Skip to comments.
Are there any differences between Conservatives and Libertarians?
1/12/03
| Sparta
Posted on 01/12/2003 9:15:48 PM PST by Sparta
I've been reading posts by people who use the term Conservative and others who use the term Libertarian. I have a question for all FReepers, is there a difference between the two?
TOPICS: Free Republic; Philosophy; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340, 341-360, 361-380 ... 481-482 next last
To: Cultural Jihad
Libertarians want to thwart the right of people to decide what kind of a society they are to live in. They want to make mandatory the toleration of evil. -CJ-
"Most Americans are moving to the idea that drugs and guns are evil and should be prohibited. Encouraging one way of thinking supports the other because the logic of the arguments is the same."
Thus, we see the real face of evil. -- CJ's advocacy of socialistic prohibitionism.
321 -tpaine-
__________________________________
LOL! I stand squarely with the Founding Fathers, O historical revisionist. -CJ-
The founding fathers advocated excluding "militia nutcases" from the RKBA's? --- Revise this CJ:
"Personally, I think anyone who refuses to vote or sit on a jury without a valid medical reason, or get a drivers license shows enough evidence of being irresponsible so as to not be allowed to own a weapon.
That should exclude most militia nutcases and other sociopatholicals."
#83 4/20/02 -Cultural Jihad-
341
posted on
01/14/2003 3:58:45 PM PST
by
tpaine
To: Sparta; Cultural Jihad
See #341. -- CJ has no backup save for his complete denial of reality.
342
posted on
01/14/2003 4:03:19 PM PST
by
tpaine
To: tpaine
My summary was truncated, and Tolkien enthusiasts might fairly raise objections. I note with pleasure that no Wagnerians yet have written to complain, validating the observation that Tolkien has taken back the Ring on behalf of the forces of light. If you prefer Wagner to Tolkien, you might be an Orc, and you should . . .
seek (( link )) - - - professional help ! ! !
343
posted on
01/14/2003 4:08:01 PM PST
by
f.Christian
(Orcs of the world: Take note and beware.)
To: Democrap
"Drugs (sometimes disguised as property rights)" -Dcrap-
It is amazing that a person that believes [in the drug war] would choose [banning] marijuana over the [RKBA's].
Connecting the War on Guns & Drugs [my title]
Address:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/820965/posts
344
posted on
01/14/2003 4:10:34 PM PST
by
tpaine
To: tpaine
The 'level' playing field of libwhackery . . .
lib side - - - the end // point of an inclined VERTICAL triangle that extends to a base of an unconnected // floating reality (( buried )) ! ! !
The separation is infinite // complete // total // permanent ! ! !
345
posted on
01/14/2003 4:16:44 PM PST
by
f.Christian
(Orcs of the world: Take note and beware.)
To: Dave S
" No one ever said a law was going to lead to perfection. Libertarians, however, just assume that if a law cant immediately solve a problem than you might as well decriminalize the behavior: legalize drugs, prostitution, and driving under age and without insurance." Forget about 13 year olds. A driver's licence test is done at (typically) 16 years old and then the state just demands a fee every so often after that. It's about money (and control), but not about safety. If it was safety, you'd be tested more frequently.
What part of ingesting drugs, having sex (with a consenting adult), and operating a motor vehicle is so inherently evil and dangerous that it must be illegal or you must be licensed to do it?
PS - I don't do drugs, do not frequent prostitutes, and rarely allowed my 13 year old to drive.
346
posted on
01/14/2003 4:18:59 PM PST
by
Badray
To: All; f.Christian; Cultural Jihad; yall
To: Sparta; Cultural Jihad
See #341. -- CJ has no backup save for his complete denial of reality.
342 posted on 01/14/2003 4:03 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
_________________________________
To: tpaine
My summary was truncated, and Tolkien enthusiasts might fairly raise objections. I note with pleasure that no Wagnerians yet have written to complain, validating the observation that Tolkien has taken back the Ring on behalf of the forces of light. If you prefer Wagner to Tolkien, you might be an Orc, and you should . . . seek (( link )) - - - professional help ! ! !
343 posted on 01/14/2003 4:08 PM PST by f.Christian (Orcs of the world: Take note and beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 |
__________________________________
Ummm, CJ, -- DONT LOOK NOW, but I think you've just 'OUT'ed YOURSELF as being -- 'f.Christian'. --
Is having two posting personas permitted now?
347
posted on
01/14/2003 4:25:54 PM PST
by
tpaine
To: tpaine
Like I said it's all about drugs. It always comes down to that with you guys. But none of you use...
