Posted on 09/02/2002 4:56:15 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Well, maybe if these guys would discuss something other than legalizing pot at any of their rallies then, given a century or two, the stereotype they've forged for themselves might fade away!
I was a libertarian once, but I got sick of the de-facto priority assigned to legalizing pot.
No, I'm not "pro-choice" in the sense of pro-abortion terminology quite the opposite. This stays well within the framework of Libertarian logic because there are, quite obviously, at least two parties involved, possibly even three. The fact that one is incapable of consent only makes the Libertarian anti-abortion argument that much more clear.
YES!! I have considered myself a voice in the Libertarian wilderness for years on this issue. Finally, someone makes the case. Christian spirituality is completely congruous with the Libertarian positions of absolute freedom outside of violating another's rights. Thanks for the post, John!
In its best and most full sense, liberty is about allowing men in a society to implement that set of laws that is most conducive to freedom and prosperity.
Allowing men to be laws unto themselves may be the most libertarian approach, but it is also the most Hobbesian. It is anarchy or tribalism by any other name.
That society in which the citizens are allowed free access to implement and change laws by participating in government is the best of all and most exalts the rationality of the Creator.
Practically, and in most cases, that's really all it boils down to: legalizing pot. The enormous potential of the human soul is distilled down to one meager nugget of "getting high."
In any event, as is true with all laws, citizens are not absolutely compelled to obey the drug laws. They are entirely free to disobey (and certainly all dopers do).
What the laws do is create a risk of substantial costs and unpleasant consequences if a citizen is caught disobeying the drug laws. Many citizens weigh the costs and freely choose not to risk getting caught. Others freely choose to indulge, are caught, and are persuaded by the unpleasant consequences not to take further risks. In all cases free will is preserved.
It is entirely proper for society to impose these risks of punishment in light of the very real and enormous external costs that drug abuse imposes on other citizens. Contrary to the pro-doper delusion, drug abusers do not live in hermetic seclusion from other citizens. Their idiot self-obsessed behavior inflicts costly damages throughout society that the taxpayer is left to pay for.
Finally, the libertarian who offered up this half-baked anarchist lasagna either has no understanding of the Judeo-Christian tradition and laws or is disingenuously ignoring them. The Old Testament comprises chapter after chapter of very clear laws with very severe penalties attached. Most libertarians--especially atheist libertarians--would never tolerate the laws of the Old Testament.
The New Testament demands even more perfect and comprehensive obedience, not by rote submission to the letter of the law, but from the very heart and soul in complete submission to the will of God. It is hardly an invitation to live one's life as one pleases.
The model of perfect behavior and obedience, Jesus Christ, did not lead a libertarian life railing against the Roman authorities. There were libertarian-leaning rabblerousers that followed him around demanding that he denounce the Roman authorities and that he even lead an insurrection against the Romans. Jesus steadfastly refused their entreaties, castigated them on more than one occasion, and commanded them to "render unto Caesar" the obedience due Caesar. At his trial Jesus was accused of sponsoring an insurrection but the reigning Roman authority, Pilate, judged him not merely not guilty but completely innocent of that offense.
Libertarians who fall for the sophistry of equating Christianity with secular libertarianism are guilty of mixing church and state to a degree that would outrage their athiest libertarian comrades. They have confused the perfectly obedient (to secular AND spiritual authority) Jeus Christ with the libertarian zealot Barabbas.
Licentiousness is not liberty--not in the secular sphere, and certainly not in the spiritual sphere.
Conservatives understand libertarianism better than the neo-anarchist Libertarians do.
...so they keep trying to tell us, anyway.
Lady Vox may be a nasty dragon, but I wouldn't go *that* far...
Till you look under the hood.
Hitler had his, he said.
Stalin had his, he said.
Cuirry has his, he says.
Liberals and Libertarians hate that.
Oh, puh-leaze... And like a number of other habitual vilifiers (*cough*liberals*cough*), you simply accuse people who have different opinions of being lying cultists rather than dealing with their positions in a more mature manner.
I can't wait for FreeRepublic to have a killfile feature...
What libertarians are weary of is the people who determine
the optimum set of laws based on their religion and
for the 'good of everyone else.'
"That society in which the citizens are allowed free access to implement
and change laws by participating in government is the
best of all and most exalts the rationality of the Creator." -- Kevin Curry
Liberals and Libertarians hate that.
What does participatory democracy have
to do with the rationality of your mythology?
Was Jesus a registered voter?
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.