Libertarian Folly: Why Everybody is a Social-issues Voter

American Thinker ^ | 08/07/2014 | Selwyn Duke

[SeekAndFind]

There is this notion, one we hear more and more, that the Republican Party has to shed the social issues to seize the future. “Social issues are not the business of government!” says thoroughly modern millennial. It’s a seductive cry, one repeated this past Tuesday in an article about how some young libertarians dubbed the “Liberty Kids” are taking over the moribund Los Angeles GOP. Oh, wouldn’t the political landscape be simple if we could just boil things down to fiscal responsibility? But life is seldom simple.

If you would claim to be purely fiscal, or assert that “social issues” should never be government’s domain, I’d ask a simple question: would you have no problem with a movement to legalize pedophilia?

Some responses here won’t go beyond eye-rolling and scoffing. Others will verbalize their incredulity and say that such a movement would never be taken seriously. This is not an answer but a dodge. First, the way to determine if one’s principles are sound is by seeing if they can be consistently applied. For instance, if someone claims he never judges others, it’s legitimate to ask whether he remains uncritical even of Nazis and KKK members; that puts the lie to his self-image. And any thinking person lives an examined life and tries to hone his principles.

[DBeers]

I would add that what the Left promotes is death and failure and that the only way such is perpetuated is by taking from success to subsidize it and perpetuate it and THAT is why government is a necessity for the Left. The Left can not go it alone, they are parasites that employ government to provide hosts and subsidize their bankrupt enterprise.

[caww]

Freedom also includes those who don’t want it or can’t function under it who choose otherwise. Some nations need to be left alone.

[xzins]

for it means limiting the choice of the mother.

1. The mother is not the child.

2. If the child weren't a living being, they wouldn't have to kill him/her.

3. The avenue of birth is a long-standing, long-used, recognized right of way. It is an non-possessary easement of right of use. In fact, it's an easement that the mother in question has herself used, thereby relinquishing any objection to herself abiding by the same right-of-use easement.

[dware]

A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom. -- F.A. Hayek

Nice! That really does say it all, right there. It breaks my heart to see so many (R)'s needing nanny to hold their hands. Portends of doom for the (once) "Grand Old Party".

[DBeers]

A society that does not recognize that each individual has values of his own which he is entitled to follow can have no respect for the dignity of the individual and cannot really know freedom. -- F.A. Hayek

Even Hayek recognized & appreciated social order and attributed social order and the institutions perpetuating it as the results of what works from among all things voiced in the free market place of ideas.

I see Libertarians as those who at some level seek government imposed social anarchy that places a boot upon the neck of upon social order and that is where Libertarians & Leftists share some common ground and where the problem lies between Conservatives & Libertarians.

The Left promotes disorder that they may then impose a new order and Libertarians assist passively at best in this transformation leading to government imposed social tyranny.

[ConservingFreedom]

Without men governing themselves, there can be no liberty. Any society that codifies immorality (abortion, homosexuality, recreational drug use, etc.) into law is doomed.

How do laws against immorality promote self-governance? If anything, the opposite should be true: give men the crutch of 'don't act immorally or you'll go to jail' and the self-governance muscles will atrophy.

[GeronL]

lol

[LevinFan]

Does this quote, a basic truth, mean nothing.

Your freedom to wave your fist ends at the beginning of my nose.

If most of these self harms were only to one’s self, I would not disagree. But that is rarely the end of it. A drug user, addicted to his fix, will do ANYTHING to get his fix. Steal, hurt, kill, sell ten minutes with his daughter. While high, he can cause untold harm to others. To his family, to other bystanders. He doesn’t give them the choice of whether they pay the price for his self destruction. A DUI driver doesn’t ask if his victims want to get hurt or killed.

A drug dealer, obtains his gain my preying upon another’s addiction, and the harm his addicts will cause. I’ve known people taken advantage of by such trash. He will kill anyone for his gain, use his money for power over others. He is nothing but a parasite, and not worthy of any consideration or freedom. He is less than a dog. Make no mistake about that.

Very few ruin themselves in total isolation. They take others to ruin with them. Most of these vices cause massive problems, directly related to them. It can’t be ignored.

The moment what you do can affect me, mine, or someone else who has no choice or options, is the moment I don’t care about your sense of freedom. You’ve already chosen to take that from your victim.

[LevinFan]

“My theory is that, during the 80s-90s there was a coup in the big “L” Libertarian Party, where the objectivist Rand followers and the anarchist wing took over and began setting the agenda for the party. Since they are the most vocal people that the average person hears calling themselves “libertarian”, their positions are all that less informed people now associate with the word.”

I can’t state a date, but bingo. They took a very basic, get your nose out of my basic business and turned it into “I want to drug myself (and the kid I just ran over) into oblivion. Don’t you dare stop me!” and “I want kiddy porn!”(stuff the kid who is used to make it).

I’ve seen some argue even against any traffic laws like school zones as ‘artificial’. Blank that! My kid is not going to put up with your unwillingness to drive reasonably. Nor will I put up with DUI drivers, and other such nonsense.

Freedom to wave your fist, ends at the beginning of my nose.

[x]

Everybody is a social issues voter — except the people who aren’t. Those are people who could decide a close election.

[bamahead]

If most of these self harms were only to one’s self, I would not disagree. But that is rarely the end of it. A drug user, addicted to his fix, will do ANYTHING to get his fix. Steal, hurt, kill, sell ten minutes with his daughter. While high, he can cause untold harm to others. To his family, to other bystanders. He doesn’t give them the choice of whether they pay the price for his self destruction. A DUI driver doesn’t ask if his victims want to get hurt or killed.

