Free Republic

It’s the straw man they drag out every time a Libertarian speaks up, they try to force you to defend your point of view by throwing out utter BS like that.

When they do it though, you know you’re winning, because arguments like that are the refuge for the unintelligent.

Actually, no that doesn’t lead to bigger government, we already have the agencies in place to manage the regulation of pot.

As calling me liberal because I think we should tax it, that’s just your knee jerk reaction since you’re obviously unable to debate in an intelligent manner the subject at hand, so you resort to insults.

There’s nothing wrong with taxing a product and using the revenue to offset the cost of regulation and they allow state and local governments to generate revenue through a use tax since the product isn’t a necessity, it’s a choice to use it or not, so taxing it is perfectly fine.

You’re right with regards to God sorting it out, but that’s something that you and I believe, others may not see it as a sin within their own belief system, that’s the other reason I feel the whole issue isn’t something the government should be involved in, you can’t and shouldn’t try to legislate anyone’s belief system on another.

In the same breath, we shouldn’t use the force of government from forcing any religion to conduct gay marriages if it’s against their belief system.

In many areas the government should stay out of peoples lives period.

I also believe that a persons religious views shouldn’t be forced on people through the government either, our founders saw what the Church of England was doing and felt that people should be free to worship as they choose and that the government shouldn’t enforce any religious beliefs on another.

Politicians are always going to shape their opinions based on their faith at times, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but they shouldn’t go so far as to force their beliefs on others through law.

It’s a fine line, but it’s one that always needs to be walked, as long as they realize in the end that personal freedoms should always trump all.

No, pot shouldn’t be free...

We should legalize and tax it like any other product, alcohol causes more deaths per year than pot.

It’s already been show in Amsterdam and Portugal that when pot was made legal use of more harder drugs went down, because when you have to buy from a dealer, like any business, they’re going to push their more expensive and profitable stuff (cocaine, heroine, crack), but when people are able to purchase pot from a legal source, there’s no push for the harder stuff, so use goes down.

None the less, yes, we should legalize it and tax it.

I missed the secondary portion of your post, as for the whole animal thing, Libertarians as a whole are against that also.

An animal can not make an informed decision, that’s just out and out animal abuse and should remain illegal.

You don’t have to back it or like it at all, and I don’t think homosexuals should get any special rights, I also don’t believe anyone should be forced to cater to them.

My whole point is that we shouldn’t write laws that prevent 2 consenting adults from doing as they please together behind closed doors.

You don’t have to call it marriage if you don’t want or even accept it no matter what the name, I support that right.

As for a business, they shouldn’t have to offer benefits to a gay couple if it violates their religious beliefs, no one should have to preform any actions that violate their beliefs, no matter the religion.

Having to offer benefits and various tax exemptions for married couples that gays would have if they are allowed to marry shouldn’t be a deciding factor in the discussion because those are forced under federal laws that shouldn’t exist to begin with, to include the tax code.

I also don’t support the militant in your face gay community, I don’t want to see straight couples making out and getting frisky in front of children any more than gay couples, it’s all the same to me, that’s private behind closed doors activity and should remain that way.

Your argument isn’t one against gay marriage then so much as it’s against the federal system telling you what you can and can’t do as a business owner, that’s a different argument entirely.

Your complaint is that as a business owner you would be forced to supply health insurance to gay couples under your employ, that’s a by product of federal laws forcing you to do so, and that’s something Libertarians are actually against.

Tell me the right that gay marriage infringes on?

As for the other stated issues you have with it, that’s strictly a financial in the sense that married couples get tax breaks.

So no, it doesn’t infringe on your rights, you may think so because y9ou’re against it, that’s fine, you’re entitled to your opinion, just not your own facts.

And as Libertarians we find your stated belief in freedom and limited government suspect since you’re so willing to use the force of government to make others act as you think they should.

See, we can both play this game...

As long as state laws allow it then so be it.

It’s not that we think they should or not, state laws already restrict such actions and we’re actually fine with that since it doesn’t infringe on their rights, there are various zoning regulations to prevent that and Libertarians are fine with that.

That’s always the defense your type brings up, take something to the illogical extreme and throw up a straw man argument.

You really have no understanding of the Libertarian movement if you really think that way.

I love how so many of you guys “write off” (check your spelling) Libertarians right away because we don’t walk in lockstep with the religious side of the Conservative movement.

