Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conservatives VS. Libertarians VS. Liberals
May 7, 2003 | self

Posted on 05/07/2003 4:17:39 PM PDT by HighWheeler

Conservatives: Want Freedom with Responsibilities.

Libertarians: Want Freedom without any Responsibilities.

Liberals: Want No Freedom with No Responsibilities. (Hillary's little people liberals don't realize this is where their leaders would take them)

Conservatives:
- Drive the speed limit, or something close to it, knowing the penalty for getting caught driving over the speed limit.
- Keep their house and property in good shape and up to the community standards.
- Like the Constitution and all it stands for.
- Dont' tolerate criminals, and want them all punished to the extent of the crime.

Libertarians:
- Drive whatever speed they want while smoking pot, if they hit someone, well too bad, they should have known there are no speed limits, and maybe now they learned something. EFF the world anyhow.
- Keep the house and property in good shape for growing pot, and protecting it from the neighbors who want to steal it. EFF the world anyhow.
- Only like the parts of the Constitution that don't say that pot is illegal. That old Constitution parchment also makes a great rolling paper. EFF the world anyhow.
- There are no criminals, nothing is illegal.

Liberals:
- Drive bicycles like in China.
- Keep their house and property, uh wait, the government furnished commune and surrounding federal land, in whatever condition they find it each day. Where's the super been the last couple months anyhow?
- Hate the Constitution except for the part about free speech...well before the government took that away after the Liberal Supreme Kort ruled that every word ever spoken offended at least someone, and therefore all speech was determined to be hate speech.
- All criminals are promoted to positions of liberal leadership.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-111 next last
To: HighWheeler
I can't think of the type of person who likes No Freedom but all the Responsibility.

Actually, this would be the authoritarian type of person. My reasoning is the authoritarian makes you and me responsible for the wrongdoings of others.

Responsibility without freedom is when alcohol is outlawed because some people can't hold their liquor. You and I may never have been irresponsible, but that doesn't matter. Because some people will misuse a thing, that thing should be banned for all. Because some people exceed the speed limit, all automobiles will have govenors installed. Because some people don't have good money management skills, the government will manage all pensions and healthcare. Because some people overeat and become fat then caloric intake should be regulated. Because some people misuse firearms, no one shall be allowed to own them. This is responsibility without freedom because people are responsible for the folly of others. We are not given a chance to prove responsibility, because we are already responsible for those people who aren't. In this condition there is no need to grow up because everything is planned out. No one willgrow up because the experience of learning from choices is removed. What is there to learn when all choices are removed? Ergo, a society of children.

This contrasts with freedom without responsibility, in which the government shields people from the negative consequences of their actions. In this condition people have free food and free housing and free medical care. It doesn't matter how well or how poorly people manage their own affairs because the government is going to take care of them regardless. In this system people can eat until they are fat and the government will take care of their needs. No one needs to save money or plan for the future because the government is going to take care of them. In this condition people have license (not freedom) to do as they will and they are insulated from the wrongs. Vice is no longer its own punishment. Likewise in this condition there is no need to grow up because the consequenses are separated from the causes. No one will grow up because nothing is taught, what is there to learn with actions and consequences have no relation to each other? Again, a society of children. Note that authoritarianism is closely related to this.

It doesn't matter which method is used, in both conditions people are divorced from suffering the consequences of their acts. In authoritarianism the choices themselves are removed to eliminate the chance bad decisions will be made, and in left-license the results of bad decisions are corrected after the fact. But the results are the same: people are not free. They do not really have liberty either way because as you rightly put it freedom comes with responsibility. Freedom without responsibility is the condition in which people cannot learn from their mistakes and responsibility without freedom is the condition in which people cannot make bad decisions. In the end people learn about those things to which they are exposed, on one hand they learn to not think and on the other they learn to not care.

I consider constitutional conservatism and libertarianism to be essentially the same animal. I know that there is plenty of disagreement with this, but I consider the constitutional conservative at the very least my ally against the authoritarian socialist, if he refuses to be my brother. Brothers you are in my opinion. For myself to be called a republican on drugs is simply a part of sibling rivalry. We pummel each other a lot but when someone outside the family threatens us we close ranks.

