Is Free Republic becoming increasingly hostile towards Social Conservatives?

self ^ | self

[watsonfellow]

In the past few months I have noticed that the posters on Free Republic have become more and more hostile towards social conservatism.

And I do not mean indifference (less pro life threads etc) but an outright hostility at pro life and other social conservative causes.

Am I alone in thinking this?

In particular, notice the responses to the thread concerning the recent request by social conservative groups to the FCC to reign in Fox's racey primetime programs.

I wonder if this is becoming only a haven for hedonists and libertarians, and if so, perhaps it would be better for social conservatives to find their own site.

[steve-b]

The Second Law states ALL physical systems are going from order to disorder

And yet I've shown you two pictures of a physical system that has quite manifestly gone from disorder (a faded and cracked image) to order (a bright and unmarred image).

Of course, this was possible because of an external input -- corresponding to the external input of the sun to the earth.

[FreedomIsSimple]

Well let me rephrase then. If I saw someone giving heroin to your kids do I shoot or not?

Personally, it it were my kids, I'd prefer to be told about it after the fact so I could set them straight about the dangers of heroin. But, the fact remains that there is no violence being done here, so your use of force would not be justified. A call to the cops might be, though, just as if you saw someone buying Jack Daniels for 10 year olds.

As long as these substances are available their will be some who give them to kids. Are we to be like government and say the losses of these kids will just be the statistic for the change to an open drug culture?

Like I said before, the raising of children is the responsibility of the parents, not the government. Do you extend your argument to "there is bad stuff on TV, and kids might see it, so it must be banned"? If so, we have a conflict of opinion that cannot be resolved. The rights of adults should not be limited because of children.

you as well as I have seen first hand how families become dysfuntional due to drug abuse, can you honestly say that to make drugs legal will not make things worse?

Oh yes, very definately. First off, I challenge your assumption that usage will increase with legalization. History just does not support that fact - regardless of what Ol' Sparky says, the Netherlands have a lower rate of drug usage than the US even with their relaxed laws. People drank more during the Prohibition of alchohol, and those rates did fall to pre-prohibition levels after the repeal of 18th amendment. Second, regardless of the affects on individuals, it is morally wrong for the government to wage war on peaceful, non-violent citizens who just happen to consume unpopular substances. Third, legalization will drastically reduce the price of illegal drugs, eliminating much of the crime associated with high prices and the violence associated with the black market. Fewer addicts robbing people for their fix, no more gang turf wars over drug-selling territory. Fourth, ending the War will free up a whole lot of money that can be returned to us in the form of lower taxes. Lastly, you forget that the War has been completely ineffective in stopping the flow - no law ever passed will prevent an addict from getting their drugs. This is the law of supply and demand at work, and it can't be repealed.

[NYC GOP Chick]

Well, I believe it's the one true cause that unites just about every FReeper (not including disruptors, of course).

[Ken H]

IMO, all the issues you raise should be the province of a State's government, not the Federal government, in accordance with the Tenth Amendment.

This would allow for a true diversity among the American people. For example, Oklahoma might decide to execute drug dealers and lock up marijuana users for life. New Mexico, on the other hand, might decide to allow cannabis bars.

The same variation in policies on health care, education, drug rehab, and vice would allow different approaches to societal ills. The only role for the Federal government in domestic policies should be to prohibit the State government from violating the US Constitution in the pursuit of its laws. The State must not violate the 2nd Amendment, for example.

This way, a liberal can be happy in a State that is more socialistic, the social conservative can live in a more puritan State, and a libertarian could live in a State that resembles the Old West, complete with bars, brothels,and opium dens!

[jwalsh07]

Only one problem with your scenario, well two actually, the liberals and the libertarians won't buy into it.

The liberals want to micromanage your life from DC and a goodly amount of libertarians would forbid your state from making laws regarding drugs, prostitution, 5kt nukes, etc etc.

[f.Christian]

Social conservatives... realatarians--will overcome!

[BlackElk]

You might add the costs to all of us of the bribery of public officials by the distributors, the addiction of the public officials to the bribes, the amazing behavior of some public officials using their authority to favor the highest bidding distributors by arresting their competitors, the fact that bad habits accumulate and the bribed official is not likely to maintian much scrupulosity in other respects.

I would agree with you that the War on Drugs is not very effective against drugs but is very effective in stripping Americans of their rights and I have to say that, traditionalist though my own inclinations may be and certainly are, it would take a thread much longer even than this to catalog the unnecessary restrictions on liberty that have resulted from the WOD long before the real escalation started with 9/11/02.

I must respoectfully disagree with the notion that legalization would not increase use. While the "forbidden fruit" attraction of drugs to kids would be lessened, there very likely would be more use. Of course, if legalization was only for adult use, it would still be illegal for kids and even the "forbidden fruit" attraction would not be lessened. I rather suspect that there have been more abortions annually since Roe vs. Wade than before.

This drug legalization issue is more complex in its results than either the supporters or opponents seenm willing to admit.

For the sorts of reasons advanced by Bill Buckley, the supporters of legalization probably have the better of the argument. A second major reason is the horrendous costs associated with prohibition. A third is the absolute corruption of public officials and particularly police, prosecutors and judges [not that I regard government as sacred but it is certainly oppressive enough without this sort of corruption].

