I’m Throwing Down a Libertarian Gauntlet.

The Flada Blog ^ | May 23, 2007 | Ed Snyder

[X-Ecutioner]

I think 95% of the Founding Fathers were classical liberals.
The Constitution itself is a classical liberal document. There is nothing conservative about it. Conservatives do not represent classical liberal ideas.

[Dead Corpse]

70 years and a trillion dollars and we still have a drug problem. Maybe another 70 years and another 3-4 trillion will do the trick... (/sarc)

[Dead Corpse]

Classical liberal still had the connotation of liberty attached to it. Todays liberals are socialists and have very little in common with liberty and freedom at all. That todays GOP is supporting more “liberal” candidates under the new definition is a very bad sign for our modern day Roman Empire.

[fod]

Indeed

hows tricks, friend?

still hanging out here I see...

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Maybe in an ideal world. But certainly not in THIS world of drugs, pornography, abortion, Islam, etc etc.

[JamesP81]

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.

Yes, it is government's role. From the Declaration of Independence: 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

Now, you are right on one thing: the government would most certainly not say that it's role is preserve the rights and liberties of the people. That's absolutely true. It just makes the people in government completely wrong.

That's true, but it's the government's job to maintain order.

Government's job is preserving the rights and individual liberties of the citizens from infringement. This generally will preserve order.

What is the collateral damage of the drug war that you're so concerned about?

No knock police raids in the middle of the night, warrantless searches, asset forfeiture without benefit of a jury trial, the ease of getting a conviction without evidence anymore, the police state style tactics of law enforcement, not to mention the stories we don't infrequently hear about police raiding the wrong house and an innocent home owner being killed by cops when he attempts to defend himself not knowing that the intruders are police.

This is all going to lead to a very bad end eventually. I find it amazing that people I tell this are able to simultaneously believe that the drug war does increase government police power, but doesn't increase the risk of turning us into a police state. One day we're going to wake up to find the Constitution shredded, and the same people who were supporting the drug war will either act like they have no idea how things came to such a juncture, or they will actively collaborate with their new masters.

[Dead Corpse]

Tricks is getting trickier. Moving my whole famn damily back up to MN. Just shipped my darling wife, infant son, pre-schooler daughter, and aging mother in law via airline back up there. My heart goes out to those flying on that flight. ;-)

Of course I'm still here. Not exactly on everyones "most popular" lists, but still here. ;-)

How are things in your world?

[JamesP81]

I'm not trying to put words in James's mouth here, but I'll take a stab at this one:

Locke? Montesquieu?

True. Also, the Declaration of Independence.

[JamesP81]

Social conservative & libertarian checking in.

Good to meet you. I thought I was the only one for a while.

As for the rest of your post, you've hit the nail on the head 100%.

[Raymann]

It is authoritarian, compulsory collectivist, and basically socialistic; it is a violation of private property rights and freedom of association

I don’t believe I’m really capable of understanding the motivation behind punishing someone when they violated the rights of NO ONE.

Seriously I can be standing on my front porch, minding my own business and just be arrested when I’ve violated no ones rights. What’s just as incredible is that there are people posting on this board now who would stand there, and with a clean face and conscience support that kind of totalitarian behavior.

How do you “sometimes” support individual rights and sometimes not? Are conservatives really collectivist at heart? What matters more, the individual or the society? You can’t have both, if society matter more then you’re going to have to suppress the rights of the individual and if the individual matters more then the >50% won’t get what they want.

I guess the real question here is that outside of any contractual obligations, what gives one man the right to tell another what to do?

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

I think there have been a few cases like that - probably more than a few. If the police thought the owner of the house was a suspected drug user, then, of course, that is ridiculous (and tragic) for them to have raided her house. If they suspected that the owner was running a drug lab, then that is a different matter. That doesn’t excuse their stupidity, however. But, for the most part, people who take drugs in the privacy of their homes or apts aren’t shot dead by the police. It just seems like a small worry.

[Publius Valerius]

Yeah, we shouldn’t bother with things like rights or freedom in the real world. Clearly an antiquated concept.

