Posted on 11/18/2013 4:39:47 AM PST by Kaslin
Without a definition of ‘Conservative’, it’s hard to take the author at face value (though I, being a (L), agree with some of his points.
As a (L), for me, the driving factor is the Constitution. And if one only pays lip service (as the GOP has done for quite a many year now), they don’t get my vote.
I still fail to see how the (L) ‘pulled off’ the failure of the (R) candidate...when 2x as many people STAYED HOME THAN VOTED. That’s the (L) fault? No, that’s a failure of the (R) message at the least.
Broad brush there, but I’ll take a stab here...
(L) are more focused upon the Constitution; that negates any need to look to the future vs. now.
I’m STILL looking for a definition of ‘Conservative’. Does that entail returning to the ‘good ol’ days’ of JFK/LBJ? Wilson? FDR? Theodore? Lincoln?....Just where in the U.S. timeline of steady Socialism is the ‘end all’? In that regard, IMHO, the (L) doctrine (is it Const.??) makes things MUCH easier.
I’m seen, even here, way too many (C) who will back the JBT or War on Drugs....and then bad-mouth the (L) for ‘helping the GOP lose’ or being ‘liberal’; just blows my mind.
IMHO, the author is correct in one aspect...we SHOULD be working together to restore our Republic. But when the GOP/etc. pass NSA, TSA, No Child, etc., why should the (L) care to mesh?
The only use I have for voting now is on ballot issues where I have an option to say “NO” instead of the two party beauty pagent of meth whore candidates.
You do know there are such things as conservative libertarians, right? Conservatism is not limited to people pulling the (R) lever.
Absolute nonsense. If you had the intelligence to peruse my FR page and looked at the sources there before pretending that I am ignorant you would find that I am a reasonable scholar of the Constitution. Examples are here and here.
I’m STILL looking for a definition of ‘Conservative’. Does that entail returning to the ‘good ol’ days’
No. If you had the intelligence to peruse my FR page and looked at the sources there before pretending that I am backward, you would have found my business method patent for a free-market environmental management system here.
Your bias merely assures your blindness.
I’m seen, even here, way too many (C) who will back the JBT or War on Drugs....and then bad-mouth the (L) for ‘helping the GOP lose’ or being ‘liberal’; just blows my mind.
Yes, it's blown all right. When libertarians propose means to assure that drug users will be held fully and financially accountable for the damage they do while stoned, I'll pay attention to what they have to say about the WOD (of which I am no fan).
But when the GOP/etc. pass NSA, TSA, No Child, etc., why should the (L) care to mesh?
Like many libertarians looking to gain support from conservatives you deliberately conflate Republicans and conservatives. You are either ignorant of the voluminous posting here opposing the actions of Bush, Boehner, McConnell and crew, or you are consciously ignoring it and are therefore dishonest. Had you been here when TED KENNEDY'S "No Child Left Alone" was passed, you would not have found many fans and there were plenty of warnings (including from me) about both the Patriot Act and the TSA.
Try getting your facts straight before condescending.
Do yourself a favor and do a little homework before making such a blandishment.
Do yourself a favor and do your own homework. Such are described in the article above; many are in Tea Parties throughout this country.
Conservative libertarians are original constructionists - if it’s not in the specifically enumerated powers, the Feds shouldn’t be allowed to do it, gather taxes for it, or regulate it. Socially, they’re the same - is it in the Constitution? Well, guess what Mr. Fed, you don’t get to regulate for or against it. Aside from that, the government should leave everyone alone. Not to be confused with the idiots at the other end of the scale demanding free weed.
“When libertarians propose means to assure that drug users will be held fully and financially accountable for the damage they do while stoned, I’ll pay attention to what they have to say about the WOD (of which I am no fan).”
Increase drugged and drunk driving/recklessness/etc laws - yes, BOTH because in point of fact drunk drivers actually do more damage now - to top-grade felonies. First offense if you cause damage to others while drunk or drugged: minimum $100,000 fine payable to the person so injured, minimum 10 year jail sentence, assets to be seized to cover the other parties’ damage in full.
Sound good?
Repeating yourself at length does no service to an argument that is completely misdirected.
Then you are a conservative Republican, just like John McCain, right? -rolleyes-
Sound good?
Make them a ward of the state for ten years? Are you kidding? What makes you think that the average druggie will be able to fund restitution? That's pathetic.
When caught at an accident site in which someone has died, if obviously inebriated, death within 24 hours. How's that? Worse, you don't address the multigenerational damage users do via the damaged kids they let the government raise because nobody else will. You pretend that all such decisions of whether to use or not are confinable to the individual. It's nonsense. You exemplify EXACTLY libertarian attributes as I condensed them. That's why you didn't like it. It stung.
Worse, because of the spread between the cost of production and the cost of the risks posed on others attendant to drug use, there is no way to tax the drugs sufficiently, expect users to carry adequate liability insurance, or use them in controlled environments such that the user covers the cost of risk. Therein lies your problem. You have no solution.