To: Democrap
349
posted on
01/14/2003 5:28:55 PM PST
by
tpaine
To: Democrap
But each time I dig into it I find that the person has a problem with the CP stand ...
Exactly. Moral-liberals couldn't care less about Constitutional government.
To: tpaine
Last time I looked drugs were not enumerated in the constitution.
To: Hacksaw
They do nothing but spoil elections and try to hijack this conservative forum. If conservatives are willing to vote for Republican candidates solely on the condition that they are in some slight measure better than the Democrats, what motive are Republican politicians going to have to try to be anything other than Democrat-lite?
In all the instances I know of where Libertarians have acted as spoilers, it's been because the Republican has failed to act like a conservative. Perhaps if Republicans would start actively opposing Democrats' sociofascist programs, people who would either vote Libertarian or sit on the sidelines might vote for them.
In 1996, I voted for Harry Browne. Not because I wanted Clinton to win (though his opponent was so feeble it was inevitable), but rather because his opponent had completely failed to go on record supporting the Second Amendment, had earlier in fact sold out his party on gun control, and promised to further erode Fourth Amendment protections in the name of the War on Drugs.
I wish Republicans would realize that Democrat-lite is a lousy platform. If a Democrat proposal is a bad one, it must be opposed completely. Going along with it, but foot-dragging, merely sets the Republicans up for blame when the program fails.
352
posted on
01/14/2003 5:49:34 PM PST
by
supercat
(TAG--you're it!)
To: Democrap
Last time I looked drugs were not enumerated in the constitution.
That's because you don't have a handy-dandy secret decoder ring found free in specially-marked boxes of Malt-O-Meal. ;)
To: Democrap
The Constitutional Party is not a bad choice and I have a hard time understanding why all these libertarians that dont go along with the LP platform move to the CP. Hard to vote for a candidate who isn't on the ballot.
354
posted on
01/14/2003 5:50:54 PM PST
by
supercat
(TAG--you're it!)
To: Cultural Jihad
you don't have a handy-dandy secret decoder ringTrue but I have been to the democrap school of rectumspeak.
To: Democrap
Last time I looked drugs were not enumerated in the constitution. Many libertarians don't mind the fact that drugs are illegal, so much as they mind the fact that the government goes way outside its constitutional authority in its efforts to "ban" them [actually the real efforts are usually to get as much money and power as possible from drug bans].
Many liberarians' biggest problem with drug laws is that they require the police to actively and intrusively seek out criminal violations. This is quite the opposite of the normal police role, which is to respond to criminal complaints.
If a drunk is staggering down the street and making a nuisance of himself, most libertarians would not object to his arrest: he is bothering people, and police don't need to intrusively search him out: his actions are readily observable to all. The situation is much different, however, if someone is smoking dope in his house and waits inside until he sobers up. In that case, the only way the police could ever find out that a "crime" was being committed is by using intrusive surveillance.
Many libertarians would have no objection to the police shutting down a drug house which is creating a clearly identifiable public nuisance. What they object to is intrusive police surveillance and raids on people's homes on the suspicion that they 'might' be dealing drugs. If nobody's complaining, why should the government care?
356
posted on
01/14/2003 6:04:08 PM PST
by
supercat
(TAG--you're it!)
To: Badray
Ahh. A compasssionate conservative, I see. No more than LP members who have called me a Nazi, a Taliban member and a statist because I disagree with them. However, I am compassionate - if I found you on the side of the road with a flat, I would help you change the tire.
357
posted on
01/14/2003 6:04:14 PM PST
by
Hacksaw
To: supercat
Hard to vote for a candidate who isn't on the ballot.They must be telling the truth about how widespread their movement is sense 60% of America stays at home on election days. Got to be the Libertarian Stay At Home And Whine Party>
To: Democrap
Last time I looked drugs were not enumerated in the constitution.Last time I looked "commerce among the several states" meant people exchanging goods and money across state lines.
359
posted on
01/14/2003 6:10:14 PM PST
by
tacticalogic
(This tagline is dedicated to SheLion and family until further notice.)
To: supercat
Many libertarians' biggest problem with drug laws is that they require the police to actively and intrusively seek out criminal violations. This is quite the opposite of the normal police role, which is to respond to criminal complaints.I see your point, we in Democrap land have voted in an initiative that require our police to never leave the donut shop unless given a call for service. It must be the same way where you live. I note that the drunk driving arrest have gone down to zero even though the drunk driver death rate is up 130%. My big problem here is that the donut shop is 5 minutes from my house and the average home burglary only takes 3 mins.< /sar>
I wonder why they call them patrol cars?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340, 341-360, 361-380 ... 481-482 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson