Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Skepolitic
"The same faux reasoning that you use to justify prohibition against vices that you do not like have been applied to beer, demon rum, Coca Cola, Big Macs, comic books, and religion. "

I don't know WTF you are talking about with your mixed metaphors, and I don't think you do either; I never heard of anyone spending their life in rehab getting unhooked from Big Macs and/or Comic books. No one robs a convenience store to get money to buy a Coca Cola, or beer...or even rum.

Regigion is spritual and has nothing to do with any of this...I don't know what you're smoking, but your reply has nothing to do with anything the rest of us have been talking about.

Pssst...I really don't care if you're a libertarian, but if you are one, then you should defend my right to speak my opinion on the subject. If you don't, then you're just another progressive...it's simple as that. It's in the Constitution...go read it.
75 posted on 03/21/2010 11:49:07 AM PDT by FrankR (Those of us who love AMERICA far outnumber those who love obama - your choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies ]


To: FrankR
you should defend my right to speak my opinion on the subject

I certainly agree that you have an unalienable right to an opinion and to express it at any time or by any means at your disposal. Only a statist like, say, John McCain or Van Jones would disagree.

But you are not entitled to your own facts. Progressives used the exact argument you advance to obtain passage of Amendment XVIII in 1919. Alcohol-related crime increased with its prohibition.

Lots of people have advanced arguments about regulating fatty foods, transfats, and soft drinks due to adverse health effects. You can pretty safely bet that national dietary regulation will appear in the next few years. (But I am sure you wouldn't because some people have gambling problems.) The rationale is the same as yours: some people can't help themselves, so they need a nanny government.

WRT religion, there are a lot of people in high places who think that all, or at least some, religions are destructive to social order and individual mental health. There are innumerable examples in history. Nero banned Christianity, Pope Leo X excommunicated Luther, later Popes launched the Inquisitions, Calvin burned Michael Servitus at the stake, Salem had their witch trials, and the 20th century was far, far worse for people of faith. In each case, the political elites believed that they were acting positively to achieve some noble objective such as maintaining social order, preserving the salvation of individual souls, or preserving the Faith and the Church. In the incomparably evil cases of the 20th century, idealists who aspired to create a new socialist man or an ubermensche severely persecuted adherents of particular faiths. The Hitlers and Lenins of the world strongly believed Judaism and Christianity to be subversive of their ideas on social order and ridiculous, superstitious impediments to individual potential. To them the argument against allowing the continued existence of these faiths was just as persuasive as your argument against marijuana.

Psst ... I really don't care if you're a religious-right conservative, either. We probably agree on a lot of the important stuff. BTW, it was the Progressive Party that advocated Prohibition. I am way farther from the progressives than you, my friend.

82 posted on 03/21/2010 2:37:56 PM PDT by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson