Posted on 06/24/2013 11:41:35 AM PDT by jagusafr
Mrs. Colonel and I were watching Stossel's "Illegal Everything" last night and it led to a discussion of what, precisely, the precepts of libertarianism are. Anybody got suggestions on a succinct, unwonky treatise or explanation?
Yes good topics for discussion.
How do you answer the outright burglary and other crimes committed by users trying to get money? Regardless of how the regulation is implemented, by employer or government, addicts still need money to buy their substance so they will steal and harm others (and yes I lump alcohol in with other drugs when it comes to driving or other crimes like killing someone while intoxicated and getting off on a lesser charge than murder). Does the tax payers get to foot the bill for those drugs or worse yet the endless rehab trips? Why should I pay for their behavior?
How do you protect the unborn from an addict mother?
I can say I prefer the states in control over the feds, that way if you like dopers you can live in a state that allows whatever level of behavior you can tolerate as long as the fed does not step in a sue states that crack down for civil rights violation since in a libertarian world the individual can do whatever he/she wants.
Well, I bit the hook and asked a few questions.
Thank you. :D
How do you answer the outright burglary and other crimes committed by users trying to get money?
Castle law doctrine and prosecution for the actual crimes committed.
Regardless of how the regulation is implemented, by employer or government, addicts still need money to buy their substance so they will steal and harm others (and yes I lump alcohol in with other drugs when it comes to driving or other crimes like killing someone while intoxicated and getting off on a lesser charge than murder). Does the tax payers get to foot the bill for those drugs or worse yet the endless rehab trips? Why should I pay for their behavior?
Why should the government operate/fund rehab centers? Why should it be involved in the medical industry/profession at all (save for the obvious malpractice suits)? Why should it be in insurance at all? If governemtn weren't involved in these things there would be no issue on rehab at all.
Are you seeing a pattern yet?
In short, why should government dictate all aspects of our lives? Why should its realm of authority extend everywhere? Is there any portion of life that it does not have jurisdiction? (Of course the government wants jurisdiction everywhere, that is its power.)
How do you protect the unborn from an addict mother?
Now there's a rubber meets the road
question. I would think that it is best addressed on a personal-level, not the state, most drug-abusers I've seen are trying to cope with deep hurts that only the Great Physician (Jesus) is really equipped to deal with. (I would also draw a distinction between use of alcohol, cigarettes, etc with the abuse thereof.)
I can say I prefer the states in control over the feds, that way if you like dopers you can live in a state that allows whatever level of behavior you can tolerate as long as the fed does not step in a sue states that crack down for civil rights violation since in a libertarian world the individual can do whatever he/she wants.
That's a completely different topic, the War on Drugs is, at it's core, an assault on State sovereignty. Look at the commerce-clause they [ab]use to justify it: the States appear in between foreign countries and Indian nations (which might be thought of as Domestic/Native Countries)... if the federal government were to assert its control over commerce in a foreign country like they do here that would be an act of war (and the enforcing thereof the waging that war).
So, it naturally follows that the War on Drugs in nothing less than Treason as defined by the Constitution.
Well, I bit the hook and asked a few questions.
Thank you.
Homeowners and the law already deal with burglars and thieves.
The social agenda that libertarianism supports, what they can’t figure out (or pretend not to), is that this left wing social agenda BREEDS and CREATES, and IMPORTS, liberal, big government voters, not right wing conservative voters calling for the end of welfare and social programs and big government.
Libertarianism contradicts itself by telling us that the creation of more broken and liberal, government dependent voters will result in them voting away welfare and government handouts.
And with regard to the rampaging hordes robbing and burgling to support their habits, we have these marvelous inventions called firearms. Kills thugs dead. Druggie kicks in your front door...you turn the wall he's standing behind into an expressionist painting. Put a frame on the wall, paint around it and pass it off as art. You can tell your friends and neighbors when they come to visit "I call this one 'Breaking and Entering.'"
See how easy that is? Druggies get drugs, people who hate druggies get lots and lots of dead druggies, and one massive arm of the police state goes away. Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
Post 16 does that.
“Capital L” libertarians are nothing more than low-empathy hedonists and subclinical sociopaths (the worst kind are the 4% that live amongst us). They have no moral compass, no compassion, ambivalent pot smokers yearning for what is really anarchy. You will easily recognize these people as being “difficult for the sake of being difficult” and an “anything goes” or Libertine attitude.
“Lowercase L” libertarians are basically good people that are concerned with personal freedom, constitutiinalists... they respect the republic... think Judge Napolitano or Stossel himself.
Those are the people who agree with this for example.
"Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships."
If we could guarantee that no government programs would be established or continued to handle the rehab and community outreach BS then I am on board. However, I know that will never happen in our current environment. As long as the government has the ability to spend our money at will the cycle will continue and I am afraid we have passed the point of being able to reset it without some sort of conflict. The lib powers are deeply entrenched.
The only guarantee would be sweeping changes in appropriations and how the Congress can pass these bills without a vote from the people. We would almost need to micro-manage them by voting on everything where a certain value threshold was met. Talk about nothing getting done.
I remember there being similar arguments during the communist era. Since it was so entrenched people in the communist block would ask “Getting rid of communism sounds good, but where will we get toothpaste?” And that would shut down discussion because no one had a specific answer about where it would come from. Honestly at this point if your argument is we can’t get rid of any of the police state because the liberals will spend more money, then I’m good with just augering this whole thing into the ground. I’m sick of my liberty being held hostage because people are affraid some of the tofu and tabby cat crowd trying to expand welfare.
Yes it is a cyclical type of argument. I am all for shock and awe of cutting them off as long as the feds do not interfere in the aftermath and let things sort themselves out. I just know based on the doofuses I hear talking that they don’t have to stones to stick it out. The first mother on tv that complains her kid isn’t getting X (especially food, I AM NOT advocating starving children only for shifting the responsibility to the parents or local community/churches like it used to be).
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.