Freedom with responsibility does not simply encompass keeping my house within community standards. This is an over simplification to the point of being useless. Freedom with responsibility means that I have a propert right to my house and land. I have the freedom to keep large dogs on my property, but if one of them escapes and attacks an innocent person I must be held accountable for murder. Freedom with responsibility means I may drive a fast sports car but I face criminal negligence at a minimum and murder if I kill someone. Freedom with responsibility means I may go to a bar and drink beer, but I may be pulled over and thrown in jail for many years if I am unable to drive. Freedom with responsibility means I may own firearms and be proficient with their use but if I accidentally kill someone I face manslaughter or if I meant to do it I face the capital of all punishments.

Freedom with responsibility does not mean that I have to conform to community standards, only the law under the constitution. However, this does not mean that I will not suffer the consequences of my careless acts. If through my carelessness I lose my job and I lose my wife, then that I have brought it on myself. If I don't suffer the consequences of these bad decisions I am not free, but likewise if I do not have the freedom to make these bad decisions in the first place I am not free either. In the condition of freedom without responsibility the wrongness of vice is countered by the ministrations of the state, while in responsibility without freedom the choice to indulge in a vice is already countered before the fact. I believe freedom with responsibility means that vice is its own punishment. A drunkard at home suffers from his vice, he has made the decision to drink to excess. However, one he steps behind the wheel he is a criminal and should pay the price for his crimes. Freedom and responsibility means that vices and crimes are both wrongness, but vices bring their own punishments whereas crimes bring the punishment of the law.

So, I would break this discussion down as:

Authority - responsibility without freedom

In liberty - freedom with responsibility

License - freedom without responsibility

Constitutional conservatives and libertarians may dicker over the trivialities, but the socialists and communists are on either sides.

51 posted on 09/22/2003 12:19:36 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Mine is a more pragmatic approach.

Wow - what an intelligent argument.

52 posted on 09/22/2003 3:45:38 PM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I see a need for a legislature, a judiciary, and an executive branch. There is a need for laws that promise retaliatory force against those who would violate the rights of others, as a means of deterrence and as a means of punishment to deter repeat offenses. So, a legislature is needed for this purpose. To objectively enforce those laws, police officers are necessary. To objectively interpret the laws and oversee the prosecution and punishment of the guilty, as well as to clean the records of the innocent, a judiciary is necessary.

Then, of course, the executive branch is also necessary for formulation of a coherent foreign policy, command of our military, regulation of our borders, and printing/coining money.
53 posted on 09/22/2003 4:42:25 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
First, I should say that I'm not a believer in Objectivism, of which most LPers apparently are. I'm a Christian and consider myself a conservative. However, I'm largely in agreement with the LP when it comes to the massive deregulation they endorse. With that said...

[snip] "We support repeal of existing laws and policies which are intended to condemn, affirm, encourage, or deny sexual lifestyles or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles."

So, that brings us back to the original point in post #8. Libertarians may be opposed to the "active promotion" of the homosexual lifestyle by the government, but they don't object to it being promoted as an acceptable alternative lifestyle. Correct?

First, let's not confuse the LP with all libertarians, nor the Objectivist libertarians with other, including Christian, "libertarians," because on this point I think they start to divide. But generally, the libertarian is going to ask which part of the government is in the position to actually "promote" homosexuality. If President Bush were to tell someone, whether 'on the job' or in private conversation, that homosexuality is fine and dandy with him, then the average evangelical Christian is obviously going to disagree with that, whether he's libertarian or not. OTOH, the Objectivist, probably an atheist, likely won't care about the private conversation thing; but when Bush goes out and creates an 18 billion dollar 'Homosexuality is Fine and Dandy Initiative' using taxpayer money, then they, like the other libertarians, will mind. They just don't believe that the government should ever be in the position to promote such things to begin with - schools, libraries, etc., are illegitimate uses of gov't power.

So then, if a private citizen wants to promote homosexuality as an acceptable way of life, then so be it - it isn't the job of the government to blow taxpayer dollars on telling that private citizen that he or she can't do that. The government shouldn't get involved until Bruce and Chester start humping one another in public.

