Posted on 02/27/2013 9:28:02 AM PST by Kaslin
Last week, Conservative pundit Ann Coulter told me and a thousand young libertarians that we libertarians are puss- -- well, she used slang for a female body part.
We were in Washington, D.C., at the Students for Liberty conference, taping my TV show, and she didn't like my questions about her opposition to gay marriage and drug legalization.
"We're living in a country that is 70 percent socialist," she says. "The government takes 60 percent of your money. They take care of your health care, your pensions ... who you can hire ... and you (libertarians) want to suck up to your little liberal friends and say, oh, we want to legalize pot? ... If you were a little manlier, you'd tell liberals what your position on employment discrimination is."
We do, actually. We say employers ought to get to choose whom they hire. They created the business, so they should be allowed to discriminate against stutterers, TV hosts, old people -- anyone they don't want.
But Coulter has a point.
Government rarely makes a dent in people's drug use or their ability to partner with people of their own gender.
"Seventy percent socialism" does much more harm. It kills opportunity and wrecks lives.
But Coulter doesn't just want to downplay "liberal" parts of the libertarian agenda. She opposes them.
When I asked why gays can't marry, she said,
"They can -- they have to marry a member of the opposite sex."
I see why the students were annoyed by Coulter's shtick.
If Republicans were smart, they'd listen to that rising generation of young people who want government to stay not just out of the economy, but out of our personal lives, too.
Fortunately, some Republicans are onboard with that. Another of my guests was Justin Amash, congressman from Michigan.
The young libertarians admire him, in much the same way they admire Republicans like Sens. Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Jeff Flake; Gov. Gary Johnson; and new Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie.
Amash focuses on government spending. He has pictures of libertarian economists like Murray Rothbard in his office, and he warns that big government -- including military spending -- will bankrupt America. He's not afraid to call for cuts in popular programs like Medicare, Head Start and food stamps.
After Amash's complaints about government spending, establishment Republicans in Congress kicked him off the budget committee. One said it was because of the "a--hole factor ... inability to work with other members."
I asked Amash about that.
"It might be because I wanted to balance the budget," says Amash.
"The level of government spending is so insane."
It is. Even if the sequester cuts happen -- cuts the left calls "brutal" -- in eight years the feds will still spend $5.3 trillion annually ... just a little less than the $5.4 trillion they will spend if no cuts are made.
The "brutal" sequester is anything but. Even the much-feared Paul Ryan budget plan would only reduce the federal debt in 2021 from the $26 trillion President Obama projects to ... $23 trillion.
With our economic house in such disarray, Coulter is right to avoid getting bogged down in fights over drugs and homosexuality. But I prefer the way Amash handled the libertarian-conservative conflict.
Michelle Montalvo of Temple University asked him to "comment on your faith and how you reconcile that with your libertarian beliefs? There are stereotypes about libertarian students, that we're Republicans who love to do drugs, (but) we're not all godless."
Amash answered, "I'm an Orthodox Christian ... and I believe that the government is a hindrance, a lot of times, to our religious liberty." But he doesn't want government to promote Christianity. "Get government out of the way, allow people to make choices. We can't legislate morality and force everyone to agree with us."
The young people at the conference worry about the economy. They worry less about drug use and gay sex -- most have come to see those as socially acceptable.
Instead of insulting libertarians or kicking them off congressional committees, it's time for Coulter -- and other Republicans -- to stop suggesting that those who want the government out of their personal lives are morally suspect.
Then we can concentrate on the important things.
Says who? Can you cite chapter and verse for these claims?
Why should we compromise? Hell, we know that in the end Repugs will cave in and endorse queer marriages anyway.
But in the meantime, asking SoCons to hold their nose on an issue once again is ridiculous.
It’s best to keep your life personal private if you don’t want to hear honest commentary on it. Keep your sex problems out of the public square and public institutions.
LIEbertarians would never hear of that! Everyone has to take bow down and praise the LIEbertarian gay mafia. Political correctness, thy name is LIEbertarian. Nothing private nor diverse in thought, culture and opinion is acceptable. They are liberals (social Marxists) just putting a new lable on themselves.
