Posted on 02/25/2013 3:04:49 PM PST by Shout Bits
As long as we have to live in the world as it exist we must make sacrifices to those realities.
The welfare state exist and it will not be abolished tomorrow or the next day, so we must out law drugs or suffer more disabled people that will swell the welfare rolls.
However the War on Drugs is just as much the War on Civil Liberties.
The War on Drugs has been the excuse for No Knock Raids and the militarization of our police forces. The War on Drugs has been the source of money for the expansion and arming of street gangs and international mafias.
At some point we may have to decide that the combination of the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty have both become more than our economy and our society can bear.
In short, vice addiction.
That's basically what she said to them.
Libertarianism and liberalism were the politics of Sodom and Gomorrah which had zero(almost) conservatives, basically anti-God philosophies, and anti-American.
The libertarian goal for the future of America is revealed in their immigration efforts.
“”COMPLETE PLATFORM TEXT
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL ORDER
IMMIGRATION:
The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new “Berlin Wall” which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government’s policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.””
That’s a very insightful comment, and it saddens me that too few conservatives think as clearly as you about this issue. One doesn’t need to be in favor of drug use in order to believe that we are pursuing the wrong tactics in our “drug war”, but some people can’t make that distinction.
There are only two ways that I know of to successfully stop a drug epidemic. One of them involves winning over the public so that they voluntary choose to abstain, and that can be a daunting task, no doubt. However, the other way involves the government killing a whole lot of people, which is not where I think America should be heading.
Right now, we’re not really on either of those paths. The public outreach isn’t working well, and we’re not willing to take the enforcement steps that would actually cause any effect. So, the epidemic will continue until we pick one way or the other.
The State's only legitimate function is to protect freedom and adjudicate and punish those who infringe on an individual's freedom; I don't think I've heard a principled libertarian argue against a speed limit. Or even laws prohibiting intoxicated driving. People own their own body, but as I own mine, others don't have the right to put my body under undue risk of their behavior.
So your answer is that you don’t fully own your body but have allowed others to select what your limits are? Who’s then setting the limits, neighbors? A select committee of like minded ‘smart’ people? A democratic majority? A person doing 120mph on an empty highway is a threat only to himself and as such that person should solely bear the consequences of his actions. With others on the highway that person then infringes on their right to life then limits/’license’ on that person’s liberty come into play. There should be no limits on what I choose to do with my own body as long as I bear the full consequences of my choices.....in a free society YOU nor anyone else should have a say in how I treat myself. Here Coulter has a point, if I can’t pay then I shouldn’t play else society has license on my body.
more government?
When did I say I want more government?
I would reduce the size of government by 90% AT LEAST if I were in power.
So explain how that is MORE government ??
Libertardians think pedophilia and kids using crack while hooking is just fine and dandy
They are not normal in the head
The poster didn't say that, and it isn't what conservatives believe, we know that libertarianism creates more government, more welfare and social programs, and more democrat voters, not conservative voters.
The last 50 years of libertarian gains has destroyed America and doomed conservatism, the more broken our families and individuals and communities, and the more immigration, the more those weak, indulged, titillated people vote democrat and for programs to support their decadence.
Social liberals vote liberal, and vote for social liberalism, which creates more social liberals, and that is what libertarianism has been working hand in hand with the left to create for the last 50 years.
I don’t remember seeing anyone arguing in favor of what we have today?
Yet another false strawman argument from a libertopian
liberaltarians would never accept such conditions!!
Look at open borders, imagine what harm will that do to society?
crazy
Abolish the age of consent?
Are you totally freaking insane?
Coulter’s a RINO loving idiot, but at least she’s not a dope smoking crack head libertarian.
I just don’t understand the argument that, “we have a welfare state and it’s bad so we need a police state to keep the welfare state from costing us too much.”
That seems a move in exact opposition to freedom and personal responsibility.
They know, they just love to build straw men to knock over.
Leaving pot out of it for a minute, she is willing to live in the real world (most of the time), and libertarians aren't.
Putting pot back in the discussion, we may well see a relaxation of the drug laws in the not so distant future.
I doubt it would really make society any less "socialist."
Ironically, she was roaring drunk.
Thing is (to me) the left want to control our lives and so does the right; just different aspects in different ways.
Her whole ‘argument’ was for the status quo. Her whole premise is based on Socialism, that of the community/State over the individual. Maybe you heard something else, I sure didn’t hear anything from her debating the WoD powers, the infringements on the 4th/9th/10th, etc.
All I heard was “I’m paying, I get to choose”. That’s not arguing against the question posed “What right do you (Ann)...”
Stossel didn’t do himself any justice, but the snarky Ann wasn’t fighting gov’t over-reach.
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.