54 posted on 09/26/2003 12:18:27 AM PDT by MitchellC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: MitchellC
Well, for now let's set aside the labels of (L)libertarian, conservative, Christian, etc., because I think they're getting in the way.

Do you think that it is proper for the public schools to be teaching that the homosexual lifestyle is no different than the heterosexual lifestyle (ie, they're both equally acceptable)?

(-- back to labels --)

I was under the impression that large-L Libertarians and most small-l libertarians approved of this teaching practice. That was my only point.

(And the ironic point is that true (L)libertarians wouldn't approve of public schools to begin with.)

55 posted on 09/26/2003 7:27:47 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen; Voice in your head
"I believe the rights of the individual need to be tempered with the overall good of society in mind."

What is the overall good of society?

Until 1929, hemp [marijuana, mary jane, pot] was legal to grow, use, and possess in this country. It was not made "illegal" to "protect us from ourselves"; it was made illegal because of the invention of the decorticator. This was the hemp equivalent of the cotton gin. (See February edition, 1926 Popular Science Magazine) It was made illegal to maintain the cotton industry and prevent competition from a large, existing cash crop. Its kept illegal to prevent competition with the lumber indusry (paper pulp), cotton, oil industry (640 sq. miles of hemp planted for seed produces the equivalent of 100,000 barrels of oil a day), pharmaceutical industries, and so on. (I chose this specific example due to the "libertarian - pot" start to this thread.)

But this isn't all. Freon, made "illegal" to save the ozone. Made illegal, coincidentally, after Dupont's patent was up and because some bright boy came up with the concept that, since water boils into steam at 220+ degress for electrical generation, a low boiling liquid (freon boils at 66 degrees, F) could be used for the same thing. And then had the bad taste to build a model and prove it. But no, freon (a heavier than air gas) was destroying the ozone. O3 = ozone. O2 = oxygen Don't suppose that all of those large commercial aircraft burning loads of fuel up there could have anything to do with it?

How about the dummy corporation put together by the auto industry to buy out and destroy the trolley systems in this country in the 30's and 40's to sell more cars? Systems that would cost billions to replace today.

Without full individual rights the overall good of society is trampled by those who don't give a damn.

The only drug laws needed in this country are laws to guarantee that what you buy is what is stated on the label. More people are dieing from the law enforcement than the drugs. And if an individual dies from taking ANYTHING of his/her own free will, and they aren't trying to take someone else with them, then more power to them. Let them serve as an example to the rest.

Sex, drugs, porn are religious issues. Not law enforcement issues (excluding non-adults). Are prisons should be filled with murderers, rapists and thieves. Not potheads and druggies.

Why is it that people keep asserting that libertarians are anarchists? Maybe so they can continue to enforce their moral values on everyone else?

The government that governs best governs least.

So I again ask, what constitutes the "overall good of society"? Is it whatever the media says is bad? The government? The church? Community standards?

Or is the overall good of society best served by a Constitutional Republic with ALL of its historic checks and balances in place?

Just wondering.
56 posted on 09/26/2003 4:01:43 PM PDT by Muabdib (Custer wore Arrow shirts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"I was under the impression that large-L Libertarians and most small-l libertarians approved of this teaching practice. That was my only point."

The role of government is to secure our rights. That is the exact opposite of making me pay to educate someone else's kid, whether that education be about reading, writing and arithmetic - or why Jenny has two moms.

57 posted on 09/26/2003 6:17:03 PM PDT by Voice in your head ("The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." - Thucydides)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I was under the impression that large-L Libertarians and most small-l libertarians approved of this teaching practice.

Your impression is wrong. I do not believe any substantial poll has ever been taken on the subject. Libertarian, like both Republicans and Democrats, are a collection of a wide range of people with a wide range of private beliefs. As with both the Republicans and Democrats, there are probably a good number Libertarians who have private or other public interests, unrelated to their party affiliation, that are consistent with your impression. But like most people in the country, the majority of Libertarians find quite disgusting much of what they would allow other people to do, and do not readily give an approving nod to what is taught in public schools.