The moment any individual becomes guilty of most of the transgressions you speak of is the point where his liberty ends. Whether or not that person is on drugs is irrelevant to the fact that they committed a crime.

Your choice to make the use of said drug a crime is what encroaches on the individuals' liberty to do as they please with their own body.

Fact is - many responsible people DO consume drugs and alcohol every day, and do none of the things you mention.

Yet under what some call 'moral' laws...they are automatically a criminal in the same class as those who steal, maim, and destroy. Despite the fact that the individual might never do any of those things and simply may be looking for a temporary thrill.

Your rationale for 'moral' drug law basically is prejudging an individual, because they do the drug - which inherently affects nobody but themselves, if they do it in their own home and are responsible with it's use. Not because they will commit a crime.

You are painting all drug users with an extremely broad brush there, if you presume all drug use ends up in crime. And that broad brush has no respect for the liberty of the responsible individual.

Jefferson's quote is very applicable to the case you made:

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.-- Thomas Jefferson

[bamahead]

Case in point - post #198. Statist AND closed minded. A dangerous combination to liberty.

[LevinFan]

Really? Leave me alone?

Does a drunk driver on the road count as leaving me alone?

Does a drug dealer, trying to sell to kids and people who steal and rob count as leaving me alone?

Abortion? Not exactly a direct impact on me. But as a man of conscience, I can not simply shrug while some woman caves in her child’s head. It is not only her that is affected.

Does our government go WAY to far with laws controlling everything? Yes. But that doesn’t mean that the answer is to go the exact opposite direction. We will, and must have laws limiting how much our actions can affect another.

Defenders of DUI as a victimless crime(BS) and traffic laws as artificial are a prime example. Whatever they think, their choices affects others. Those others will not sit quietly by while they get abused.

No. Some of the extreme Libertarian philosophies is anything but “leaving me alone.”

[LevinFan]

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.”

But you gloss over that part. EQUAL RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

I have a basic right to travel the street without having to be under the constant threat of “Responsible DUI”. I’m not going to wait for him to harm me, mine, or an innocent party.

Yet I’ve seen people argue that society shouldn’t stop them until they actually harm someone. One even argued for speeding through school zones, and not stopped until he actually hits a kid.
Bull! If someone is waving a gun around at me and mine, I can not be expected to wait until actual harm is caused before stopping it. Same with drunks. I have not one reason to wait until he harms my kid, before stopping him.

The moment your activity becomes are realistic threat to the freedom of others, is the moment your activity will get controlled. Want what you want, but that is the way it will be.

And responsible drug use, including alcohol, is an oxymoron. It is a substance designed to remove the ability to be responsible.

“Your freedom to wave your fist ends at the beginning of my nose.”
You understand what it means. And it is a fundamental truth of a civil society.

[bamahead]

Does a drunk driver on the road count as leaving me alone?

Vehicular manslaugter due to driver negligence or irresponsibility is a crime either way. How does a state mandated limit on BAC make it any MORE of a crime? It's irrelevant of whether it was alcohol or texting while driving (which is proving to be just as if not more deadly as DUI).

Does a drug dealer, trying to sell to kids and people who steal and rob count as leaving me alone?

Are these people stealing and robbing from you? If so - stealing and robbing are crimes and they should be prosecuted. Whether they were on drugs or seeking drugs is, again - irrelevant.

Abortion? Not exactly a direct impact on me. But as a man of conscience, I can not simply shrug while some woman caves in her child’s head. It is not only her that is affected.

You will get no argument from me on this one - proud member of Libertarians for Life.

But on the others - the fact is that you want laws added on top of laws for things that are already crimes - that will do nothing to stop those crimes from happening. It only makes criminals out of more people, who may not even commit those crimes against others. Only the 'crime' of taking some drug.

Let's apply your argument to a leftist positions:

Liberal: Does the tea party lunatic with an AR-15 next door, that might go off while he's cleaning it count as 'leaving me alone'? We should make sure this never happens by making ownership of it illegal?

Liberal: Does the right winger who open carries in the mall 'leave me alone'....I am a hoplophope and the sight of a gun might send me into convulsions! We should make sure that never happens by making open carry illegal.

It doesn't matter that you are a responsible gun owner who never cleans his weapon with a loaded magazine...have carried all your life without incident...just the mere chance that you *might* is enough for the left to justify with firearms exactly what you are trying to justify with ingestible substances.

The only difference is that we have a constitutional amendment protecting the former.

[bamahead]

“Your freedom to wave your fist ends at the beginning of my nose.”

If I one is cognizant enough or responsible enough to do these things without hitting your nose - or even coming within your vicinity - who exactly is harmed?

[bamahead]

Or does it boil down to that you simply have a problem with the way some choose to 'wave their fists' vs. others?

I like to go out in the woods and 'wave my fists' by bagging a nice 10-pointer, for what it's worth. However - PETA considers that well beyond the bridges of their noses.

By your logic - my waving of fists should be outlawed, simply because PETA's nose might incur a brushing.

Any power you give the state to enforce morals will be retained even when those not of your morals are in charge. This is the part that most SoCons seem to 'gloss over' when being overly self-righteous with the power of law.

[entropy12]

We are being boiled slowly towards socialism.
And the frog is totally unaware it is a march to death.

I am especially opposed to the feds meddling in social issues. Those issues should be dealt by states and other local governments. One size fits all does not work in a large and diverse country like ours.

[entropy12]

You mean like the richest men on earth such as Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and Paul Allen and Phil Knight, none of whom were born millionaires? You know what is common between them? None of them are social conservatives!

But you probably do not move in their circles.

[tacticalogic]

One size fits all does not work in a large and diverse country like ours.

People try to get federal laws that reflect the values of their local community, and keep ending up with local laws the reflect the values of the beltway.