The Conservative - Libertarian Schism: Freedom and Confidence

FreeRepublic ^ | July 31, 2002 | Francis W. Porretto

[Cultural Jihad]

It is becoming obvious that the roscoe/tex/cj/np types here at FR have no real interest in the restoration of a constitutional free republic. -- Do You?

Don't confuse our refusal to reply to your personal attacks as acquiescing to your false charges.

[Roscoe]

One candidate comes quickly to mind.

[Cultural Jihad]

I'm not suggesting that companies be allowed to get away with force, fraud, or violation of contracts. (So, in fact, I would certainly oppose children chained to machines. Or even children below a certain age having to work.) I'm only saying that laws like minimum wage laws are not necessary.

Why is a minimum wage law not necessary while a minimum age law is? Either you are laissez-faire or not.

[Mark Bahner]

"All by yourself, you created more bad will toward libertarians and libertarian thinking at the Ann Coulter Fan Club than a regiment of homosexual drug addicts could have done..."

There are things worse than a regiment of homosexual drug addicts. Like a regiment of Ann Coulters, for example.

Ann Coulter is a disgrace. She's mean-spirited. She lies. She is an absolutely shameless...well, she's shameless in everything, but especially in name-calling.

I assume you know she got kicked out at the National Review? (Probably you think that was THEIR fault.)

So...you think I'm worried about the "damage" I cause among fans of such a woman?

"Milton Friedman is a libertarian, and so am I."

So now you're a libertarian again? Fine.

Mark Bahner (Libertarian)

P.S. Obviously, you are bigoted against homosexuals. There's a lot of that among conservatives...which is one reason I liked it more when you were a "freedom-loving conservative."

[tpaine]

It is becoming obvious that the roscoe/tex/cj/np types here at FR have no real interest in the restoration of a constitutional free republic. -- Do You?

Don't confuse our refusal to reply to your personal attacks as acquiescing to your false charges.

The line above is a statement of fact, not a false charge, or a personal attack.

NONE of you have ever shown any interest in the guiding principles of this forum.
Your prime agendas seem to be baiting those who disagree with your views on politics & religion.
I've challenged all of you to say this isn't true at one time or another.
Can't be done, because nearly every one of your baiting/bashing posts proves my point.

[Roscoe]

Libertarianism without falsehoods would be silence.

[VA Advogado]

Your prime agendas seem to be baiting those who disagree with your views on politics & religion.

CJ, let me translate from the master of this subject: Baiting = a synonym for when you well-thought-out comments make me look even more foolish than my own.

[VA Advogado]

Libertarianism without falsehoods would be silence.

I suppose if they lie enough about the constitution, it really will contain a statement pointing to why drugs should be legal.

[dheretic]

I consider myself to more of a classical liberal than a libertarian. The LP represents my beliefs better than the RP by a long shot.

[dheretic]

Libertarianism without falsehoods would be silence.

Christianity without fairy tales wouldn't be a religion.

[tpaine]

"Libertarianism without falsehoods would be silence." -roscoelies-

I suppose if they lie enough about the constitution, it really will contain a statement pointing to why drugs should be legal

---

Whatta couple-a dopes.

-- 'Drugs' are, and always have been legal under the constitution. In 1914 an unconstitutional legislative 'act' was passed, prohibiting some drugs.

[dheretic]

I suppose if they lie enough about the constitution, it really will contain a statement pointing to why drugs should be legal.

Perhaps you would like to give an exact quotation followed by article and section from the US Constitution that gives it the authority to regulate drugs within state borders. Oh yeah, that article and section wouldn't exist because the federal government has no intrastate commerce regulatory powers unless you consider prosecuting slavery and counterfeiting intrastate commerce. While you're at it, read the 10th amendment. It states clearly and unequivocably that any power not explicitly granted to the US Government is one that the US Government doesn't have. This isn't about morality, it is whether do-gooder hyper-moralist thugs would violate the US Constitution; it is a litmus test for the orthodoxy of your adherence to the US Constitution.

[Roscoe]

In 1914 an unconstitutional legislative 'act' was passed, prohibiting some drugs.

Georgia had a prohibition edict in place in 1733. The Oregon Territory had prohibition in 1843. Maine had a prohibition law in 1846. In the 19th century, New Hampshire, Vermont and Michigan, among others, had prohibition laws on the books.

Libertarianism without falsehoods would be silence.

[tpaine]

This isn't about morality, it is whether do-gooder hyper-moralist thugs would violate the US Constitution; it is a litmus test for the orthodoxy of your adherence to the US Constitution.

---

Well said. - As usual you will get no coherant response from the thugs I flagged earlier, or from VA.
-- In fact, I suspect he was miffed that I didn't include him in that post. He desperately wants to be known as a full member of FR's anti-constitutional mafia.
I doubt they want him.

[Roscoe]

The Congress makes the following findings and declarations:

(1) Many of the drugs included within this title have a useful and legitimate medical purpose and are necessary to maintain the health and general welfare of the American people.

(2) The illegal importation, manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people.

(3) A major portion of the traffic in controlled substances flows through interstate and foreign commerce. Incidents of the traffic which are not an integral part of the interstate or foreign flow, such as manufacture, local distribution, and possession, nonetheless have a substantial and direct effect upon interstate commerce because--

(A) after manufacture, many controlled substances are transported in interstate commerce,

(B) controlled substances distributed locally usually have been transported in interstate commerce immediately before their distribution, and

(C) controlled substances possessed commonly flow through interstate commerce immediately prior to such possession.

(4) Local distribution and possession of controlled substances contribute to swelling the interstate traffic in such substances.

(5) Controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate cannot be differentiated from controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate. Thus, it is not feasible to distinguish, in terms of controls, between controlled substances manufactured and distributed interstate and controlled substances manufactured and distributed intrastate.

(6) Federal control of the intrastate incidents of the traffic in controlled substances is essential to the effective control of the interstate incidents of such traffic.

(7) The United States is a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and other international conventions designed to establish effective control over international and domestic traffic in controlled substances.

[tpaine]

In 1914 an unconstitutional legislative 'act' was passed, prohibiting some drugs. - tpaine

---

Georgia had a prohibition edict in place in 1733. The Oregon Territory had prohibition in 1843. Maine had a prohibition law in 1846. In the 19th century, New Hampshire, Vermont and Michigan, among others, had prohibition laws on the books.

---

Yep, and except for 1733, they were all unconstitutional state laws, under the supreme Law of the Land.
--- Then, [exactly because so many states were violating the constitution, - even the 2nd amendment], -- the 14th was ratified, in order to settle the question of 'states rights'. States were told they could NOT deprive "persons of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;".
Guns & drugs are property, prohibitions on them are NOT due process.
--- The public use of property is legally regulated under the criminal law powers granted to states. - States have NEVER been granted the power to prohibit property. [See the 9th/10th amendments]

[Roscoe]

they were all unconstitutional state laws

Libertarianism without falsehoods would be silence.

[Roscoe]

Idaho had laws against smoking opium in 1893.

[tpaine]

Those findings & declarations are NOT constitutional law. - They violate the 14th amendment, for only one.

[tpaine]

roscoepap