I do however believe that most libertarians would not feel threatened, or fear for their children, by such teaching in school, even where they find the teaching quite disgusting. But this is just the opinion of one Libertarian who finds the entire matter both disgusting and petty to the point of sillyness.

58 posted on 09/27/2003 2:35:43 AM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Muabdib
"So I again ask, what constitutes the "overall good of society"?"

The "overall good" would be defined as that which perpetuates (or leads to) an environment in which an orderly community of like minded individuals can live and raise children.

Yes, sex, drugs, porn are religious issues. So are murder, stealing, and assault. Our laws are based on moral behavior, there's nothing new with that. It's just that some laws weren't necessary in the past because a moral person, a person with character, wouldn't think of behaving that way -- keep in mind that our Constitution was written for a moral and religious people.

Nowadays, unfortunately, people look to the legal system to determine their behavior. If it's not illegal, then by golly they're going to do it and don't you dare criticize them or pass moral judgements on them.

If you believe that the "rights" of the individual are supreme (as long as the behavior does not harm others), then we'll never agree. The reason being that you think individuals operate in a vacuum -- that their behavior does not have an impact on the rest of society.

Of course it has the appearance of anarchy. These individuals who wish to participate in this lifestyle are selfish, self-centered, immoral hedonists who couldn't care less about the effect of their behavior on others and look at legalization as legitimacy.

59 posted on 09/28/2003 7:46:50 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The "overall good" would be defined as that which perpetuates (or leads to) an environment in which an orderly community of like minded individuals can live and raise children.

On this point, I agree with you in total. It was this exact point, after a good many years of arguing with libertarians, that changed my mind on libertarianism, and led me to become one myself (though I would continue for several more years to reject the LP).

As a political philosophy, libertarianism is the only one that affords people an opportunity (as a right), to form and maintain exclusive communities of like minded people, to live, work, and raise families, free of outside interference. You will not find this right and encouragement any where else on the political spectrum.

If you believe that the "rights" of the individual are supreme (as long as the behavior does not harm others), then we'll never agree.

On this, you sow the seeds that guarantee that people will never be allowed to grow communities of like minded people. You guarantee a perpetual power struggle, of which no complete community standard will ever be allowed to be tried out, let alone grow and prosper to a full maturity. You sow the seeds of anarchy, that will always exist in the one big community, where no individuals or communities can ever really successfully develop, in any meaningful way, a full moral code. Yours are the seeds of your own destruction.

...keep in mind that our Constitution was written for a moral and religious people.

Oh? Hardly so. But I'll leave this one for another time, I have to go to work.

60 posted on 09/28/2003 9:32:17 AM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: jackbob
"As a political philosophy, libertarianism is the only one that affords people an opportunity (as a right), to form and maintain exclusive communities of like minded people, to live, work, and raise families, free of outside interference."

As long as those "like minded people" prefer uninhibited rampant homosexual and heterosexual sex, all drug use, prostitution on every street corner, and explicit pornography on television, theaters, magazines, etc. -- and wish to have their children exposed to these things -- then yes, libertarianism is indeed the only philosophy that affords people this kind of opportunity.

61 posted on 09/28/2003 3:38:23 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Do you think that it is proper for the public schools to be teaching that the homosexual lifestyle is no different than the heterosexual lifestyle (ie, they're both equally acceptable)?

No.

I was under the impression that large-L Libertarians and most small-l libertarians approved of this teaching practice. That was my only point.

Not in public schools - because most don't believe in public schools to begin with! As for whether most personally believe there's a moral equivalence... well, I don't see where most Objectivists would... object to it.

(And the ironic point is that true (L)libertarians wouldn't approve of public schools to begin with.)

Nope... which makes me wonder why you think they'd want the schools to teach an eqivalence between sexual practices. For all I know, you may be right and the LP (which I don't belong to, and don't really keep up with) may generally be for this kind of thing on a local scale until schools are privatized.

62 posted on 09/29/2003 12:34:08 AM PDT by MitchellC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Now that was funny, I admit, I laughed. All good humor ought to have an element of truth in it, and your reply had it. But it was also dishonest, and you know it was. Baring false wintess seems to have no importance to you.

