Posted on 05/23/2007 9:05:49 AM PDT by Equality 7-2521
My brother has told me several times that, as a libertarian, I should be far more sympathetic to the ideas of liberalism than to those of conservatism. I believe his rationale is that libertarians generally agree with liberals about more issues than they do with conservatives. Of course, I’ve never debated that point because I agree with it. It’s just that some of the conservative issues always seemed to rank higher on my “personal issues” list than those of liberals. After almost 7 years of a so-called neocon in the Executive and 12 years of conservatives controlling Congress, my opinions have changed.
It’s not that I don’t still find conservative issues regarding liberty more important, it’s just that I don’t find very many real conservatives holding office. The whole feigned outrage with the most conservative member of Congress after the last debate drives this home. It brings the lying hypocrisy of the neocons right out into the light for the whole world to see. It shows their “big tent” to be a reverse TARDIS–that is, it looks much bigger on the outside than it really is on the inside. Read the rest of this entry »
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.flada.com ...
And, when we use government to "fix" morality, we surrender the field to those who want to use government to "fix" everything else.
Hmm...I must have misunderstood you. I thought you said behaving badly in public. Prostitution usually takes place behind closed doors, doesn't it? As far as drug laws go, my comment is that a little consistency would be nice: we really don't seem to have much of a problem with people going out to bars and drinking themselves silly, do we?
In essence, the libertarian position denies that the community at large has any right to define community rules; and that communities must instead allow any behavior which does not actively result in injury to those not involved.
You are arguing two different positions. Your first clause is just wrong; your second clause is closer to accurate. Again, we believe that the government's authority is justly limited to legislation that prevents coercive behavior. It's not that we believe the community doesn't have the power to define rules, it just doesn't have the just authority to make rules that prohibit behavior that isn't coercive.
This is an observable effect -- just look at the ghetto areas of any city where prostitution and the drug culture thrive, and see if you want to live there.
Or look at any of the upscale neighborhoods around the country and check out all the drug use and prostitution that occurs there. I know that in my neck of the woods, the city with the biggest prostitution "problem" is the most affluent city in the state. I think you have a very stereotyped view of these things.
huh, I had it wrong all along.
Asking to live without government assistance/ intrusion, and at the same time not being robbed to provide for others is pretty grown up. Being an active community member and volunteering my time and money to better my neighbors is not acting like a "perpetual adolescent". Too bad there are so few of us free thing individuals anymore. Too few of us who really belive that the concept of liberty is not dead to stand up and dig in our heels and counter the meddlers, thiefs and "government knows best" types,(like you?) out there.
Good to see a 'conservative' calling the Framers a bunch of adolescents. About what to expect from most Republicans these days. The point is that as a Constitutional Republic it is not now, nor was it ever, the intention of the Framers for the general government to take on the responsibilities it has taken on. We hear cheers for 'conservative' NCLB, prescription drugs, or inventing whole new bureaucracies (Homeland Security) that are not needed and could be handled by the government already if it were run more efficiently. Is that what conservatism has devolved to? Partisan cheering for government waste?
Furthermore, Ron Paul is right on the issues that would win him a lot of crossover votes in the General election. He’s the only hope you’ve got, Republicans. And he’s one of the last hopes for our Constitutional Republic.
And Republicans have to ignore him. Because to return to the intended level of government the control they, in fact all politicians, would lose is unfathomable to them
Yeah, well, that's the stuff libertarians tend to focus on most -- prostitution, drugs, and so on.
So, you and other social conservatives have no problem with "prostitution, drugs, and so on" in the privacy of one's own home where they aren't public?
Those who are poo-pooing the idea that unalleviated consequences will affect behavior choices are
the equivalent of leftists that don’t understand the incentive factors of economics.
DUH, PEOPLE. Paying for out of wedlock babies leads to
a) fewer out of wedlock babies
b) MORE out of wedlock babies
Classical liberalism is way better than conservatism. Greatly reduced government, civil liberties, greatly reduced taxes, border defense, and constitutional rights. Conservatism seems to be a waste of ideas. The problem is I am a baptized Christian, silent on Islam even though it is an Antichrist religion, silent on Israel because the end must come.
Most conservatism is a sham.
