Posted on 11/28/2004 9:20:33 AM PST by Ellesu
robertpaulsen wrote: Probably the platform that best sums up my position would be that of the Republican Liberty Caucus, minus their position on drugs.
Do you agree with the following, also from the RLC platform?
6.1 Every American has the right to keep and bear arms. We affirm our support for the second amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
9.1 The U. S. Department of Commerce should be abolished, per the tenth amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
No, I'm saying that a voter initiative isn't written by legislators.
I'll take time to read the RLC but in the meantime, in response to:
"Are you saying that a state voter initiative to re-institute segregation, and passed by a majority of voters, would be constitutional law?"
I say yes. I don't see a Constitutional problem with "separate but equal", of course the federal government shouldn't have anything to do with public schools, and there are standing USSC decisions, yada yada...
Well, insurance companies are NOT allowed to operate freely. Government IS providing unemployment compensation. Those are real facts that we need to work around, not just blow away. Those are issues that need to be addressed if we're considering the legalization of drugs.
Privatizing the FDA? Sure. That gives everyone one more deep pockets private company to sue when there's a problem (ie., Vioxx).
"I labeled you because you seem to want gov't to prevent people from making bad choices (bad according to you)."
What I don't understand is if I'm against drugs and the federal government enforces it -- I'm a social marxist. But if I'm against drugs and the state government enforces it, well, that's cool by you. No problem. Nothing to see here.
Seems odd, that's all.
I think:
Guns: I don't favor any restrictions on people not guilty of a felony, I don't think I should have to register a gun
Dept of Commerce: not sure what it does
robertpaulsen: I like the RLC platform, but I just don't understand how you draw the line between liberty and drugs. If you really subscribe to the ideals of individual liberty and personal responsibility, I just don't follow the thinking which leads you to want government to declare certain drugs legal and others illegal.
(I don't think abortion = liberty, since it's murder and the right to life of the unborn trumps the liberty of the mother)
"Well, insurance companies are NOT allowed to operate freely."
And, I presume you have a problem with this, do you not?
"You've got a lot of hypotheticals floating around in your arguments"
Isn't that what political debate is all about? What should policy be, and how will it affect our country?
Perhaps the social marxist label was too strong, but I don't think I said I WANTED State governments to legislate drug legalization, but if they did, it would be in accordance with how I read the US Constitution. Clearly, I WANT drugs to be legal, and for some private company or institute to release reports as to the safety and benefits/risks of each. I'll make up my own mind which I should consume.
In my mind, that IS liberty.
Yes to both of your examples.
In addition, I am in favor of eliminating the Department of Health and Human Services, eliminating the Department of Education, eliminating the National Endowment of the Arts, eliminating the National Endowment for the Humanities, eliminating the Department of Agriculture, eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, eliminating the Department of Transportation, and eliminating the progressive income tax and instituting a flat tax -- for everyone.
In case you were wondering about those agencies, also.
Actually, that's a good point. The best way for me to answer it is to refer you to an Ann Coulter column. She explains it better that I ever could.
Yes to both of your examples.
Those examples are:
6.1 Every American has the right to keep and bear arms.
9.1 The U. S. Department of Commerce should be abolished, per the tenth amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
Re 6.1: Are State and local governments which ban gun ownership in violation of the Constitution?
Re 9.1 So the Commerce Clause does not allow a Dept. of Commerce and is therefore a violation of the Tenth Amendment. Haven't you just repudiated most case law since the New Deal involving the power of the Commerce Clause?
I read that to say she favors at least considering legalizing drugs AFTER we roll back welfare programs. Is that what you agree with? I do, but we have to start somewhere, and if drug legalization comes first, I'll take it. Once we get that liberty/responsibility back, it'll make great case studies for why welfare is illegitimate and should also be repealed.
There's a joke about a Frenchman, an Englishman and a Russian who are told they have only one day until the end of the world. The Frenchman says he will spend his last day with a bottle of Bordeaux and a beautiful woman. The Englishman says he will take his favorite sheepdog for a walk across the moors. The Russian says he will burn down his neighbor's house. I'm with the Russian.
That does explain it.
What is doesn't address is what happens when tommorrow comes, and you find out it isn't the end of the world.