Of course I could counter that Christians are either all hypocrites or closet homosexuals, teaching their boys that looking on women with lust is wrong (adultery). Only thing is that I know that such an exaggeration is equally not true.

Libertarians are the only ones that defend a person's right to discriminate in the conduct of their affairs. As such, it is the only political philosophy that defends Christian rights of association, to include organizing communities, with any restrictions so desired, except of course denying an individual the right to leave (quit) such a community.

We just don't believe that such restrictions should be imposed from top down. We believe such restrictions are only legitimate when they are voluntarily entered into from the bottom up. It is this understanding that has attracted Christians to the LP. The only party that in actuality is not anti-Christian.

63 posted on 09/29/2003 8:23:07 AM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: jackbob
So, my community can vote to ban gambling, and Libertarians wouldn't object?

How big can my "community" be before Libertarians start to take notice -- can my "community" be as large as a state?

64 posted on 09/29/2003 10:41:18 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Such would depend on the rules of the community.

While it is remotely possible for it to be geographicly as big as a state, it is highly unlikely that such would ever occur.

65 posted on 09/29/2003 10:54:21 AM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: jackbob
So if the residents of a state voted voluntarily from the "bottom up" to make gambling illegal, that is or is not OK with Libertarians?
66 posted on 09/29/2003 11:17:30 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
If you are speaking about a government election, absolutely not. Libertarians would oppose it to no end. If you are talking about a private election, held under rules unanimously accepted going in, then libertarians could object, but they would be obligated, as they contracted into such a covenants start with.
67 posted on 09/29/2003 12:36:13 PM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I should like to add, most people (Libertarian, Christians or otherwise), would not contract into such an open ended covenants to start with.
68 posted on 09/29/2003 12:50:30 PM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Correction - I doubt anyone would enter into such an open ended contract. People would seek to limit restrictions going in right from the start. Libertarians would for the most, part want most all of the same restrictions that Christians would for the most part,be willing to put upon themselves.
69 posted on 09/29/2003 1:01:57 PM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
correction - again (shouldn't be working at same time as at freerepublic.

Correction - I doubt anyone would enter into such an open ended contract. People would seek to limit restrictions going in right from the start. Libertarians would for the most part, want most all of the same restrictions that most Christians would be willing to put upon themselves.

70 posted on 09/29/2003 1:06:48 PM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: jackbob
You're losing me.

Government election? Private election? Covenants? I'm talking about a state within the United States. Hello?

Someone circulates a petition ... starts a referendum. An issue then appears on the ballot, "Shall gambling be allowed in our state (community)?" A majority vote no.

Man, you can't get more bottom up than that. You can't get any more democratic and legitimate and voluntary than that.

But no good huh? Not unless each and every resident approves, I guess is what you're trying to say. Then it's OK, right?

Now, how do you propose to get everyone to approve? You going to break them up into little enclaves? So we've got gamblers here, non-gamblers there. Drug users here, non-drug users there. Prostitutes here. No prostitutes there.

Uh-oh. Where do we put the gambling prostitutes that don't want drugs around? Hmmmm. Separate enclave, I guess, huh?

And the non-gambling, drug-using prostitute? Yet another enclave.

You're a pretty funny guy.

71 posted on 09/29/2003 1:29:58 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
As I said in reply #60

As a political philosophy, libertarianism is the only one that affords people an opportunity (as a right), to form and maintain exclusive communities of like minded people, to live, work, and raise families, free of outside interference. You will not find this right and encouragement any where else on the political spectrum.

You just have to learn to read.

I never suggested that Libertarianism is going to provied you a free welfare check, in the form of giving your property and values special special protection. You will have to earn that yourself. Libertarianism only will protect your right to invest toward your particular desires and values. It will not provide them for you. That will have to be of your own doing.

You ask:

Where do we put...

We Don't ! ! !

Instead, you decide for your self only, at your own expense, where you want to be.

And yes, a state would have lots of enclave, pretty much the way it is now. Just most of them would be better defined, and have better legal protection against outside interference.

We do not want a mommy state to take care of us, as you seem to want.