The listed first offense penalty is for just property damage. I fully support the summary roadside execution of anyone found intoxicated (whether on booze or drugs) at the scene of a fatal or injury accident they caused. Which goes one better than your idea, I note.
I would also point out that we still have laws on the books requiring those so sentenced to labor until the fine is paid. And we always have new ditches that need digging, etc., etc. Welcome to the new WPA, here’s your shovel, you’re working under military discipline until you pay off your fine, have a nice day.
Further, I’d point out that you still have all these problems *already* what with all the drug laws we already have. What’s your solution for the illegal drug users’ multigenerational damage, lack of insurance, etc.? Remember, this is already going on NOW with them fully illegal at the Federal and state levels - so what’s your plan for dealing with it?
Another point is that you seem to be confusing me with someone who wishes drugs to be legalized everywhere. I don’t. I can’t see any justification in the Constitution for it to be regulated *at the Federal level*. The states should determine if they wish to allow or ban such substances. Powers reserved to the states and the people, you know.
No, it doesn't. Do that and you'll have invented a new form of murder. It doesn't allow for forced intoxication, date rape drugs, or other causes meant to get someone put away.
What’s your solution for the illegal drug users’ multigenerational damage, lack of insurance, etc.? Remember, this is already going on NOW with them fully illegal at the Federal and state levels - so what’s your plan for dealing with it?
I note that you didn't include lifelong damage to babies. You should take a walk through a newborn intensive care unit some time. My wife works in one. The horror stories she has to tell would give you pause about the idea of "victimless crime." The cost is greater than many users could repay in an entire lifetime.
The point is in terms of this discussion that the costs of immoral behavior are NOT confined to the individual. The same thing is true of gay and lesbian marriage. The intergenerational costs are enormous, especially when one considers the likely epigenetic implications. This is where libertarianism as distinguished from conservatism breaks down.
I'm afraid it's going to take an array of solutions beyond the obvious already mentioned. An advertising campaign about the damage to babies and innocents would help. Strong penalties such as I have described would help. VERY stiff penalties for giving or selling drugs to minors would help. In short, I think we agree that focusing upon punishing the damage done by users should displace penalties for possession and sale along with medical treatment for those wishing to stop. We agree about shovels and weeds, but I would prefer more targeted restitution, employment with a charity set up for such services for example would be a good start, but the problems of fraud would be a real problem there. I'm afraid that validation services with good statistical metrics are almost nonexistent. It will take time.
I can’t see any justification in the Constitution for it to be regulated *at the Federal level*.
We agree about Federalism but for one thing: The borders. Sink any boat or shoot down any plane crossing the border that won't identify itself and allow inspection. Similarly, take possession of any car used for smuggling those supplies that have not paid their taxes and or insurance. If nothing else, I'm not a 'free trader' when it comes to recreational drugs.
Unfortunately, confining regulation of the drug trade to states would be a smuggler's dream, again because of the spread between the cost of production and the cost of risk. Should any State try to internalize those costs or should substantial disparities exist in taxation or insurance, there would immediately be a black market between States with all the resulting border problems we see with Mexico. The resulting police state would likely be worse than ever. So be careful with that thought.
Republicans need to demand the national party FIX their candidates. Pick lousy candidates (McCain / Romney) they will realize lackluster support.
No...they do not need to pander to the Hispanic vote either. Fight amnesty and stop trying to put the interest of foreigners over that of American citizens and those going through the process of citizenship the right way.
The GOP is an absolute mess.
I have to get back to work in a few so I can’t address everything at this time. I will touch on a few points here while I have a few minutes.
Never said it was a perfect solution. But at the same time, given current technology it is but a matter of an hour to get a blood test taken and processed. You can then judicially find out what was going on, and if it is a case of wilful intoxication assault or homicide, well, too bad, we take you back to the place where you killed someone else and put a bullet in your head.
I didn’t include lifelong damage to children for one simple reason: There is nothing anyone can do about it whether drugs are legal or not. Note that cocaine, heroin, opium, PCP and other such substances are illegal in all 50 states even now; also note that the horror-story babies that are in your wife’s NICU are *still happening anyway* despite the illegality of the substances responsible. I would submit that as with Prohibition, the stats on that wouldn’t change either way in a significant manner. And, again, I have no objection to a state continuing to regulate said substances if they so wish; I just do not see any justification in the Constitution for internal regulation by the Federal government. At least with Prohibition they added it to the Constitution.
The counterpoint to your item regarding immoral behavior in general is this: If you give the Federal government the power to regulate that behavior in a way that pleases you, this also means they have the power to regulate that behavior in a different way than intended. The Obama Administration is providing perfect examples of this as we speak - their advancement of gay and lesbian relationships is done using the tools and laws given to them to promote hetero marriage, which is why it has suddenly advanced so fast! The Federal government has proved it cannot be trusted with this power, so wouldn’t it be safer if they didn’t have it and it was reserved to the states to decide what they wanted? Every time you give the Federal government power it is a double edged sword.
