Self-described “Liberal” Millennials are Actually Libertarian

Townhall.com ^ | July 14, 2014 | Cathy Reisenwitz

[ConservativeDude]

yes of course

[Alas Babylon!]

Ignoring their wishes not only harms the GOP now, but also going forward.

If winning is more important than standing for your principles, then yes, by all means, cater to the Millennials.

However, if you believe that the principles that you stand for are not important and can be thrown out just to get a shot at power, then you never had those principles to begin with.

I will never agree to the murder of unborn babies, sorry.

If people want to be homosexual in private, I don't care.

If people want to drink, drug up, and get wasted in their own homes, without involving kids or driving or causing any harm to the rest of us, then, like the homosexuals, I don't care.

So if those two issues make me a libertarian, then so be it. But I'll never simply tolerate the killing of those who are least able to defend themselves.

[ConservingFreedom]

the ones who think legalizing drugs (pretty much all of them) +_____________________ = UTOPIA

I'll keep my eyes peeled for such - never seen one yet.

[ConservingFreedom]

Indeed all true and valid points, but you also have to keep all the moral busybodies in check that will most assuredly crawl out of the woodwork in Joe’s defense. They will bash us over the head with all of the “we have to take care of the downtrodden”, “we need to give him a helping hand”, “we can’t just let him die”, “we must keep him from starving”, it was his upbringing, etc, etc, ad-nauseum.

Agreed - we must keep those moral busybodies in check along with the moral busybodies who say “we must keep him from clouding his mind.”

[jurroppi1]

All right, I’ll bite then. We keep people from forbidding others to cloud their minds (a moral absolute), and we keep people from committing crimes when they do so by punishing them after the fact, thus hopefully creating a deterrent effect (an assumption based on a moral supposition).

No matter what way you slice it the system will be designed by humans and will inevitably be imperfect.

We ultimately would allow more liberty for some than others regardless. I guess I would prefer to protect liberty for those who produce over those who ultimately cause productive liberty seekers harm.

[ConservingFreedom]

I would prefer to protect liberty for those who produce over those who ultimately cause productive liberty seekers harm.

If you propose to protect liberty for those who produce by continuing our current drug bans, I'd note the following:

• Our current drug bans do much to motivate harms to productive liberty seekers, namely theft, by increasing the cost of drugs to users - and to increase harms generally by increasing the resources available (from drug-selling) to criminals.
• If we're going to ban for ALL adults those things that may increase SOME adults' propensity to do harm, that's a long slippery slope whose destination I suspect you may not care for.

[jurroppi1]

It was more of a general comment about how leaning the other direction will have consequences as well, in some cases (I suspect a fair number of them) direct consequences that stifle the liberties of functional productive individuals who also crave liberty.

I’m not only commenting on the laws WRT the WOD, but laws in general all over the place. You keep alluding to the WOD and its’ concomitant laws and singling that out, but the application goes to other circumstances as well.

I am merely stating that preserving the right to be listless and exist in a stupor (depending on how heavily stupefied or intoxicated one deigns to make themselves) generally leads to other less than desirable behaviors. People destined to be addicted or listless tend to find ways to continue the lifestyle, which usually means polite society suffers somehow.

I suppose if we go back to public shunning and stocks and all that, we could just be a free society that metes out justice as we see fit too. You constrain someones’ liberties, yours get constrained equally or worse. There will always be a judge somewhere; that judge may not agree with your perceptions or indications (unless we just go full-on barbarian).