72 posted on 09/29/2003 2:12:10 PM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: jackbob
"I never suggested that Libertarianism is going to provied you a free welfare check, in the form of giving your property and values special protection"

WHAT??? I haven't asked for special protection from squat! I said the people vote for the way they want to live. Where do you come up with these strawmen?

You don't want a group of "like-minded" individuals setting rules (as you so stated). You want a group of "identically-minded" people setting rules which would only apply to them.

In theory, this sounds nice. As a practical matter, it's impossible to do. And that's Libertarianism in a nutshell -- all theory, no practicality.

73 posted on 09/29/2003 2:33:14 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
I haven't asked for special protection from squat! I said the people vote for the way they want to live.

That is a contradiction. A free responsible people choose the way they want to live.

You don't want a group of "like-minded" individuals setting rules (as you so stated). You want a group of "identically-minded" people setting rules which would only apply to them.

Now you fantasize about what I want. You fantasize what I could not possibly imagine, and then place it upon me. Your imagination runs wild.

...all theory, no practicality.

I see you are incapable of honest arguments. Or maybe that never was your intention. Fanatical extremists never like to freely exchange ideas, they want every thing their way and their way only. You seem to be one.

74 posted on 09/29/2003 3:01:01 PM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse." A simple phrase from a simpler time. Simpler because theft (Did that belong to you?), assault (Were you defending yourself?), and murder (Theft of anothers life.) were easy concepts to comprehend. These can be defined as property issues as well as moral issues. Actions of consenting adults which do not directly effect other people are moral control issues. Further, an examination of our "chosen" representatives shows that, in many cases, its a "do as I say, not do as I do" issue. None of these "moral" codes have improved society. A certain segment of society has ALWAYS wished to escape reality. Alcohol is a primary example. Prohibition was a CONTROL ISSUE. It not only failed miserably, but by the end of prohibition there were more drinkers than before. The Harrison Narcotics Act was passed somewhere around 1912(?), at that time 3% of the population use "hard" drugs. Has 90 years of "moral law" changed these numbers for the better? No. It does provide job security for police and prison officials though. Your real issue appears to be 'If we don't control this behavior, then others may join in.' And it should be applied in some cases. But the real destroyer of our society isn't sex, drugs and porn. Its the lessening of meaningful deterents to murder, assault and theft. Murderers should not only be publically executed, they should be killed in the same manner as their victims. Thieves should serve full sentences and make full restitution to their victims. People who commit assault should be beaten silly and released. What we have now is a society where murderers, thieves and violent criminals are being prematurely released into society to make room for potheads (the majority of people processed and jailed). Yes, a persons behavior has an impact on society around them. A black woman who, inspite of the "rules" of an "orderly community of like minded individuals" to the contrary, refused to sit in the back of the bus. There was a good example. I suspect that the actions of cancer patients, inspite of the laws of an "orderly community of like minded individuals" will have the same effect on marijuana laws. One last note, the State of Nevada shows no more societal breakdown than any other State inspite of legal gambling and prostitution. It won't change much when they pass the legalization laws on pot either. Stick with "real" crimes and real criminals. There are more than enough of them to go around.
75 posted on 10/03/2003 8:56:47 AM PDT by Muabdib (Actions speak louder than labels.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Muabdib
"Your real issue appears to be 'If we don't control this behavior, then others may join in.'"

Close. My issue is that we be allowed to set standards for our community, provided the standards are constitutional.

"What we have now is a society where murderers, thieves and violent criminals are being prematurely released into society to make room for potheads (the majority of people processed and jailed)."

So the prison are full, no matter what? Then how is the WOD providing "job security for police and prison officials"? You're so flip about making these statements, you don't realize you're contradicting yourself.

"... the State of Nevada shows no more societal breakdown than any other State inspite of legal gambling and prostitution."

I would guess that the vast majority of the people who gamble and use prostitutes in Nevada come from out-of-state, wouldn't you? Now, why would you look at the state of Nevada itself to form a conclusion like that?