I do not like libertarian philosophy, but like libertarian political identity.
no, that is what the anti-libertarians focus on, because they can always whup up a furor over "them being pro-drug"
If all the time, effort and money used to say, fight pot, were put to a war on cancer, that dread disease would probably be wiped out. But no, we chase our tails and put these dumba$$ dope smokers in jail (alot easier than incarcerating truly harmful criminals)
The WOD is a fools errand, and taking drugs is a slow suicide, but your bad habits are not my problem, unless you are paying for them with my tax dollars.
government's place is to prevent the infringement of a person's liberties and natural rights
Where did you get THAT idea? Ask the government if that's what it thinks its role is. It's laughable. That's not the government's role at all.
It's the church's job to teach the people what is right and wrong.
That's true, but it's the government's job to maintain order.
I just think that the collateral damage caused by the drug war is so high that what we're getting is not justifying what we're sacrificing for it.
What is the collateral damage of the drug war that you're so concerned about?
Wow what refutation....
Thomas Jefferson, was in favor of punishing sodomy by castration. He hardly sounds like what we'd consider a libertarian today in the least.
The difference is what is allowed at the state level and what should be allowed at the federal level. Many libertarians are considered 'liberal' by Republicans simply because they point out the fact that many issues some want legislated or decided at the federal level were not meant to be done at the federal level. I have no problem with most issues conservatives do however I have the 10th Amendment as my maxim first and foremost.
I live in Atlanta. We had a 82 year old woman shot dead in her home when the cops raided it. The raid itself was base on questionable information - the cops were just trying to make a quota.
There is worse stuff, like a raid done in conjunction with the Park Service, in hopes of confiscating a guy’s property. The gentleman defended himself, his home and his companion and was shot dead.
If that ain’t “collateral damage” I don’t know is.
I don’t like Libertarian beliefs in general, but even blind hogs find an acorn or two...
--Where did you get THAT idea?--
I'm not trying to put words in James's mouth here, but I'll take a stab at this one:
Locke? Montesquieu?
Since I don't do drugs or visit prostitutes, it's none of my concern. Nor is it yours what others do. This is called "freedom". I know... radical concept right?
This is why I focus on RKBA, property Rights, ect... because I AM a gun owner, I own property, and I'd like to amass more wealth without having every government bureaucrats hand in my pocket fishing for my wallet just so you sleep better knowing that some crackhead down the street is getting their welfare check.
Social conservative & libertarian checking in. I have a problem with such activities in privacy too. As a landlord, if I find out about it, I would like to be able to retain the right to evict people for such behavior. As an employer, I would like to retain the right to fire them. As a doctor, I would like to be able to refuse to treat them. That's social conservatism. Social liberalism is making it illegal for me to exercise my moral judgment as outlined - social liberalism seeks to actively endorse and protect depraved behavior from INDIVIDUAL non-violent reprisal. The ACLU types want liberty and the elimination of personal responsibility.
Wanting the government to seek out and arrest those involved in such private activities is not conservative, ergo, is not socially conservative. It is authoritarian, compulsory collectivist, and basically socialistic; it is a violation of private property rights and freedom of association (as if more assaults on these two tenets of civilization are needed). Selling drugs or sex on a street corner? That is public property, and I disagree with preventing LOCAL governments from enforcing laws on public decency - they force it to be my business. I think pragmatism is best in such situations.
The same reason (alcohol) prohibition ended.
It caused more harm than good.
"It had become an universal and almost uncontroverted position in the several States, that the purposes of society do not require a surrender of all our rights to our ordinary governors; that there are certain portions of right not necessary to enable them to carry on an effective government, and which experience has nevertheless proved they will be constantly encroaching on, if submitted to them; that there are also certain fences which experience has proved peculiarly efficacious against wrong, and rarely obstructive of right, which yet the governing powers have ever shown a disposition to weaken and remove. Of the first kind, for instance, is freedom of religion; of the second, trial by jury, habeas corpus laws, free presses." --Thomas Jefferson to Noah Webster, 1790. ME 8:112
"Were [a right] to be refused, or to be so shackled by regulations, not necessary for... peace and safety... as to render its use impracticable,... it would then be an injury, of which we should be entitled to demand redress." --Thomas Jefferson: Report on Navigation of the Mississippi, 1792. ME 3:178
"What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:455, Papers 15:393
“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.” - Samuel Adams, The Rights of The Colonists, November 20, 1772
"A man’s natural rights are his own, against the whole world; and any infringement of them is equally a crime, whether committed by one man, or by millions; whether committed by one man, calling himself a robber, (or any other name indicating his true character,) or by millions, calling themselves a government." — Lysander Spooner, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority (1867)
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. -Declaration of Independance
Silly old idea ain't it?
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.