[JamesP81]

But, for the most part, people who take drugs in the privacy of their homes or apts aren’t shot dead by the police. It just seems like a small worry.

Actually, I remember other cases where the same kind of thing happened. Except the person that got shot didn't have drugs or a drug lab. In fact, the only reason the homes were raided was because the cops picked the wrong house. Somebody in the police dept in that case is guilty of murder by negligence, and should be dealt with accordingly. Of course, they never are.

[X-Ecutioner]

I agree Corpse. Classical liberalism defends liberty. Conservatives don’t defend liberty. They are too busy acting like mommy and daddy forgetting a man’s righteousness is like a dirty clothe. For one thing, I wished the Founders were authentic Christians, baptized. I have serious problems with deitism and masonicism.

[r9etb]

no, that is what the anti-libertarians focus on, because they can always whup up a furor over "them being pro-drug"

No, it's not just "anti-libertarians" who bring it up. For example, the Libertarian Party has very strong words specifically on "victimless crimes" like prostitution and drugs. (We can leave their idiocy on things like foreign policy, immigration, and national defense for another debate.)

Nevertheless, I will admit that drugs and prostitution are a convenient hook to discuss and dissect libertarian principles, primarily because these issues help to highlight the utter naivete' of modern libertarian thought, which has the unfortunate propensity of reversing cause and effect.

It is true that libertarian notions work well within a society that is already fundamentally moral to begin with. The Founders had the luxury of living in a profoundly moral and religious society, among people who knew the value of self-restraint. In such circumstances, government intervention is generally redundant and therefore unnecessary.

But libertarians seem to assume the converse: that the wholesale removal of government constraints will produce a society that is fundamentally moral. (Again, see the LP platform: it repeatedly suggests "immediate" repeal or reform of existing laws and policies.)

This is clearly a mistaken view -- visit any inner city, or downtown Mogadishu, and see the effects of placing immoral people in a place without effective government.

Moreover, the ideological impulse toward wholesale rejection of government fails to account for two very important factors.

First, public opinion is against such rejection, which gives libertarians the happy position of being able to theorize and pontificate without fear of consequences. This probably explains the wide variety of really stupid statements issued by the Libertarian Party.

Second, and more importantly, the impulse to simply reject government controls also rejects the fact that the laws in question were made to address real problems.

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

Drugs are a self correcting issue if you stop getting in Darwin's way

You mean, the druggies will end up killing themselves with their drug use? Probably not as quickly as you would like, and not with hard drugs that would accomplish that. In the meantime, they will try to sell drugs to your children. I was first approached to buy drugs in middle school, as I bet a lot of people were. That's where it's happening, people, in the schools - where your children are. How does something like that "self-correct"?

[my_pointy_head_is_sharp]

The same reason (alcohol) prohibition ended. It caused more harm than good.

Are you sure about that? How many MILLIONS of alcoholics do we have in this country??

[fod]

Wow, I hope the change is for the best, and best of luck with the change

Things are well here, My son is (hopefully) finishing up his Eagle Scout project this weekend.

That, and focusing on my "all politics are local" kick, and all the while pi$$ing off the city and county council members trying to play doll house with the neighborhoods. We were somewhat successful in substantially reducing, but not totally killing the "historic neighborhood" restrictions on homeowners and thier property rights.

keep up the good fight!

[r9etb]

How does something like that "self-correct"?

Well, see, if middle-schoolers were allowed to pack heat in school, well-mannered kids could simply kill the drug dealers. Or something like that.

[Dead Corpse]

The original "conservative" movement was an effort to "conserve" those portions of the Founding ideal that were seen as slipping away incrementally. Since then, yes, the "conservative" party has learned that votes can be bought via Nanny Statism, pet causes, and a NIMBY attitude and so have joined the socialists in the ever increasing expansion of government power.

Hence FR's mission statement.

It's a huge bone of contention. Some otherwise very staunch defenders of our Republic, have some seriously large blind spots when it comes to issues they personally want "regulated". Even absent legitimate authority to do so.