo courts under Soviet and Sino Communism.
I would like to address this point. Are you familiar with the concept of a logistical growth curve?
My ability to answer your question is going to be heavily dependent upon whether you understand what happens in a logistical growth function and why.
[ Yeah, just because we don’t want gov’t interfering with every aspect of our lives means we don’t think common fire protection is a good idea...
The continual strawman of the left -
“oh, you don’t want to pay people to sit on their asses all day? I suppose you don’t like roads & fire departments either!” ]
That is the biggest damned straw man the left uses against Libertarianism.... However most all Libertarians i have met DO belive in LOCAL Utilities!
Local fire Dept, Local Roads, Local Water, Local misc Utilities.... ARE ALL SUPPORTED BY LIBERTARIANS. They do encourage Privitization of such utilties if possible, but what they are against is FEDERALIZATION of things that SHOULD ALWAYS remain LOCAL!!!!
Next time a lib whines about such things ask them how they would like it if their Fire Dept was federalized. How would they fell paying more taxes to live in a zone that has fewer fires than a place that sees yearly wildfires?????
Dear DiogenesLamp:
No Libertarian would deny that many human behaviors - e.g., smoking tobacco, smoking marijuana, drinking alcohol, watching too much t.v., drinking 32-oz. sugared drinks, not getting enough exercise, etc. - are unwise and, ultimately, a detriment to society, and thus may represent a direct or indirect burden to the public coffers (even in the totally welfare-less state which Libertarians call for), due to, e.g., lost tax revenues, higher rates of absenteeism, etc.
The question is: What is your solution to these detrimental behaviors? Would you criminalize promiscuity? Would you re-instate Prohibition? Would you ban super-sized fries? And how would you suggest enforcing such laws without making a mockery of the Bill of Rights?
Regards,
[ Libertarianism is a theoretical construct that only works in a perfect world with perfect people. Do you know how to create a libertarian? Take a conservative and remove all common sense. ]
Libertarianism should not be a foundational principle but a practical question concerning government power.
Should we federalize Local fire depts? Asnwer: NO
Shoudl we federal anything local that is working? Answer: NO
It should be more about leaving local communities and states to make decisions vs. inviting the federal government in to make decisions for a supposed “common good” ie. communism.
Libertarians would be fine with a local community that decided to run itself in a communist fashion because they would be free to leave or join such a community at will.
The rub with Libertarism comes with deciding at what level are moral standards imposed via the rule of law....
Are Moral standards imposed locally or federally, and if they are imposed locally how do we prevent the federal powers from interfereing with this localisation of moral standards?
Libertarians also sometimes don’t realize that the border with Canada vs. Mexico are two totally different animals. They live to much in the theo-rhetocial realm than the practical realm and cannot apply common sense if it seems to go against their ideals even upon closer inspection it doesn’t.
If Mexico was just like Canada in matters of social and economic matters then having a border with Mexico as free as the Canadian border would be a NO BRAINER. However this is not the case. This is exactly why Free Trade is so disruptive....
Free trade between us and canada will not cause that much of a problem if any, but between countires that are so skewed compared to us uin terms of labor costs and regulation will cause havok on the economies of those who are more regulated.
The Libertarian party needs to wake up to the practical and realize that they need to use philsophy as a guide and not as dictator.
Well, no need to be coy! What was the time and place in history? Let me guess: Before the invention of the printing press? Before the invention of gunpowder? When most people still believed in witches? Certainly before the penning of the Bill of Rights?
Regards,
[ Dear DiogenesLamp:
No Libertarian would deny that many human behaviors - e.g., smoking tobacco, smoking marijuana, drinking alcohol, watching too much t.v., drinking 32-oz. sugared drinks, not getting enough exercise, etc. - are unwise and, ultimately, a detriment to society, and thus may represent a direct or indirect burden to the public coffers (even in the totally welfare-less state which Libertarians call for), due to, e.g., lost tax revenues, higher rates of absenteeism, etc.
The question is: What is your solution to these detrimental behaviors? Would you criminalize promiscuity? Would you re-instate Prohibition? Would you ban super-sized fries? And how would you suggest enforcing such laws without making a mockery of the Bill of Rights?
Regards, ]
Welfare subsidizes drug use and other bad behavior, kill most all of welfare and you start ending a lot of problems caused by drug usage...
I understand and support the whole “localized power is better”,
but some case must be made for an appeal to a different governing authority when local authorities abuse their power.
And... once you allow for that appeal, then you’re putting a generalized authority over your local authority, and we get the bastardization of federalism we have today.
“I remember when they were illegal.”
I lived in a dry county in Colorado too, as a kid. My Dad took up golf in order to go to the next town/county for golf and a brew, too.
That county is no longer dry, either.
Damn church bingo, and a beer or two. Evil, evil, evil.
The question is: What is your solution to these detrimental behaviors?
How about keeping their fingers out of our pocket? How about making them pay to support their children? I know one guy who is $27,000.00 behind in child support for his child. Oh, and guess what. He's about to have another one!
How about we throw the SOB in jail, and others like him until they agree to pay for their own indulgences? Why should we consent to his putting his hand in our pocket?
Would you re-instate Prohibition? Would you ban super-sized fries?
These questions are strawmen and are unworthy of consideration.
And how would you suggest enforcing such laws without making a mockery of the Bill of Rights?
You mean like the fifth amendment which says " nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." So where is my compensation for their taking of my money to pay for the dope smokers who won't pay their own bills? Why do I have to pay for their visit to the county hospital?
I'm kinda thinking I ought to have a right to keep my own money, rather than spending it to take care of ne're do well's children so they can sit around getting stoned rather than getting and keeping a job. I also think the children deserve better than having a parent who isn't committed to giving them a good start in life.
Again, the Libertarian philosophy is: "Do what you will, if it harms no one."
They just have a pretty big set of blinders when it comes to seeing anyone else getting harmed.
All laws are imposed moral standards.
1840 China. Opium was legalized. 60 years later, Half the population of Manchuria was addicted.
Their three thousand year old form of government collapsed a decade later. The nation went through one rack and ruin after another until a Dictator, taking advantage of all the social upheaval, finally ended up shooting all the drug addicts and ruling thereafter with an Iron fist for the next 40 years. 
70 million people died, and it all started with the societal collapse caused by legalized opium.
Yeah, that’s a strawman argument. That stuff is all illegal, except the welfare, and it happens. Cut off the welfare, and see what happens.
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.