76 posted on 10/03/2003 9:26:33 AM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: HighWheeler
Liberal - economic encroachment with social freedom
Conservative- economic freedom with social encroachment
Moderates- economic encroachment with social encroachment

Libertarian- wants both economic and social liberty.

Paraphrases from "Are you Liberal? Conservative? or Confused?" by Richard Maybury
77 posted on 10/27/2003 7:25:24 PM PST by RunningJoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HighWheeler
from the reply's you have generated i think you may need to differentiate between what is posted seriously and what is posted as a joke, this post wasn't totally serious ... right? (no problem with the abuse of liberals here, earnest or otherwise)
78 posted on 12/08/2003 7:46:17 AM PST by Joshh86
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
And if we can write laws which cover behavior that is potentially harmful, the why can't we write laws against drug use?

This is the thinking that gets us gun control.

79 posted on 12/10/2003 9:16:20 PM PST by Eris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Eris
"This is the thinking that gets us gun control."

Very true. Thank God for the Second Amendment.

I take it this means you are against the DWI laws because they punish behavior that is potentially harmful?

80 posted on 12/12/2003 5:26:00 PM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen

Yes and no.

Were roads owned properly by private entities, I'd have no problem with whatever restrictions the owners wanted. Even wearing purple on a Sunday.

But since they are owned by the state, and insurance is regulated by the state, and the state itself is immune for its responsibility in issuing driver's licenses, and the state has erred too much for political reasons on the side of caution to the point of .08 instead of actually imminently dangerous (.10 or so) as according to actual risk factors, yes I have a problem.

81 posted on 12/12/2003 5:36:27 PM PST by Eris
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
the constitution was not written to enumerate rights..it was written to limit the government's power to infringe those rights...the bill of rights should never have been ratified as it gives too many people the idea that those are the only rights protected....any power not given in the constitution to the federal government does not exist (except by the use of force)
82 posted on 01/16/2004 2:07:57 PM PST by paragtime (just a thought from a conservative, libertarian constitutionalist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: HighWheeler
I heard that the conservatives of today are like the liberals of yesterday and that the democratic party may be no more. We will have a conservative and a libertarian party in the future.
83 posted on 01/21/2004 6:59:25 PM PST by katz (Rush Rocksert)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
You get what you pay for. If you don't like the cirriculum that public schools offer, then pull your kids out. As I don't have kids in the system, my only involvement is being taxed to pay for it.

What really galls me are the Christians who want the Ten Commandments back into the public schools. If they want to be consistent about the issue, they'll make it the *Nine* Commandments, leaving out "Thou shall not steal." After all, they have no qualms about looting my paycheck to pay for their kids' education. And THEN they expect me to actually CARE about things like this, crappy results, etc.?!?!
84 posted on 01/22/2004 3:08:47 AM PST by ABQNM_Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
If you don't want to be queer, then don't. Do you need a law or policy to force you to be straight? I thought you conservatives were all about individual responsibility. If you're not free to be responsible for your own actions, then this is only pushing another form of government-sanctioned baby-sitting, just like the Democrats are always pushing.
85 posted on 01/22/2004 3:20:44 AM PST by ABQNM_Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Try the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Wasn't Bob Dole a big supporter of those? At least that's what he said - and we all know that politicians never lie.
86 posted on 01/22/2004 3:23:51 AM PST by ABQNM_Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
And if we can write laws which cover behavior that is potentially harmful, the why can't we write laws against drug use?

Isn't what the Democrats always say when they want to ban guns ? "How do we know you won't shoot someone by accident?"
87 posted on 01/22/2004 3:29:23 AM PST by ABQNM_Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"Your real issue appears to be 'If we don't control this behavior, then others may join in.'"

Close. My issue is that we be allowed to set standards for our community, provided the standards are constitutional.

What's this "we" garbage? If "we" as individuals don't have the right to do what "we" want provided that no other individual is harmed, then there is no "we". And that is as Constitutional as it gets.
88 posted on 01/22/2004 3:40:21 AM PST by ABQNM_Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
But you are correct. You believe that the rights of the individual reign supreme (as long as they do not violate the rights of others). I believe the rights of the individual need to be tempered with the overall good of society in mind.

