Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Libertarianism Isn't
Lew ^ | December 22nd 2001 | Edward Feser

Posted on 12/22/2001 8:53:08 AM PST by rob777

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-263 last
To: Roscoe
Some Libertarians argue that it should be legal to own human servants.


Do you believe in the draft?

251 posted on 12/26/2001 5:52:25 PM PST by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
252 posted on 12/26/2001 10:50:24 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
RE 252. You expect me to read the entire thread so you can make a point about...?
253 posted on 12/27/2001 2:12:28 PM PST by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: JakeWyld
Passing laws might make you feel good...but they do little. Individual minds must be changed...

If Abe Lincoln had felt this way, slavery would still be legal today.

254 posted on 12/15/1990 1:42:30 AM PST by Dr. Good Will Hunting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Good Will Hunting
Very make a fine point.

I was trying to get a fair response from rb666...his post reeked of saying conservatives had better answers than libertarians to deal with abortion and pornography...specifically, how does the market "prohibit" these things.

The market does not. Individuals must choose to hold themselves to high standards of morality...and those that do not must be portrayed as people with a lack of self control, because that is the root issue.

A good example is any trial on court tv. The entire defense witness roster is filled with shrinks and doctors attempting to explain away a murderers simple lack of self control. In schools ridalin is served like candy to children that lack discipline. These are also the root problems with abortion and pornography, a simple lack of self control. There is always a choice to be made, imho. Sometimes we are left paying for those choices for a long time...

I hope all that makes sense. :) Just got of work and my eyes don't want to stay open!

255 posted on 12/15/1990 1:43:03 AM PST by JakeWyld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
You expect me to read...

Guess not.

256 posted on 12/29/2001 12:07:33 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Lchris
A fair point. I'll qualify it as "social issues where the liberal perspective would appear to be the less-govt. perspective". The liberal perspective on abortion tends to have such an appearance, and so is supported by many libertarians---hopefully not a majority, but possibly given the wishy-washy party plank.
257 posted on 12/29/2001 12:08:21 AM PST by Christian_Egalitarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: John R. (Bob) Locke
OK: the right-to-life (pro-life) vs. the right-not-to-carry-life (the so called pro-choice position).

Conflicting rights...plesae disprove one as promised.

And for God's sake, pick the right one to disprove.

258 posted on 12/29/2001 12:08:21 AM PST by Christian_Egalitarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
It would be advisable to expand your repertoire beyond three-word sentences.
259 posted on 12/29/2001 12:08:30 AM PST by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker
>>However, most "hard" drugs have an extraordinary capacity to do harm, not just to the user, but also to innocent bystanders. Just imagine if it were perfectly legal to walk around with a pocket full of OxyContin or Rohypnol. Rapes of unconscious women would be epidemic, and no one would be safe from having these substances surreptitiously dropped in their food or drink in any public place. <<

This is pure mythology. Men who are willing to rape women are very rare, and the availability of drugs to assist them hardly has any impact at all. Your accusation that thousands of men are "potential rapists" just waiting for the opportunity is callous and ridiculous.

>>For the highly addictive substances, dealers would have plenty of incentive to involuntarily addict people by means of repeated surreptitious placement of the drug in food or drink, and would then profit handsomely when the new addicts exercised their "freedom" to purchase and use these drugs.<<

This is a complete fabrication. It is a myth that people can become "involuntarily addicted". Did you read this on the back of a bubble gum wrapper?

>>I disagree with the premise that the high cost of drugs, and crime induced by addicts trying to get money for drugs, are products of illegality. They are products of addiction, which is very severe for many street drugs.<<

Sorry, wrong again. Studies in Switzerland in just the last few years have proven once again for the umpteenth time that when addicts can get heroin for reasonable prices, they hold down jobs and become responsible family members.

>>As long as the users are inherently desperate for the drugs, the normal supply and demand effect on pricing is inoperative.<<

Sorry, wrong again. The law of supply and demand is a natural law and no-one has ever found a way around it. All the laws do is raise the price and fund the worst kind of thugs with millions of dollars.

>>Dealers have huge incentive to undertake violent, illegal measures to prevent the market from being flooded with inexpensive drugs, because the users will buy them no matter how high the cost.<<

Ridiculous statement on its face. These dealers are drawn into the market because of the high profit potential, but they would be just as easily driven from it if the laws were changed.