Libertarians weigh each issue with the simple question, does this infringe on personal freedoms?

What that means is, does this law/action infringe on the rights or freedoms of another, does it place a burden on another member of society other than the burden of non-interference (meaning your only burden is to ignore it).

When the answer is yes, we’re against such laws, such as gay marriage laws (I’m going to catch hell just for using that term on here as an example), it’s not that we support it, we just look at it from the individual freedom standpoint, it doesn’t infringe on our rights or freedoms and doesn’t place a burden on society other than having to ignore it, so it’s something that Social/Religious Conservatives and Libertarians aren’t going to agree on.

Now, in other areas Libertarians and Conservatives are in agreement, we want smaller limited government, we don’t believe in federal regulation of areas that it doesn’t have the Constitutional authority to interfere in, those matters should always be left to the states.

We also believe in a strong military, the Federal Government has that responsibility, we just don’t believe in a wasteful military, we don’t need as many bases around to world as we have, in those areas we should have agreements in place with various countries to use their facilities when need be, we really don’t need so many bases in Europe as an example.

Also, believe it or not, many Libertarians are Pro-Life, since we believe all people’s rights should be protected, even the unborn.

Our fundamental belief if individual freedom, people should be free to do as they choose as long as their actions are peaceful and don’t infringe on the rights and freedoms of another, we just don’t support anyone, be it Conservatives or Liberals, using the force of government to push their own personal beliefs.

It seems the main thrust of this article is to stop alienating Libertarians, something many on this site do on a consistent basis just because we don’t think in lock step on every issue.

Take a look at the internals, they weighted the poll +9% Democrat (D 35% R26%), when you do that you’re going to get the results you want.

Mitt handled the debate the way Reagan did, he was able to land blow after blow without looking mean spirited.

He was able to belittle Obama without looking condescending.

That is how you win debates and voters, Reagan was the best at it with the “iron fist in a velvet glove” approach.

The best part of this tactic though was that Mitt made Obama look out of depth, he made the man look like he was inadequate and ill informed.

He made Obama look like and amateur who didn’t know what he was doing and trying to make policy as he went along.

Mitt was able to do that all without looking arrogant, out of touch or condescending.

It was amazing.

We’re realistic because we understand the issues at hand all too well.

What I find funny are this “Conservatives” that are going to stay home on election day because the Republican nominee isn’t “Conservative” enough for them.

There are less than sane in every group, I couldn’t drag out a few for Republicans/Conservatives also if you like...

That’s usually their only defense, throw up a straw man argument and hope no calls them on it.

I agree though, if I person wants to sell an organ (kidney,portion of liver) and they’re adults they should be free to, it’s their body, they should decide what to do with it.

As for kiddie porn, that’s illegal and immoral, children can not make informed decisions and are under the age of consent, so no Libertarians back that or would support it.

Too often many want to believe that Libertarians beliefs are no holds barred, they’re not, we just don’t believe people should be restricted from doing as they choose as long as those actions don’t infringe on the rights of another, are peaceful and place no burden on another member of society other than the burden of non-interference (meaning the only burden on you is ignoring it).

I did grow up, that’s why i became a Libertarian.

I can’t sit and say I want less government intrusion in my life, yet sit and demand government intrusion in other people’s lives just because I don’t agree with their actions.

That’s being a hypocrite.

You can justify using the force of government to make others act as how you want them to, but it doesn’t change the simple fact that you’re not against big intrusive government at all, you’re all for it as long as it’s using it’s force to push your own personal beliefs.

I just don’t think it should push any beliefs, let people decide on their own, they are “personal” after all.

Sorry, you seemed to have missed the whole point and chosen one sentence out of context.

I’m not a moderate by any stretch of the imagination, I’m a Libertarian.

My point in that sentence was that too many in the conservative movement are quick to dismiss Libertarians because we don’t walk in lockstep with every issue they believe in, even more so with social conservatives (not all, the type where social issues trump all others and nothing else matters) instead of realizing that we may have fundamental differences with regards to social issues, but with the vast majority of issues we agree.

So you can grab a picture of a newspaper clipping 48 years ago and use that as a defense of something that I never even mentioned, but it’s rather flimsy.

Great article, though I’m sure it wont change the opinion of many on here of Libertarians.