Posted on 01/25/2013 8:05:16 AM PST by The_Freemason
I saw The_Freemason posting yesterday and thought to myself, “this one’s destined to ride the lightning.”
Good to see that Frankenfeinstein didn’t get JimRob’s zot gun.
>> “Bush vrs Al Gore, no brainer, but Steve Forbes was was a much better choice.” <<
No argument, that’s why I held my nose and voted.
Nope...he were no genius! :)
Indeed. Sometimes you can just tell...
How are things going? Please let me know.
Don’t inhale the smoke from this one. ;’)
IATZ
Sorry we all missed the Earth-shattering KABOOM. ;-) IATZ!
Conservatives are a very loosely bound coalition that lacks the political strength to prevail in national elections. To have a chance to prevail, conservatives become a part of the Republican party.
If you pay attention on Free Republic, you learn that “conservatives” are not a monolithic group but an amalgamation of several varying causes. There is no unity. Single issue single mindedness prevents cohesion.
ZOT!
That’s funny. Nice personal attack.
Again, how many new federal agencies, departments, entitlements, and budget deficits occurred under Republican leadership?
That is a straightforward, simple question that you refuse to answer.
The fact that a simple mind asks a simple question, does not make any of it pertinent to a meaningful conversation.
Yes, it’s a straightforward question - but it’s a question about an issue that does not have a straight forward answer.
Really, it is a very simple MINDED question, the kind that would appeal to one does not want their mind clouded with the reality of the situation.
It is also not relevant, because none of those leaders are part of the equation going forward. I will not play your little game. The answer to this question does not support your bigger thesis, so it is a waste of time.
You have not won your little “gotcha” moment, except in the shallowest of intelletual pools. I prefer the deep end.
Who pays for boozers' care when they overdose, or tobacco users' care when they get cancer? Should we ban alcohol and tobacco?
In a perfect Libertarian world they would have to pay higher premiums for their “lifestyle choice.” But in reality they want everyone else to share in the cost through premiums.
If you don't like your insurer's pricing policies, the conservative answer is to replace your insurer - not expand government to ban non-rights-violating acts.
I believe the solution is to have as small and unobtrusive government as constitutionally possible. Tobacco, booze, whoring, drugs or whatever behavior not withstanding, my question was what do Libertarians think should be done with the wretches that suffer the consequences of their own behavior.
I'm not a libertarian - but it seems clear to me that a small and unobtrusive government (which libertarians also favor) would not interfere in pricing or service under voluntary contracts such as insurance policies, and that someone suffering the uninsured consequences of their own behavior would be left to voluntary charity.
If you still maintain that "Legalizing drugs is just insane" my questions above still stand, and stand in need of answers.
Right now they are legal. (Booze and tobacco) Seems to me the answer is not to heap more problems on society by legalizing drugs.
Why shouldn't we take some problems off of society by banning the drugs alcohol and tobacco, which increase medical costs?
We don’t need drugs laying around for kids to have easier access to than they already do.
Since kids report that they can get pot more easily than beer or cigarettes, it looks like the most effective way to keep pot out of kids' hands is to legalize it for adults - so sellers have an incentive not to sell to kids (namely, the loss of their legal adult sales).
My point is that giving up and legalizing any dangerous behavior only leads to new laws and taxes societal problems.
It leads to new laws and taxes only if we let it - and it reduces or ends the problems aggravated or caused by illegality, notably the channeling of hyperinflated drug profits into criminal hands.
It is the nature of the world to tend toward chaos and self destruction, but I’d like to stop it or slow it down, somehow.
Why don't you want to not just slow it down but reverse it by banning the drugs alcohol and tobacco?
“Don’t inhale the smoke from this one. ;’)”
...but will he blend?
Jim: “Yes.”
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.