As for your black market hypothesis: This is no more or less than what we have *now* anyway.
I have no problem with Federal regulations banning import of narcotics - that power IS in the Constitution - but the regulation and consumption of such materials already in the US is not listed as an enumerated power in the Constitution anywhere I that I can see.
You did say it was better than mine.
There is nothing anyone can do about it whether drugs are legal or not.
Nonsense. We wouldn't have the word "deterrence" in our vocabulary if it was not at least partially effective. Our problem is over-reliance upon a single means, rather than combining means into overall strategies.
The counterpoint to your item regarding immoral behavior in general is this: If you give the Federal government the power to regulate that behavior in a way that pleases you, this also means they have the power to regulate that behavior in a different way than intended.
I don't think you've seen me advocate the Federal government regulating moral behavior unless it is crimes over state lines, and even then I think Congress should be figuring out how to turf the prosecution to the States. Yet I do want politicians who understand the importance of morality. Yet there is one place where your idea breaks down: Are children property? Do they have rights? If they do, somebody has to enforce those rights, even against the parents. The very existence of police powers is what threatens liberty. It is why law enforcement should never have been "professionalized" the way it has been. Yet it is the hierarchy of enforcement that inculcates Federal power. So the moment children have unalienable rights, such cases eventually reach that level. Accordingly, legislatures should be designing their laws as principles for the people to enforce, more than instructions. The more explicit they get, the more convoluted are the means to avoid them.
The point there is that liberty and morality are inextricable, just as the Founders said they were, immorality being destructive to the general wealth of the society. There is simply no such thing as a fiscal conservative in practical terms simply because immorality breeds conflict, ESPECIALLY because of the children it breeds. The more conflicts there are between value systems and cultures, the more police powers must be invoked to settle them. When Democrats said, "diversity is OUR strength" they weren't talking about anyone but themselves.
I am on record here as saying that States should have the liberty to set up a State religion, or not. I am on record here as saying that States should have the rights to set up gay marriage. Let Natural Law competition show everyone the results. The same goes for firearms regulation, porn, speech, etc. In short, if the people of a State want tyranny, let them learn their lesson (I say that as a resident of California). The Constitution was largely a compact among the States designed to restrain the Feds. In that respect, I regard the 14th and 17th Amendments as an abomination for which we have the GOP to thank, particularly in how it confers the rights of citizenship to fictitious persons. That's bogus.
Agree, aside from two little thing:
First, the national party will not wise up anytime soon.
Lastly, it’s not about Hispanic nor amnesty. It’s about the RULE OF LAW. If ANY candidate says a THING contrary to following the law, they are unfit for office, IMHO. They, for sure, will not get MY vote.
LOL...I’m with you there. I have no aversion of leaving areas empty or using the fill-in option.
Did I ever indicate ignorance on your part? I, for one, did not presume to post as if I talked for one party or another, these are my own words and thoughts; my own ignorance notwithstanding.
We’re all scholars of the (C) on this board, ‘professor’. And, in as much as our Founders, have as many vectors of thought on the subject.
I will respond in kind. Hint: The horse you sit upon is not so high. If you wish to enlighten, you may wish to re-post your own thoughts; I for one, have enough work to dig into every posters past to attempt to get into their heads.
1). Looking out for oneself is ALWAYS a forward ‘temporal perspective’, as you put it. How best do *I* spend $$/thought/work/etc. to get the most benefit to me and mine? That is neither (L) nor (C), that is human nature.
2). As to my ‘blindness’, I posted this query to ‘servantboy777’. Bias? I wear it upon my sleeve, as it appears you too. The question still stands, as I enjoy the differences in thought.
As to your biz method patent. Good for you. How’s it working for yourself in this administration/climate?
3). I’m not sure what you’ve been reading, but when/if there is no taxpayer ‘security net’ nor gov’t hand-out or the like, there is ONLY personal responsibility. Self determination, with all the pros/cons of ones’ decisions in life, IMHO, have ALWAYS been the basis of the (L) party. There are no ‘means’ to making ‘accountability’ happen; the courts already do this job well enough. As a supposed (C), what other layer of gov’t must be created?
4). I lump the two as much as you and your like to merge (L) with the Dems/Left. Though I see little effort in attempting to differentiate these so called (C) from the (R) rabble....are you/they not still (R)?? (It is one of the few black marks I give Dr. Paul...a (L) running on the (R) ticket...c’est la vie).
I am neither blind nor ignorant of the many posting of the past; but words on the ‘net do little else to change what has been/is done under your banner. Holding ones’ nose during voting does even less. As they say, you’re known by those you run with.
Condescension will cease when ANYTHING is done to restore the Republic and the Freedoms of the Citizens of this fair nation. As of today, your gaggle has been found...lacking.
I would rather be judged as some weed-smoking nobody who wishes to be left alone than some smaller-BIG gov’t shill extolling “I’m here from the gov’t and here to help”.
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.