How can we fool ‘em next....Oh, we will call ourselves libertarians.
“Seems more and more people are leaning in the direction of ‘get out of personal lives’.”
Except the 50% of Americans on Welfare. It seems myopic to talk about making marijuana legal while we are practically banning tobacco.
Libertarianism has been reduced to a mere conduit for drug legalization. All I hear from Libertarians is 1)legalize drugs 2)legalize prostitution and 3)cut off aid to Israel.
It’s best to keep your life personal private if you don’t want to hear honest commentary on it. Keep your sex problems out of the public square and public institutions.
LIEbertarians would never hear of that! Everyone has to take bow down and praise the LIEbertarian gay mafia. Political correctness, thy name is LIEbertarian. Nothing private nor diverse in thought, culture and opinion is acceptable. They are liberals (social Marxists) just putting a new lable on themselves.
How can we fool ‘em next....Oh, we will call ourselves progressives and libertarians. I’m sick of the lies.
I do not approve of the Gay lifestyle. Period. Were I to run my own business, I would make this stance clear and allow prospective employees/business that did not approve of my stance to go elsewhere.
Nor would I attend religious ceremonies where the Gay lifestyle was hypocritically given a pass or openly celebrated.
This has less to do with any perceived “homophobia” and more to do with my religious views and the fact that Leftist Socialism seems to be using the Gay Pride types to target our Republic and it’s Constitution. Go be Gay... Just don’t do it around me or use it as a bludgeon through government to get me to accept your choice.
None of the above require government interaction at all. In fact, trying to find ways around the above is how the Gay Lobby has gained as much power as it has.
If you want to reduce marriage to a simple civil union contract, you can do that already without having to redefine a majority of the worlds religions definition of the term “marriage”.
Weird... My libertarian Big 3 are 1) Restoration of Real RKBA to all 50 States including completely repeal of USC Title 18 922. 2) Elimination of the Welfare State 3)reducing the size and scope of the ENTIRE FedGov back into it’s Art 1 Sec 8 box.
Maybe you aren’t actually talking to libertarians... Check ‘em for OWS stickers on their cars. More than likely, you’ve been talking to Socialists...
Restricting the nonprivate places where it may be done is a far cry from banning it. If marijuana were only as "practically banned" as tobacco, that would be a huge improvement and a big bite out of criminal profits.
Of course there is a lot of common ground for constitution freindly libertarians and small government conservatives. We have seen the unity here on this site over the years in many areas.
One of the things that happens is that on both sides of this minor divide are (1) libertarians that are more doctrinaire or ideological as opposed to constitutional, and (2) conservatives that are apt to forget small government preferences due to political expediency. What happens then is that rather than take a push from their brothers on the other side of the creek, to pull their boat into line, they try to rationalize or excuse that drift by claiming the other fellow has his seamanship all wrong anyway.
When we fail in our real world endeavors (see Bush supporters or more recently Rand Paul supporters) we retreat to the philosophical differences and then get mired down in name calling and theory debates.
Both sides have their inconsistencies and we need to see that we can make a good navy if we just realize we all travel to the battle on slightly different vessels.
Galatians 5:19-21 (NASB)
Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery (see note below), enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
Note: The word translated "sorcery" is the NT Greek word φαρμακεία (pharmakeia) which has multiple meanings:
1) the use or the administering of drugs
2) poisoning
3) sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it
So, in the NT times, there was a correlation between drug use and sorcery. This is often a text used to explain the Christian prohibition against drug use, especially those used with pagan rituals.
Also, there are general principles that Christian should consider when approaching drug use.
1) the use or the administering of drugs
Under that broad reading, medicinal drugs would be ruled out - as would the drug alcohol.
2) poisoning
Not the intent of any recreational drug use - and in the sense of chemical toxicity no more applicable to other drugs (and less applicable to marijuana) than to alcohol.
3) sorcery, magical arts, often found in connection with idolatry and fostered by it
Irrelevant to the question of recreational drug use.
Also, there are general principles that Christian should consider when approaching drug use.
"The Bible does not directly address any form of illicit drug use."
Bears repeating.