>>This is not the case with non-drug commodities or with non-addictive or very mildly addictive drugs like marijuana -- note how still-illegal marijuana is not expensive and is not associated with high crime rates.<<

Wrong again. Marijuana is worth more than pure gold, yet it grows like a weed anywhere in the country. Explain that. It is largely a myth that drugs are associated with high crime rates. It is a self fulfilling prophecy. You makes drugs illegal and all of a sudden you have high drug related crime rates. Before drugs were made illegal, crimes related to drugs were so rare, every one made headlines. Marijuana dominates the arrests for drugs in this country.

>>Bottom line: hard drugs fall into the same category as plutonium. Principles need to have exceptions made to them, where there would otherwise be tremendous harm to innocent people. Libertarians don't support people's right to buy/sell/use personal supplies of plutonium, and there's nothing wrong with treating hard drugs the same way.<<

The problem with this argument is that multiple government sponsored studies have shown that alcohol is by far the most dangerous of all the drugs. So your plutonium idea should be applied to alcohol far before any other drug.

>>The other big argument against legalizing hard drugs at the present time is that, under our current legal/political system, which is far from libertarian or conservative, it is utterly impossible to let nature take its course, and leave the addicts to die of starvation or freezing or being shot by the intended victims of their robberies, etc. The growing numbers of them would all be entitled to taxpayer-funded treatment and living expenses. Nor are employers free to randomly screen employees for hard drug use, and even when an employer manages to confirm that an employee has become a heroin or crack addict, it would be virtually impossible to fire the employee, who will claim the "disability" of addiction, and be entitled to treatment, accommodation, etc. At least now, the employer can usually make sure that the offender gets in legal trouble, and then fire them for that.<<

This is once again based on the myth that drug users will automatically become a drag on society. Studies have shown that drug users are often the most productive of all employees. In studies of college students, they found that drug users had on average better grades than non-drug users. In studies of drug screening programs, it has been found that the employees screened out are among the best employees.

260 posted on 12/29/2001 12:14:36 AM PST by LloydofDSS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Christian_Egalitarian
And for God's sake, pick the right one to disprove.

LOL! Not a problem.

No such thing as a "right not to carry life" after conception. Prior to that point, most certainly. But once conception has occurred, the mother has obligations and responsibilities where the baby is concerned. She has voluntarily forfeited her "right" in this area.

261 posted on 12/29/2001 12:19:15 AM PST by John R. (Bob) Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: WRhine
This is the kind of lunatic thinking I have come to expect from libertarians such as yourself. Open borders? “Quotaless” immigration? What do you think the enemies of America would do if this were so? In the real world of course (which is outside of realm of most libertarians), China could successfully wage war with America on the cheap by sending boatloads of their people to our shores with the expressed purpose of colonizing us or outright conquering large territories by their sheer numbers. Other countries in the Middle East, Mexico and elsewhere would no doubt seize on this opportunity and do the same. America would be reduced to a third world nation almost overnight with large ethnic blocks squatting on hunks of U.S. territories that would become de-facto possessions of the nations invading us. And as for your laughable "simultaneous rollback of government welfare" just tell that to the hordes of new immigrants when their population outnumbers American citizens either locally or nationally. I would think that the massive influx of illegal immigration from Mexico and all the problems this is creating especially in the Southwest would give you some insight into what would happen if America had no immigration laws or borders. Limitless naivete continues to rule the day with you libertarians even in the post 9/11 world where just yesterday a Middle Eastern terrorist tried to blow up a plane headed for Miami. What to destroy America? Just open up our borders to everyone in the world. Perhaps this is your agenda.

Well, I guess you are the moron. After all, America's enemies have already had quotaless access to our borders for years under the incompetence of Democrats and Republicans. Heck, we have GW Bush assuring the arabs on a weekly basis that we won't bother them as they invade our country with no intent to make it their permanent home. Face it, America is already open to the world. The problem is that under your corrupted policy we only discriminate against the legal and desirable people who wish to flee oppression and become free, while the dregs and criminals enter the country illegally at will, and with no intention of becoming a permanent contributing member of our society and culture. Yep, you are the moron here, and a whining one at that.

262 posted on 01/05/2002 1:27:53 PM PST by Jolly Rodgers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

Sure wish we could convince republicans and democrats of this. They give away OUR money like it was candy. And they think they're doing something noble.

The R's and D's are elected. Why not put the blame on the people who elected these politicians -- the electorate?

263 posted on 06/29/2002 2:24:43 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-263 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
Topics · Post Article

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