Posted on 02/24/2010 3:24:36 AM PST by Scanian
The day before last week end's Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, a group of prominent conservatives gathered a few miles away at the Virginia estate of our first president. Their Mount Vernon Statement swears fealty to a "constitutional conservatism" that "applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal" and "honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life." If only they meant it.
Constitutional conservatism certainly sounds better than "compassionate conservatism," which turned out to be code for big-government conservatism. And it is easy to hope that the thread of a properly limited federal government could bind the strands of a movement that has been unraveling since the end of the Cold War.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Logic, people... It doesn't hurt to use it.
>>>Maybe, jut maybe, we could look at behavior that does or does not transgress the personal or property rights of another. But that’s just crazy talk.<<<
A couple of other examples of “does not tragress the personal property rights of another”.
a) Every morning, at the exact time kids are arriving for school and crossing I drive my car at 95 MPH, through the 20 MPH school zone, in front of your child’s elementary school, with a BAL of .24 while taking hits off my crack pipe, ignoring the red light and the crossing guard telling me to stop. I do this 10 days in a row, and despite some very close calls, never hit anybody.
b) I decide I want to try out my new high powered rifle, with some target practice. On a busy, summer afternoon, I go to the local park, and set up my targets, with the crowded picnic area 10 yards down range from them. I proceed to start firing live ammunition. Since it has always been my dream to be a circus performer, I then put on a blind fold and continue firing at the targets.
According to your, extreme, Libertarian philosophy, in each of those situations, until such time as I actually harm someone or their property, I am doing nothing wrong and my actions should be perfectly legal, right?
Illegal drug use causes the users to become an undue threat to the lives, health and property of other individuals. Just because every single drug abuser doesn’t harm another person (although even that is debatable), it does not mean their reckless behavior should be legal.
Your argument reeks of stupidity and arrogance.....the items you listed are in no way related....
well said.......and true...
Are you actually reading my posts? I believe the people in the states have the right to decide their laws. If a state doesn't want abortion, they shouldn't have it forced on them. If they want school choice, let them have it. If they don't believe in global warming, then ignore it. If they don't want homo's "married", fine! Good for them. Let the people in the states decide their moral laws. How is that "communist?"
Are you saying immorality should be forced on the people in the states weather they want it or not? What is it you want? The Feds forcing everyone to accept the vilest of passions and demanding they simply roll over and accept it because you do??
Just because every single drug abuser doesn’t harm another person (although even that is debatable), it does not mean their reckless behavior should be legal.
Substitute the words “gun owner” for the words drug abuser, and you will see that you are actually a lib in disguise. Go away troll....
Alcohol causes the users to become an undue threat to the lives, health and property of other individuals.
Yet it is legal.
I have a habit of listening to the police scanner. Again and again the calls are for disturbances, domestic abuse, child endangerment, fights, car wrecks all have alcohol in common in a large percentage of the cases.
Your logic would necessitate the removal of this harm from our society for our own good. Do we proceed?
Uh, yeah. With logic like that, be careful at cross walks.
Your argument was “reducing size of government by whatever means is always good, therefore eliminating drug laws is good”. My examples prove conclusively that your logic is flawed.
If you want to make honest arguments for drug legalization, fine. But please don’t argue, “It will reduce the size of government, so it MUST be good.”
The first part of your post, I wholeheartedly agree with. The fed is, and has been, trumping states rights since the turn of the century ( it started with the 17th amendment, but that is a whole other discussion ). Immorality is a relative term, subject to the beliefs of the particular person using the term. Do I agree with drug use, no. Do I agree with prostitution or pornography, no. Do I want someone dictating to me what morality is, or how I should or should not act, no....laws like these are subject to the whims of the person who actually can control these things, and I do not want anyone telling me or dictating to me what is moral and what is not.
I did not say by whatever means is always good.....you are making things up as you go along, thus proving my point you are a troll..... I grow tired of trying to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person...go away
Our Constitutional rights are for the individual. BUT.....when one persons "right" puts a burden on another, it is not a "right." Drugged up drivers are a threat to everyone on the highway as much as drunk drivers. Abortion kills. Homosexuals spread disease. Sloth leads to beggars. Immorality leads to social chaos. Immorality denies the right of others to live a normal life.
Let the people in each state affected by immorality decide whether they want it or not. Let them vote for it or against it. If they vote for it, make them fiscally responsible for the clean up as well.
We can stop right there. I don't. As I said (in other words), social conservatives believe exactly as a Democrat, Daniel Patrick Moynihan said they do many years ago:
"The central conservative truth is that it is culture, not politics, that determines the success of a society."
That applies to proposed laws and laws which are on the books. There is a real problem with current law however. Socialism is a lot easier to get into than get out of. We live in the New Deal/Great Society. It has transformed the American culture. People's lives are entwined with government. Children don't set aside money to take care of their parents in old age. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are there. The reason the Medicare drug prescription plan passed so easily was not just because those on Medicare wanted it. It was passed because both they and their kids wanted it. The kids didn't want to pay anymore than they do on their parents already. And, considering how much everyone is being taxed, there was an insurmountable demand that that bill be signed into law.
I can come up with ideas all day on how things should be. The problem is how to get there. Obama may be solving that for us tho....he is on a track to crash it all. Then we'll have a reset and can start anew.
Hey, as long as I don’t harm anybody, I should be able to drive any way I want, and not get arrested until I actually hurt or kill somebody. Just like, you should be able to snort, smoke, or shoot anything you want, until such time as doing that causes you to hurt someone, take their property or kill them.
Illegal drug use is reckless behavior that puts others in danger.
Would you interfere with a pedophile raping another persons child? Wouldn't you be violating his rights to freely express himself? Wouldn't he have the same right to his own moral values as you? It has nothing to do with you, right? So, what would you do? Deny him his right to his own moral values, or save the child because of you own moral values? Is there a line? Who would decide the outcome there were no moral norms agreed upon?
I accept your unconditional surrender.
Well said. Leave it to the states, or leave it alone.
very well put, and very well thought out argument. We need to have discussions, without emotions ruling the day. You have accomplished this.
“Alcohol use is reckless behavior that puts others in danger.”
Lets ban it again. We know that no one could possibly use it responsibly.
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.