Posted on 08/25/2014 8:01:34 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Hey retread, Reagan's opposition to OUTSIDE censorship implies that he would welcome SELF-CENSORSHIP.
And just where, exactly, did you come up with the notion that opposition to censorship is even a libertarian principle? Opposition to GOVERNMENT is a libertarian principle, opposition to censorship is a conservative principle.
I said upthread....
“How you liberals can attempt to glom on to conservative ideals and try and hijack them as your own is preposterous.”
You fail to get it. Instead you persist with your insinuation that Ronald Reagan was a pervert
Like libertarians, I oppose excessive taxation, but don't for a single second think that I'm in any way "libertarian friendly" because I consider libertarianism every bit as dangerous as liberalism, communism and fascism.
The fact that libertarianism has a different strategy than the rest of the left doesn't mean libertarians don't have the same goal.
Ronald Reagan experienced a political evolution that lasted for several decades. He became disillusioned with the New Deal when he saw it for what it really was and left the Democrats. He embraced Goldwater, but over the next decade or so he realized the critical flaw of Goldwater and recognized the absolute necessity of social conservatism. And although he was cordial to the modern libertarian movement in its early years (as evidenced by his often-cited 1975 interview in Reason magazine), he also understood that the goal of many libertarians was anarchy and that is what libertarianism has devolved into today.
Hey retread, Reagan's opposition to OUTSIDE censorship implies that he would welcome SELF-CENSORSHIP.
Are you claiming that self-censorship is somehow nonlibertarian?
And just where, exactly, did you come up with the notion that opposition to censorship is even a libertarian principle? Opposition to GOVERNMENT is a libertarian principle
Opposition to violation of individual liberties, by government or others, is a libertarian principle - and it's usually if not always governments that impose outside censorship, which is a violation of individual liberties. QED.
No, that's your functional illiteracy talking.
So when somebody says he doesn't want anarchy but he is a libertarian, he's mistaken about the latter or lying about the former?
Why get snarky in the same breath of claiming courtesy? I can read the thread without you guys pinging me to everything you post individually.
Both.
Actually a libertarian is a political neophyte who claims to be a libertarian and in the same breath denounces and denies the core values that libertarians support.
Not at all; however, I have observed general libertarian disapproval for any disapproval of pornography.
Opposition to violation of individual liberties, by government or others, is a libertarian principle - and it's usually if not always governments that impose outside censorship, which is a violation of individual liberties. QED.
Don't give yourself too many pats on the back, you haven't actually demonstrated anything.
What most libertarians seem to fear more than anything is even the hint of opposition to their libertine depravity, the fact that government is authorized to curtail such depravity makes opposition to any and all government an underlying principle of libertarianism.
You and I must be seeing different samples of libertarians. I've seen a number of libertarians agree that certain acts are best avoided but nonetheless none of government's business. Some objections to "even the hint of opposition" may be in anticipation of a leap from 'it's bad' to 'it should be banned.'
I tried to debate libertarians on Facebook and they invariably respond with anti-Christian diatribes that would make the Freedom From Religion Foundation turn red. The hate for Christians was palpable.
“How much have leftist Democrats prospered by the division of conservative votes? “ - article
Not at all - Republicans lose because they fail to follow conservative principles. Republicans forget that they must EARN each vote they get.
Boehner, Cochran, McConnell - They don’t earn any conservative credibility. Why should they expect the arty they lead to get ANY conservative votes?
(The answer - because they are not Democrats is NOT good enough.)
“How much have leftist Democrats prospered by the division of conservative votes? “ - article
Not at all - Republicans lose because they fail to follow conservative principles. Republicans forget that they must EARN each vote they get.
Boehner, Cochran, McConnell - They don’t earn any conservative credibility. Why should they expect the arty they lead to get ANY conservative votes?
(The answer - because they are not Democrats is NOT good enough.)
So. Getting back to the issue of child pornography that was left on the table earlier; this is none of the government's business?
And if I may drag in your pro-dope agenda, may I also conclude you oppose the government setting laws restricting sales to minors?
Gee, you're a very open minded individual, aren't you. Very liberal minded.
Okay, let's look at the other side. What if certain aspects of pornography WERE banned? What if there were absolute standards of what could and couldn't be published? And let's just assume that all censorship would stop with this. Would this really be so bad?
I've never debated on Facebook. What you describe is ugly and objectionable. However, while it logically follows that those steeped in libertine depravity will be no fans of Christianity, the converse does not - that is, being anti-Christian doesn't mean you engage in libertine depravity.
And if I may drag in your pro-dope agenda, may I also conclude you oppose the government setting laws restricting sales to minors?
No and no. Minors are, by virtue of their not-fully-developed reasoning ability, not capable of giving meaningful consent to many acts, including drug use and sex.
Okay, let's look at the other side. What if certain aspects of pornography WERE banned? What if there were absolute standards of what could and couldn't be published? And let's just assume that all censorship would stop with this. Would this really be so bad?
There's probably a line I'd be OK with (e.g., no torture or murder, simulated or real) ... but then, I'm not a libertarian.
First of all, all states have an age of consent for sexual relations. If they are old enough to have sex legally, shouldn't they be allowed, according to the liberal/libertarian mindset, to pose nude for pornography?
When does a person's reasoning ability become "fully developed" according to liberals and libertarians? Is there some magical event at 18 that increases their reasoning ability and then another one at 21? I've known many people under 18 who are as well-reasoning and astute as anyone I've ever met and I've known a lot more "adults" without a bit of sense.
What libertarians and liberals refuse to recognize is that there ARE moral absolutes. There are things that are WRONG regardless of legality, the age or the intellect of the person engaging in them.
OK then.
You’re in favor of Prohibition.
As it pertains to the Nanny State stepping in and prohibiting minors from being harmed by drugs or illicit sex - you are OK with it.
Good for you.
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.