The Conservative-Libertarian clash: Values and the free society

Enter Stage Right ^ | May 12, 2003 | By W. James Antle III

[LizardQueen]

By definition, sex with a minor can't be consensual (since they are unable to give informed consent). Any reference I make to consensual sex does not include minors, mentally retarded people, the senile, animals, and anyone else not of age or capacity to give informed consent.
If consent is absent, privacy or lack thereof makes no difference and the act is illegal.

LQ

[JURB]

I think the point here is that it is not neccesarily a question of libertarianism vs. conservatism, but that it is quite possible to reconcile both. In my own case, I am very comfortable in describing myself as leaning towards libertarianism of the small 'l' variety politically (I do make concessions to federalism), while being philosophically and attitudinally conservative. I see nothing inconcongruous with such a positition. I can both reject the big government nanny state, while respecting authority, traditional institutions, behavioral norms and accumulated wisdom. It is big government that undermines these things.

[bribriagain]

"If consent is absent, privacy or lack thereof makes no difference and the act is illegal."

Agreed. Given your many stipulations, aren't you a pro-government consrvative?

[LizardQueen]

Agreed. Given your many stipulations, aren't you a pro-government consrvative?

I don't think so - no one but real nutjob big L Libertarians would argue against laws that prohibit people from taking advantage of those who can't stand up for themselves.

I still believe that what consenting adults do is their own business no matter how distasteful it is, which is where I differ from the social conservatives.

Gotta work tommorrow, g'night.

LQ

[cinFLA]

The entire point of classical liberalism is not to subjugate individual dignity and liberty to politics.

Huh? It was NOT me that associated the CI with the LP!

[cinFLA]

Your original assertion about CATO not being libertarian is false. 40 posted on 05/12/2003 4:14 PM PDT by AdamSelene235 (Like all the

I never claimed that CATO was not libertarian. I said it was not part of the Libertarian party which links to NORML.

[cinFLA]

You'll excuse me if I'm not awed by the brilliance of our foreign policy.

And thank god that the CI was wrong! Or should I say, thank Bush.

[cinFLA]

What slope? The 12 year old is a minor, minors can't consent, this is child molestation and illegal.

According to the LP platform, the minor can declare adulthood. Then anything is legal .....

[cinFLA]

False. You just made this up. Support your post!

[cinFLA]

His hatred for Libertarians, whether small or big "L", is so overwhelming that he cannot process information or make reasonable or rational conclusions.

You are irrational. You cannot support your claim. Just because I talk about Libertarians and their wierd platform you are insulted!

[Skywalk]

Why? Your posts are fast becoming infamous as they repeat themselves constantly.

My assertion is proven in nearly every post you make. In fact, I even think you sound so programmed that you are software rather than a human poster. Nothing resembling a multifaceted personality or intellect is apparent in your posts.

Sorry, but you sound like a disruptor-bot.

[cinFLA]

He keeps talking about NORML, but honestly who ISNT for reform of Marijuana laws? Only the most hard-core Drug Warriors are for the current insanity in that aspect of the law.

Again, you make irrational links. Just because I expose the medical marijuana scam, George Soros' total drug legalization and his financial support of NORML, the L's support for the repeal of all drug laws, even for minors ....

[cinFLA]

He refuses to recognize THE greatest libertarian think-thank, Cato, as libertarian.

Again, you make a false statement. Three for Three. I said CI was not LP, which has been supported by others on this thread.

[cinFLA]

He's also a disruptor on any thread remotely tied to libertarianism, and doesn't substantively address anything in the topic.

Again you make false statements. I didn't attack libertarianism. I responded to a poster that said he had recently joined the Libertarians.

Now go back and look at my posts and see if ANYTHING in your post can be supported. NOT!

[cinFLA]

My assertion is proven in nearly every post you make.

Not one example. Just more trash from you.

[Skywalk]

LOL

Why should I stop you? I don't care if Hitler was for decriminalizing drugs, he'd still be right. If Soros is backing it, I'd only be concerned about him reaching out to another issue if he successfully fought this one. As for minors, where do you get your information "Dane.com?"
And you think medical marijuana is a scam? Not that I particularly care, I'm for legalizing it altogether. You're a loon, on the fringe, and every post on every thread related to drugs and libertarians you spout the same nonsense.

When your assertion that Cato was not libertarian was disproven you have no answer. Oh, I guess YOU are the arbiter of what's libertarian and what's not. Makes sense, considering you are not a libertarian yourself.

Go away.

[Skywalk]

I'm not a Big-L libertarian, so I don't care if you insult their "weird platform." I'm not for open borders, either. That doesn't mean your posts have any value.

Honestly, what did your posts on this thread have to do with discussions of libertarians and conservatives, other than to continue your bizarre Dane-like behavior?

[Willie Green]

I don't know why the article is so long,
libertarians are merely irresponsible narcissists who worship the stock market above all else. They have no other values.

[Skywalk]

Another idiot.

[Liberal Classic]

Let us not magnify those differences out of all proportion, or lose sight of the pathetic course that most politics has been taking throughout the past Century, with the exception of the Reagan victory in 1980. We need both Conservatives and Libertarians who support the Conservative ethos of traditional America, to regain the initiative.

BUMP!