Mine is a more pragmatic approach. Yours has the appearance of anarchy.
............................................................
Spoken like a true socialist liberal Democrat. Here you go - go ahead and sign up:

http://www.kucinich.us/volunteer.php
89 posted on 01/22/2004 3:43:41 AM PST by ABQNM_Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: ABQNM_Libertarian
"If you don't like the cirriculum that public schools offer, then pull your kids out."

That is certainly one solution (mine were never enrolled in public school to begin with -- unlike you, I paid twice).

Another solution would be to "pull out" the administrators who allow this garbage.

My kids may not be enrolled. But I have to live with the results of teachers promoting the homosexual lifestyle to kids who are enrolled.

90 posted on 01/22/2004 9:30:04 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: ABQNM_Libertarian
"If you don't want to be queer, then don't."

I'm saying that I don't want my tax dollars to be used by the public school system to promote and equate the homosexual lifestyle as equivalent to a heterosexual lifestyle -- to state that one is no different than the other.

91 posted on 01/22/2004 9:38:43 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: ABQNM_Libertarian
Thank God for the second amendment, huh?
92 posted on 01/22/2004 9:46:54 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: ABQNM_Libertarian
"provided that no other individual is harmed,"

That's your standard.

Since the rest of us wish to live in a society that does not consist of selfish, self-centered, immoral, hedonistic individuals, we've added other laws.

93 posted on 01/22/2004 9:53:13 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
My kids may not be enrolled. But I have to live with the results of teachers promoting the homosexual lifestyle to kids who are enrolled.



So you have no problem with usurpation of parental authority as long as it's a usurpation you agree with? How is this any different than what the liberal Democrats offer?
94 posted on 01/22/2004 6:07:26 PM PST by ABQNM_Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"If you don't want to be queer, then don't."

I'm saying that I don't want my tax dollars to be used by the public school system to promote and equate the homosexual lifestyle as equivalent to a heterosexual lifestyle -- to state that one is no different than the other.


So are you complaining about being taxed to pay for it, or you complaining that the socialist schools aren't doing things the way you want them to? As in, "it's OK as long as they do what I want"?
95 posted on 01/22/2004 6:10:55 PM PST by ABQNM_Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
"provided that no other individual is harmed,"

That's your standard.

*Yes it is. Live with it.*

Since the rest of us wish to live in a society that does not consist of selfish, self-centered, immoral, hedonistic individuals, we've added other laws.

*Spoken like a true socialist Democrat - always eager to micromanage other people's lives. Have you decided to be honest with yourself and sent in your donation to the Kucinich campaign?

Here's the link:

https://www.kucinich.us/contribute.php
*
96 posted on 01/22/2004 6:20:13 PM PST by ABQNM_Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Thank God for the second amendment, huh?


Of all people to invoke the Second Amendment! Wasn't it YOUR guy - George Worthless Bush - who campaigned on supporting mandatory triggerlock laws, "closing the gun show loophole" via the McCain-Lieberman S.890, and renewing the Sept 1994 ban on "assault weapons" and high-capapcity magazines?

So here's the deal - first, he pledged to commit treason against the Constitution and Bill of Rights by signing off on this garbage. Now if such legislation DOES land on his desk, he changes his mind and refuses to sign it, how can you trust anything he says from that point on?
97 posted on 01/22/2004 6:26:41 PM PST by ABQNM_Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: ABQNM_Libertarian
"Now if such legislation DOES land on his desk"

I call this, "Hyperventilating on a hypothetical".

Hey, clueless. Why don't to wait until it DOES land on his desk before you get into a spitting rage?

S.890 is gone. The AWB will not hit the Presidents desk.

Chill out.

98 posted on 01/23/2004 8:51:29 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The AWB will not hit the Presidents desk

Riiiiihgt.

And the SCOTUS will overturn CFR.

Regards

J.R.

99 posted on 01/23/2004 5:48:37 PM PST by NMC EXP (Choose one: [a] party [b] principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
Doesn't matter if the legislation is dead in the Congress. Worthless said that "he" would support it if it landed on his desk. So much for him supporting gun rights.
100 posted on 01/28/2004 10:08:00 PM PST by ABQNM_Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-111 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

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