They call themselves libertarians; I think they're antisocial bastards

Guardian ^ | 12/20/05 | George Monbiot

[Pikamax]

The road-rage lobby couldn't have been more wrong. Organisations such as the Association of British Drivers or Safe Speed - the boy racers' club masquerading as a road-safety campaign - have spent years claiming that speeding doesn't cause accidents. Safe Speed, with the help of some of the most convoluted arguments I've ever read, even seeks to prove that speed cameras "make our roads more dangerous". Other groups, such as Motorists Against Detection (officially known as Mad), have been toppling, burning and blowing up the hated cameras. These and about a thousand such campaigns maintain that speed limits, speed traps and the government's "war on the motorist" are shakedown operations whose sole purpose is to extract as much money as possible from the poor oppressed driver.

Well last week the Department for Transport published the results of the study it had commissioned into the efficacy of its speed cameras. It found that the number of drivers speeding down the roads where fixed cameras had been installed fell by 70%, and the number exceeding the speed limit by more than 15mph dropped by 91%. As a result, 42% fewer people were killed or seriously injured in those places than were killed or injured on the same stretches before the cameras were erected. The number of deaths fell by more than 100 a year. The people blowing up speed cameras have blood on their hands.

But this is not, or not really, an article about speed, or cameras, or even cars. It is about the rise of the antisocial bastards who believe they should be allowed to do what they want, whenever they want, regardless of the consequences.

[Constantine XIII]

There's no need to insult their mothers, even if they are silly. :)

[r9etb]

As a matter of fact, the Constitution spells out no such thing. It rather leaves those matters to the states and the people, and forbids Congress from doing what it does anyway, which is poke their nose into every conceivable avenue.

Hm. You must be reading a different version of the Constitution. The fact that Congress has exceeded its Constitutional authority does not change the fact that the Constitution does grant it authority do do the sorts of things I listed. (See Article I, Section 8.)

[frgoff]

Libertarians are repelled by it.

Libertarians will use government force to make you accept drug use in your neighborhood.

Libertarians will use government force to make you accept pornagraphy in your libraries.

Libertarians will use government force to make you accept hookers walking your city streets.

Libertarians are repelled by government force? Yeah, right. Sell the bridge to someone else.

[RegulatorCountry]

"Libertarians are repelled by government force? Yeah, right. Sell the bridge to someone else."

You're quite mistaken, and still holding a grudge.

[higgmeister]

hasn't read Human Action by Von Mises

What! LOL

That book is ten miles thick!

I only hope to read it before I see my deathbed.

[higgmeister]

family member killed by some selfish bstard speeding and sometimes drinking

What is the fine for manslaughter?

Does the Crown still have "Life with Hard Labor?"

Do more laws and more controls make people upright
citizens?

The biggest killer in Britain is speeding cars.

Does the car do the killing or the person behind the wheel?

Finally to the point, a libertarian would prefer laws that
only act when a person crosses a moral line, not a law
that attempts to prevent a person from crossing that line.

[0siris]

Fair enough, it isn't quite the edge of your seat thriller as "Man Economy and State" or "A Monetary History of the United States", but a book that is one of the backbones of conserva/libertarian economic thought. A better book may be "Economics For Real People", I forget the name of the author, but he summarizes the Austrian school method in a down to earth way. Well written, relatively short, and well worth it.

(I'm not a big Murray "Man Economy and State" Rothbard fan, because he was a bit of a nut, and the type of nut that would give "libertarians" a bad name)

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I am a Conservative Christian and a libertarian... I don't 'promote drug abuse and sex perverts' but again do not support federal legislation to stamp this out.

So, molesting and giving drugs to children should be just fine as far as the federal government is concerned???

If that is how you define your brand of conservative Christianity, I have a better chance of going to heaven as an atheist than I thought!

The federal government has the Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce and foreign trade. The Tenth Amendment does not abrogate that in any fashion...

How liberaltarian to conveniently forget there are at least 5000 words in the U.S. Constitution before the Tenth Amendment...

But, since you are such a smug, and sanctimonious Christian; do you follow the wisdom of men or the laws of your God? (‘You cannot serve both God and Mammon.’)

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I find that most libertarians are simply libertines who care only about protecting their sins and their money.

Do they follow the wisdom of men or the Mosaic law? (‘You cannot serve both God and Mammon.’)

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Libertarians will use government force to:

...make you accept drug use in your neighborhood.

...make you accept pornography in your libraries.

...make you accept hookers walking your city streets.

So much for the liberaltarian local control and states' rights arguments...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

I am an evangelical Christian and believe strongly in the social agenda of the Christian right...