"Christians are under a universal mandate to respect and obey the laws of the land"
If drugs were legalized this wouldn't apply.
"For example, Christians are all required to be good stewards of what God has entrusted to us, regardless of our national identity (Matthew 25:13-30). This includes our earthly bodies. Unfortunately, illicit drug use is an extremely effective way to destroy your health, not just physically, but mentally and emotionally as well. [...] the apostolic exhortations to remain sober-minded and alert [...] Any time spent kneeling before the god of drugs is time spent with your back towards the God of the Bible."
All equally applicable to alcohol.
The Bible does not directly address any form of illicit drug use. ... This is not to say, however, that recreational drug use is permissible. On the contrary, there are several very clear biblical principles that place drug use well outside the realm of acceptable behavior.
...
In summary, the Bible teaches us that “denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world” (Titus 2:12).
To your next point:
"For example, Christians are all required to be good stewards of what God has entrusted to us, regardless of our national identity (Matthew 25:13-30). This includes our earthly bodies. Unfortunately, illicit drug use is an extremely effective way to destroy your health, not just physically, but mentally and emotionally as well. [...] the apostolic exhortations to remain sober-minded and alert [...] Any time spent kneeling before the god of drugs is time spent with your back towards the God of the Bible."
All equally applicable to alcohol.
Not exactly the same. I can drink a beer or glass of wine without getting drunk. But I've never met someone who uses pot not to get stoned. However, if one drinks to get drunk, then yes, they are the same. And we have laws against public intoxication and DWI, as well as the prohibition of selling liquor to those visibly intoxicated.
No cherry-picking - I noted his every major point and identified each as equally applicable to alcohol.
I can drink a beer or glass of wine without getting drunk. But I've never met someone who uses pot not to get stoned. However, if one drinks to get drunk, then yes, they are the same.
By "drunk" and "stoned" do you mean substantial impairment? Not all pot use leads to that. Or by "drunk" and "stoned" do you mean ANY effect? If so, then having a drink to "relax" or "unwind" as many do is unChristian.
And we have laws against public intoxication and DWI, as well as the prohibition of selling liquor to those visibly intoxicated.
And I support such laws for legal, regulated marijuana.
That is exactly what I mean, and I have not met anyone smoking pot that wasn't impaired, unless they took one hit and quit (but as you know, that is the exception, not the rule).
Perhaps a habitual user can not seem impaired after a small amount, like a drunk after only a few beers, but then you've got that habit thing going.
Yeah, like myself, although I consider myself libertarian on many things, I do not support open borders, abortion on demand or a weakened military although we do too much at times to police the world at times. Like anything else, liberatianism is not a monolithic system.
Ambushing and killing night-time vandals would be regarded as First Degree Murder in some states, but could be considered laudable in Texas. Does that mean that Texas is delinquent in its protection of the vandals' right to live?
As a practical matter, I would posit that states have the authority to define "justifiable homicide" sufficiently loosely that an abortionist could almost always claim his actions qualified. Unless the Constitution is amended, I don't see any way of getting around that without also protecting the aforementioned vandals. Further, I think the remedy for abortion needs to be cultural rather than legal or political.
Annie ain’t my favorite person but she makes a good point here.
Stossel is kind of a dick.
I do not expect anyone to “bend over’ for me..
I do expect reasonable discussion without resorting to name calling...
Is the refusal to conduct a reasonable debate actually an attempt to force me to “bend over’ for him?
alinsky tactics do not work well on me
By "drunk" and "stoned" do you mean substantial impairment? Not all pot use leads to that.
That is exactly what I mean, and I have not met anyone smoking pot that wasn't impaired,
If you never knew anyone smoking pot that wasn't impaired to the point of equivalence with drunkenness, maybe you need to get out more. I've seen a number of times people smoke only enough to "relax" or "unwind" as is often done with a drink or two. (Or do you include "relaxing" or "unwinding" with a drink or two in your definition of "drunk"?)
unless they took one hit and quit (but as you know, that is the exception, not the rule).
It's common enough that there's a market in devices to accomodate the practice: https://www.google.com/search?q=one-hitter+pipe.
Still no qualitative difference between alcohol and pot.
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.