Posted on 06/18/2002 9:48:13 PM PDT by old-ager
I believe that adults should have the freedom to do as they like as long as they do not cause harm to others. If they make poor decisions that cause themselves harm, I am sorry but that is their problem.
I am not willing to give up my freedom, so that Government can be a Nanny to all of those too irresponsible to make wise decisions on their own.
In my experience Gov't intervention usually causes waste, inefficiency, and makes everyone unhappy. Why you would trust such an organization to regulate your private life is a mystery to me.
See my post #57 if you think government control of your life is a good thing.
Remember, once you give Gov't the power to regulate your private life, there are those who may decide they want to regulate it in ways that you may not like or even expect. Many Democrats are eager for the power to tell you how you may live your life. You make it easy for them by essentially agreeing that government regulation of personal behavior is a good thing.
What will you say when the "PC thought" police show up at your door demanding you report to a re-education camp? lol
And he's generally right about libertines. Uninformed clowns, one and all.
No, it is society's problem (meaning my problem, or my children's problem).
Well, you give up that freedom every day, so you must be willing (unless you go out and break the law) - or live in another country.
I never even hinted that I trust the government!!! I don't on most issues!
The government has had limited powers to regulate our life since the founding of our country. And every other government on the face of the Earth has the same. I agree that we have way too much regulation of our lives. But some regulation is necessary and essential. That is where libertarians are on the wrong track.
I will fight them tooth and nail. But this wasn't the topic of the debate! You want to make me out as someone who wants government to regulate everything. Nothing could be further from the truth. What Farah was saying was that total freedom to do what we want doesn't work because many people are bad. And he's right.
Well, yes, but that's beside the point. When resolving a political issue, one focuses on politics. It is appropriate for libertarians (and conservatives, and liberals, and so on) to focus on politics for the same reason it is appropriate for architects (and civil engineers, and car designers, and so on) to focus on mechanical physics.
Misread this. When you give some types of freedom to people, some (the bad people) will inevitably use it in a way that causes harm to YOU. That's what Farah was saying.
Did you copy this from a Dr. Bronner's Soap label?
This is not behavior that doesn't harm others. The police should throw them all in jail, just as they would any other law breaker.
There are always people who will intentionally abuse and harm others. Passing more and more laws will not stop them. Banning guns, will not stop criminals from using guns to commit crime. If someone murders someone with a gun, charge them with murder. Don't ban guns. If someones drug abuse is causing them to neglect their child, charge them with child abuse. Don't ban drugs.
Banning drugs, or guns, or anything else for which there is a demand, only makes criminals wealthy, because it is they who will step in and fill the demand.
Just as prohibition gave rise to organized crime in the 30's by making them rich, drug prohibition is doing the same now.
I distrust anyone wanting to be President from the get go, because the desire for, and reasons to, want to wield that kind of power should be scrutinized. Washington had to basically be talked into being President, no recent politician that I'm aware of who has attempted to capture the Presidency can say the same.
So what you are saying is that we should ban the freedom to own guns because some, (the bad people) will inevitably use them in a way that causes harm to you?
Shall we ban Alcohol too? Some people use it irresponsibly.
What about motor vehicles? Irresponsible automobile use kills thousands every year.
Cell phones don't kill people it's true, but many people use them very irresponsibly, annoying hundreds of thousands, and damaging their quality of life. Perhaps they should be banned?
Actually, there isn't a human activity on the planet that doesn't offend someone, somewhere. Shall all human activity be banned?
Who gets to decide? You? Perhaps we should let the Democrats decide since they seem to be in the majority now? What do you think?
It is supposed to have limited powers acording to the constution, but it has assumed more and more powers during the last two and a quarter centurys. The founders never envisioned the type of over regulation and the intrusiveness of the current federal government. Their vision was of a realitively small ferderal government and state governments that would regulate, or not, the type of personal behavior laws that we are discussing.
As for every other government on earth having limited powers, well you probably didn't mean it that way, but if you did, I would remind you of North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, China, Zimbabwa, Pakistan, Libia, etc. I don't imagine their citizens would share your views that their governments powers are limited.
The big lie/con/scam...
Originally the word liberal meant social conservatives who advocated growth and progess---mostly technological(knowledge being absolute/unchanging)based on law/constitution--reality...the nature of man/govt. does not change. These were the classical liberals...founding fathers--principles...stable/sane scientific reality/society---industrial progress!
Then came the post-modern age of switch-flip-spin...atheist secular materialists INSANITY through evolution removed the foundations...made the absolutes relative and calling--RENAMING/CLAIMING all technology/science === evolution to substantiate/justify their efforts--claims...social engineering--PC!
Libbertearaliens---Liberals/Evolution BELIEVE they are the conservatives--guardians too!
Hypnotism--witchcraft ideology--politics--religion--BRAINWASHING--superstition--BIAS---EVOLUTION...
all liberalism--evolution insanity/revisionism!
When the inevitable harm (or the cost of eliminating it) outweighs the value of the freedom (as it does on some issues), regulation is needed.
Yes, but when the cost to the town taxpayer of providing an around-the-clock police force to enforce the law grows too high, the town (representing 95% of the people) is perfectly reasonable in saying that the cost of the freedom granted is too high. Again, if everyone were responsible, there would be no cost to that freedom. But they aren't, and there often is a substantial cost borne by society as a whole. Libertarians miss this.
So it's ok with you if anything is banned so long as a majority of the people, or a well connected special interest group, believe that on balance it would be better to ban it?
I guess there is no point in arguing with you since you don't believe in freedom. You have alot of company in this country unfortunatly.
Don't say I didn't warn you when something or some activity you hold dear is banned as well.
Our society is creeping towards the totalitarianism. We are smothering ourselves in good intentions.
Strange that you don't see it when you admit that: "We have overregulation here, "
Yes, yes, yes. The point is, governments everywhere must regulate people's live to some degree. We have overregulation here, but some regulation is necessary.
I pose to you a Question Yendu, Who "GIVES" us rights? Does Government Grant our rights? Or Does our Creator (God) grant us our rights?
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.