“You cannot serve both God and Mammon.”

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Well written, relatively short...

Economic theory, even shorter and better written:

So long as there is someone willing to pay, there will always be someone willing to collect...

That is an SFD original.

[chronic_loser]

go back under your rock, troll.

[chronic_loser]

I am sorry. You actually did list a gaggle of things Constitutionally prescribed, right after you listed the thing about local speed limits. I glommed onto that, and missed the rest. My error.

[billbears]

So, molesting and giving drugs to children should be just fine as far as the federal government is concerned???

Hmmmm, what did you not understand about my statement? I fear too many 'conservatives' have not read the Constitution of these United States. The Tenth Amendment gives the separate and sovereign states the right to enforce laws as it deals with their internal affairs. What use is it to have a law at the federal level if that law exists at the state level? None. And the Framers understood this.

If that is how you define your brand of conservative Christianity, I have a better chance of going to heaven as an atheist than I thought!

No, my 'brand' of conservative Christianity as you say would state that I respect my ancestors and those that established this nation of states, not a bunch of political hacks that pass laws just to pander for votes

The federal government has the Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce and foreign trade. The Tenth Amendment does not abrogate that in any fashion...

That's great. Perhaps you'll enlighten me as to how molesting children in one neighborhood is covered by foreign trade or interstate commerce. Then perhaps you'll explain how one can regulate commerce of a material that shouldn't exist by law.

[jmc813]

The federal government has the Constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce and foreign trade.

So you are an FDR New Deal type of conservative. Do you support federal gun control laws on this basis as well?

[timm22]

Libertarians will use government force to make you accept drug use in your neighborhood. Libertarians will use government force to make you accept pornagraphy in your libraries. Libertarians will use government force to make you accept hookers walking your city streets.

Force requires action. If the government stays out of something, and takes no action, how can they be "forcing" anything?

If the Republicans don't require a "living wage", are they using government force to make people accept less-than-subsistence wages?

If the Republicans don't make sass-mouth illegal, are they using government force to make you accept dishonoring your mother and your father?

If the Republicans don't nationalize the health care industry, are they using government force to prevent people from getting health care?

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The Tenth Amendment gives the separate and sovereign states the right to enforce laws as it deals with their internal affairs.

There are roughly 5000 words in the Constitution that precede the Tenth Amendment and delegate authority specifically prohibited to the states. It still does not permit the states to regulate foreign trade or interstate commerce, nor does it permit the states to nullify the Constitutional rights of U.S. citizens. There is no Constitutional right to use drugs, make pornography or to market those products anywhere in the United States.

(In fact, if you take marijuana as a perfect example; all marijuana is an imported commodity, Indian Hemp is not indigenous to North America.)

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

...my 'brand' of conservative Christianity as you say would state that I respect my ancestors and those that established this nation of states...

So, the Mosaic Law is not your primary concern as a Christian? That says you do not honor the first of the Ten Commandments. How can you be a Christian if you do not follow the Ten Commandments?

‘You cannot serve two masters.’ Telling me you are a Christian is one thing, but then telling me you serve the wisdom of men totally usurps your claim to “Salvation.” Maybe you had better do your Christian thing of repentance.

One guy tried to tell me, an atheist, that God wants people to do drugs. That dog does not hunt either.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

...go back under your rock, troll.

So much for your claim to be an “evangelical Christian.”

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

So you are an FDR New Deal type of conservative.

Save your liberal smear tactics for someone else. I never said I was a “conservative.” I am definitely a “right wing” America first Republican.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Do you support federal gun control laws on this basis as well?

Lifetime NRA member. I don't support state or local gun restriction laws either. In fact, I think every adult male citizen (who is not a convicted felon on parole or probation) should be required to have one and tax deductions given for the purchase price of a big bore revolver.

Problems with druggies, crime and other scum in your neighborhoods? The local Sheriff swears in all the local boys, we form a posse and go get 'em. Sheriff does the paperwork, we get target practice. No more gang problem, no more meth labs... buh-bye!

Even formerly convicted felons who are no longer subject to their conditions of parole or probation should be freely allowed to publicly carry an big iron on their hip.

Public high schools should be required to have live ammunition firearm training for all boys of military age over 17 if they want federal dollars, with such programs administered by US military officers.

Also, all convicted felons not imprisoned for murder, mayhem or sex offenses, should be sent to a foreign legion program where they serve their prison sentence in the service of the military. If they blow it, they are hung for treason. If they refuse to serve, they go to prison and are permanently exiled from the United States afterward.