In spite of the above, I would like to say that those like Ol' Sparky who have taken such pains to advance the other view deserve credit for their persistence in what has been a strong defense of the traditional opposition to drugs.

I believe that you have made a mistake in failing to clearly distinguish the difference between a person who asserts that certain behavior (pornography, drugs, homosexuality, or whatever) OUGHT NOT to be engaged in and one who wishes to legislate against, arrest, prosecute or punish the behavior by force of law. The social ostracism of one's fellow citizens is not an initiation of force but is quite traditional as a libertarian alternative to laws and such. If I disagree with a person's use of drugs, he or she may have a right of some sort to use but has no right to my friendship or my respect. Is this not true?

Finally, way back more than 500 posts ago, this thread started on the question of whether Free Republic has become increasingly hostile to social conservatism. Yes, it has. It may well be that the reason is that social conservatives are seeing no immediate threat of further degeneration when America is governed by Dubya instead of by the Arkansas Antichrist.

[Ken H]

I agree with you about liberals-- although by 2008, they might be ready to listen:)

My impression is that most (by no means all) libertarians think that States are permitted to enact the laws you mention but not that they must. I'll let them weigh in on this if they choose to.

[jwalsh07]

Fair enough.

[£inuxgruven]

crime increased dramatically in this nation when marijuana was legalized

Please tell me where marijuana was legalized. I can't believe you were not called on this for 560 posts. If you make such a major mistake, why should anyone believe anything you say?

Drugs? "Just say NO(elle)!"

[FreedomIsSimple]

I must respoectfully disagree with the notion that legalization would not increase use. While the "forbidden fruit" attraction of drugs to kids would be lessened, there very likely would be more use. Of course, if legalization was only for adult use, it would still be illegal for kids and even the "forbidden fruit" attraction would not be lessened.

I disagree, and the results demonstrated by the end of alchohol prohibition disagree with you also. However, that's really not my main gist regarding legalization, just a minor backup point. As for the forbidden fruit syndrome, I remember quite cleary as a teenager how hard (although not impossible) it was to get cigarettes and alchohol, and how easy it would have been (had I been interested) to get illegal drugs. Drug dealers don't card for age.

In spite of the above, I would like to say that those like Ol' Sparky who have taken such pains to advance the other view deserve credit for their persistence in what has been a strong defense of the traditional opposition to drugs.

The "tradition" to prohibit unpopular substances started in the early part of the 20th century and has been an unmitigated failure. I give no credit to those who support stripping the general population of their God-given liberties in the name of keeping some irresponsible individuals away from their vices. I consider to be quite evil those who advocate the government killing and imprisoning those who consume unpopular substances.

I believe that you have made a mistake in failing to clearly distinguish the difference between a person who asserts that certain behavior (pornography, drugs, homosexuality, or whatever) OUGHT NOT to be engaged in and one who wishes to legislate against, arrest, prosecute or punish the behavior by force of law. The social ostracism of one's fellow citizens is not an initiation of force but is quite traditional as a libertarian alternative to laws and such. If I disagree with a person's use of drugs, he or she may have a right of some sort to use but has no right to my friendship or my respect. Is this not true?

Quite true. Each of us has the freedom to associate with whomever we choose, and I'm sure neither of us would choose to associate with a violent crackhead. My fight is against those who enlist the force of government in the fight against some drugs.

[AUgrad]

They also don't care much for capitalism.

Blatant dishonesty does little to bolster your argument.

[Ol' Sparky]

Actually, I got those stated goals directly from a document detailing the Communist Party's goal of 1963. Thanks for confirming that on social and moral issues, liberaltarian and communism are very similar.

[AUgrad]

Can't we all just get along and get back to doing the one thing we can all agree on, bashing the Clintons. ;)

I'm sure we will if Thunder Thighs runs.

[Cultural Jihad]

Thanks for confirming that on social and moral issues, liberaltarian and communism are very similar.

Bingo. They are all moral-liberals, turning a blind eye to or winking at evil. To them, there are no personal sins, only economic ones.

[FreedomIsSimple]

Actually, I got those stated goals directly from a document detailing the Communist Party's goal of 1963. Thanks for confirming that on social and moral issues, liberaltarian and communism are very similar

*shrug* Pro-freedom is pro-freedom, regardless of the messenger. Hey, you're the one who wants to steal my tax dollars at gunpoint to imprison non-violent drug users. Now, what side more closely resembles totalitarianism again? Hmmm....

[Ol' Sparky]

The cost of drugs use is hundreds of billions of dollars each year and thousands of innocent lives. Yes, it costs billions to lock up the drug users that commit murder and a variety of other crimes. According to the government, 26-29% of all murderers were high on drugs at the time of their crime. Seventy percent of current inmates were high on drugs when they committed their crimes overall. Rachel Ehrenfeld, "Retreating from the War on Drugs," The Washington Times 28 February 1995: A-21.

[AUgrad]

This way, a liberal can be happy in a State that is more socialistic, the social conservative can live in a more puritan State, and a libertarian could live in a State that resembles the Old West, complete with bars, brothels,and opium dens!

Sounds good. There are too many people too unwilling to relinquish the raw political power they now possess at the federal level for it to ever be a reality.

[NeoCaveman]

So they kill my thread, and this clunker is still up?

Boggles my mind.