Of the U.S. Constitution? No.
Let me add: Every American does indeed have the right to keep and bear arms. That is a fundamental right. That right is protected by the Constitution of the state in which they reside. That is the way the Founding Fathers wrote the U.S. Constitution.
"Re 9.1 So the Commerce Clause does not allow a Dept. of Commerce and is therefore a violation of the Tenth Amendment. Haven't you just repudiated most case law since the New Deal involving the power of the Commerce Clause?"
Whoa! Where did the Commerce Clause come from? IMO, these alphabet agencies violate the 10th amendment, not the Commerce Clause. Just like I felt the 1994 AWB violated the 2nd amendment, not the Commerce Clause.
What's with your "Commerce Clause" obsession?
One further note. The next time you post to me, make your point up front. Quit dickin' around with your juvenile gotcha games. You do that again and I will not respond.
Yes. As a society, we'll be much better equipped to handle the negative aspects of drug use (ie., more local community/church involvement). With the negative aspect brought close to home, people can decide whether or not they wish to legalize drugs. Contrasted with today's attitude which is, "The government will handle that".
"and if drug legalization comes first, I'll take it. Once we get that liberty/responsibility back, it'll make ..."
That's where I strongly disagree. Where do get your liberty/responsibility connection?
Personal responsibility in this country is at an all time low. Nobody takes personal responsibility for anything they do. Not in our schools, not at work, not in our daily lives. It's always someone elses fault. Look at all the tort cases!
But your idea is to legalize drugs first, then people will become responsible? I ... I'm ... I'm speechless.
Your solution (and Coulter's) is to restore responsibility and then restore liberty.
I don't care which order it happens, because one without the other is unacceptable.
Legislated morality = fascism while irresponsible liberty = anarchy.
Without both, we are finished as a nation.
Legislated behavior = fascism . We legislate morality all the time -- we have laws against murder, rape, stealing, assault, etc., hundreds of moral issues.
Your problem is with some moral laws.
Nope.
Rape, theft, murder etc. are all violations of my rights to life, liberty, and property. Those crimes have NOTHING to do with the morals of the criminal, but the freedoms and rights of the victim.
Nice try.
"Moral" laws are those such as paying a fair wage, price gouging after a hurricane, affirmative action, drug use, etc...in other words, laws where the rights of the victim are NOT violated but some "greater good" is achieved via laws and government force.
Read this Walter Williams column from yesterday for a great opinion why laws cannot solve our problems.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20041201.shtml
Stealing is not immoral? Please.
Society sets principles of right and wrong. Immorality is a violation of those principles. It is that black and white and it is that simple.
You're using the Libertarian argument of "victimless crimes" and the concept of "harm" to define what should and shouldn't be legal. To that mish-mosh, you add the liberal definition of morality which is "doing good" (ie., taxing the rich and giving that money to the poor is "moral"). That resulting combo-thinking gives me a headache.
Walter Williams is always right on, and that article is no exception. I especially liked the part, "Many in this generation have been counseled to believe that there are no moral absolutes. Instead, what's moral or immoral is a matter of convenience, personal opinion, or what is or is not criminal."
I've often posted on this board that the attitude today is, "If it's legal I can do it and don't you dare judge me or impose your morals on me". How many times have you seen or read someone defending themselves in the news by saying, "Yes I did that, but I wasn't breaking any laws!"?
Seems to me that if people are looking to the legal system to guide their behavior (instead of their moral conscience), we're going to need even more laws.
Unless you're looking forward to Janet Jackson's other breast.
Seems to me that if people are looking to the legal system to guide their behavior (instead of their moral conscience), we're going to need even more laws.
You're arguing that we need to base our legal system on a misguided notion of morality.
And I never said "base it on". I said "add to".
There are people, and television networks, who wouldn't know morality if it bit them in the a$$ -- they look to the law to determine what is "right and wrong". If the law is silent, off they go.
I'm simply saying that if people are going to continue to look to the law to tell them what is moral, them maybe we should consider adding additional moral laws to the books.
If people learned and developed a moral conscience, and lived their life guided by that, why, we wouldn't need as many laws, would we?
Don't you think the idea that "If it isn't illegal it can't be wrong." is misguided?
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.