Video: Nick Gillespie makes libertarianism look pretty good

posted at 1:36 pm on January 29, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

If you need a reason to appreciate a more libertarian approach to public policy in the Age of Obama and rampant nanny-statism, look no farther than Reason’s Nick Gillespie.  John Stossel moderates a heated debate between Nick and MeMe Roth over the nature of personal choice over hyperbole.  It will come as no surprise to see Gillespie get the better of this argument, mainly because his opponent insists on using overblown terms like “epidemic” to describe obesity, a condition that is not contagious.  Or is it?  Roth says that obesity is “socially contagious” (via The Right Scoop):

Hey, you know what is also “socially contagious?”  Teenage pregnancy!  Unlike obesity, a girl has to catch that from someone else.   Perhaps we can also have government intervene by forcefully segregating boys and girls until they reach the age of 20?

And don’t miss the irony of the “scare quotes” Roth puts around “socially contagious,” perhaps a subconscious admission that she’s using a ridiculous argument.  If we took it seriously as a valid reason for government intervention, we’d have Bureaus of Friendships and Relationships installed in every school in America.

Nick has it exactly correct: if you don’t want to pay for someone else’s choices, then get government out of the way of the consequences of those choices.  Better yet, quit believing that government can act to prevent negative consequences of choice simply by creating more nannies for the nanny state.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I am afraid that the libertarians throw out they don’t want gov. interference,

right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 5:22 PM

How many times are you going to throw out that lie?

MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:32 PM

They do?
So if I give my daughter $10, I have to give $10 to you and everyone else?

If not, then your first claim is refuted.
People have a right to be treated equally by the govt. They do not have a right to be treated equally by private entities.

MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:26 PM

Most people would understand what the “right to be treated equally” means, you don’t.
Hint: It doesn’t mean we all receive equal benefits…
A private citizen does not have the right to take away my rights…get it now?…unbelievable.

right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 5:33 PM

Don’t be foolish, look at the context of what I was stating, in relation to what I was responding to…imagine, a “liberatarian” becoming legalistic…the irony.

right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 5:25 PM

You keep trying to prove that wanting some laws removed is somehow the equivalent of wanting all laws removed. You may be impressing yourself, but noone else is buying it.

MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:34 PM

Notice the quote I referenced, guess you overlooked that, if I wanted to “misquote” you, I wouldn’t have quoted you…sheesh
right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 5:27 PM

I noticed it, and I also noticed that it had nothing to do with your claim that I advocate the total elimination of all govt.

MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:35 PM

Most people would understand what the “right to be treated equally” means, you don’t.
Hint: It doesn’t mean we all receive equal benefits…
A private citizen does not have the right to take away my rights…get it now?…unbelievable.

right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 5:33 PM

Still with the reading comprehension problems.
The person I was responding to made the claim that everyone must be treated equally.
I showed an example where they not only weren’t but couldn’t be.

A single counter example destroys an absolute claim.

I’m guessing that you had trouble with basic logic in school as well.

MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:36 PM

A private citizen does not have the right to take away my rights…get it now?…unbelievable.

right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 5:33 PM

But a group of people, so long as they call themselves govt, do have the right to take away your rights.

Got it.

MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:37 PM

You’re like far too many Americans. You are completely cool with the government telling people how to live their lives as long as it’s something you don’t care for.

The problem with that position is that it’s logically untenable. You’ll likely squeal when government turns its attention to something you do that’s suddenly socially unacceptable, but there will be no one to defend your rights because there are none under this kind of a system.

Asher on January 29, 2010 at 2:35 PM

Aha, the “First they came for the Jews” argument.

The reason we have laws is because there are unreasonable people about in the world. There’s a reason for things being socially unacceptable. For example, murder is socially unacceptable, as are any number of other things we classify as crimes. These laws, of their nature, are there to regulate the relationships of people — to set bounds.

When a fellow blows smoke at you, he has transgressed a bound. When fifty or a hundred or a thousand do the same, a law is needed to set the social bounds.

It’s the libertarians — the ones who would do whatever they wish because it is, as they believe, their natural right to do so — who drive the requirement for laws.

The rest of us do the sensible thing. If I’m standing in the wrong place, a simple request makes me move. I expect, however, similar courtesies, and if I, and enough people don’t get them, we, as the majority, can make a law. That’s why you have loitering and trespassing laws.

You don’t like it? Well, hah, I tell you. Hah!

unclesmrgol on January 29, 2010 at 5:37 PM

Please tell me, how many people are sufficient to form a govt?

If everyone on my block votes to form a govt and to force the guy down the street to pay for repairs to the sidewalk, can we do it? If not, why not?

Where’s the magic line at which govts become the sole determiner of rights?

MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:39 PM

How many times are you going to throw out that lie?

MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:32 PM

Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary;

“libertarianism holds that agents initially fully own themselves and have moral powers to acquire property rights in external things under certain conditions.”

I never said they were anarchists, just not wanting gov. interference, beyond the specifics in the constitution…then I cited some specifics (which you said I didn’t, then proved I did) that confounds most libertarians.

right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 5:39 PM

Aha, the “First they came for the Jews” argument.

unclesmrgol on January 29, 2010 at 5:37 PM

I take it they didn’t cover irony at whatever school you went to.

MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:40 PM

You are over thinking it.
I was talking about removing the temptation to do that kind of restriction of rights again.

Count to 10 on January 29, 2010 at 3:50 PM

I certainly am not overthinking it. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States shows I am not. It goes to the core of what you can do as the owner of a public accommodation, even if said accommodation is private property.

unclesmrgol on January 29, 2010 at 5:41 PM

I never said they were anarchists, just not wanting gov. interference, beyond the specifics in the constitution…then I cited some specifics (which you said I didn’t, then proved I did) that confounds most libertarians.

right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 5:39 PM

I don’t see how any of the things you quote equates to, wants to get rid of all laws, as you keep claiming over and over and over again.

MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:41 PM

A single counter example destroys an absolute claim.

I’m guessing that you had trouble with basic logic in school as well.

MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:36 PM

Sorry, I made the assumption that you understood what the word “rights” meant, obviously you don’t. I think he was talking about rights in the U.S. government sense, just a guess on my part.

But a group of people, so long as they call themselves govt, do have the right to take away your rights.

Got it.

MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:37 PM

You lost me, you think that our gov. is just a group of people who call themselves a govt?
I posted about an individual taking away rights and you stated a group?….Mark, are you sipping out of that bottle again?

right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 5:46 PM

I don’t see how any of the things you quote equates to, wants to get rid of all laws, as you keep claiming over and over and over again.

MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:41 PM

Read this main post again, and you will see I didn’t say get rid of all laws…at 3:24 I stated “no gov” in quotes to show that it was a generic term, not an exact that you don’t want any laws at all, but as explained gov. intrusion.

right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 5:01 PM

Really, I think you just mis-read to start an argument, it is plain what I have posted.
You say I don’t give specific examples, then I show you where I did.
Then you talk about rights, I am posting about gov. rights and you are talking about something (I guess) totally different.
Then you talk about any group can be a govt., I have really no idea what you are talking about there.
My concept is basically, in general “libertarian” love to use that word, but when pinned down they are just like everyone else…they accept govt. laws, mandates, interference when it protects them, and reject the gov. when it doesn’t help them.
Many laws, not enumerated in the constitution, they embrace, just like most conservatives. Like the specific examples I had stated.
Where the main differences are is the use of military outside of the U.S., and legalizing drugs (like marijuana)…
Most everything else you argued is rather vague and you skip from argument to argument as I responded and set the record straight.
Have a good night Mark…

right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 5:59 PM

Key Point: Being a libertarian does not mean you believe in licentious liberty.

eanax on January 29, 2010 at 6:51 PM

Key Point: Being a libertarian does not mean you believe in licentious liberty.

eanax on January 29, 2010 at 6:51 PM

Then what does it mean? Ask three libertarians and you usually get four answers.

How does a libertarian differ from a small government conservative? That difference is usually where they start getting flaky.

sharrukin on January 29, 2010 at 7:14 PM

Libertarianism looks OK until they move into the side Ron Paul lives in .Some of these people believe everything goes from all drugs you want to use,legal sex clubs ,porn no limits.Thanks but no thanks i will just stay a plain old conservative .

thmcbb on January 29, 2010 at 7:21 PM

Only a much more Libertarian GOP will or can work, in the short term for elections and if the Republican party is to last in the long term, its mandatory.

We simply have no business in others personal lives, anything else is hypocrisy and give the left their toehold.

Speakup on January 29, 2010 at 2:10 PM

I disagree. I believe a more locally-focused GOP can work. A more federalist approach. Many in the gop are far from libertarian and wouldn’t embrace many libertarian policies; however, this often corresponds to the state they live in.

MeatHeadinCA on January 29, 2010 at 2:13 PM

The Federalist approach is exactly right but the principles and the message are exactly the same.

The GOP, the TEA party, Conservatives, Libertarians, no matter, the instant the left can pin the moralizing hypocrite badge on the Right (and I do mean instant) no less than 50% of the potential votes are adios, and for good reason, we have no excuse to meddle in anybodies personal affairs when the Constitution, Conservatism and limited government is our mantra, as it should be.

Speakup on January 29, 2010 at 7:50 PM

No one would suggest banning apples. I don’t see why french fries get treated any differently simply because they’re more popular.

Well their nutritional composition is quite dissimilar! But still nobody else’s business.

YehuditTX on January 29, 2010 at 7:52 PM

Social Conservatives are more like old style Southern Democrats, because thats exactly where they came from. Social Conservatives gave us Jimmy Carter, and Lyndon Johnson too.

If Social Conservatism and Fiscal Conservatism were so linked, then why were Social Conservatism such die hard Democrats for so long, and enthusiastic supporters of FDR and the “New Deal”?

Social Conservatives did not leave the Democratic Party over economic issues, they left starting with being against civil rights bills and continued an exodus, of course voting overwhelmingly for Carter over Ford in 76.

firepilot on January 29, 2010 at 1:59 PM

I was born and raised in a family of reformed-Jewish conservatives. My parents didn’t vote for a democrat until the ’92 primaries when they took a “d” ballot-Illinois has closed primaries-to vote for Tsongas. When Clinton won my parents voted for GHWB in the general…unlike their then 22 y.o. daughter(me)who voted for Perot.
My parents were social and fiscal conservatives.

Jump to conclusions much?

annoyinglittletwerp on January 29, 2010 at 8:25 PM

Hey, I’ll argue with MeMe anytime.

I would lose and have to be consoled.

If I have to stuff down a few bigmacs to catch her attention, so be it.

notagool on January 29, 2010 at 9:01 PM

Progressive: The government needs to make laws telling people how to live their lives.

Libertarian: The government needs to make laws saying people can live their lives however they want to.

Conservative: 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.

Knott Buyinit on January 29, 2010 at 10:10 PM

By the way, the obesity rate have reached a plateau:

Obesity Rates Hit Plateau in U.S.
The New York Times

Americans, at least as a group, may have reached their peak of obesity, according to data the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released Wednesday.

The numbers indicate that obesity rates have remained constant for at least five years among men and for closer to 10 years among women and children — long enough for experts to say the percentage of very overweight people has leveled off.

But the percentages have topped out at very high numbers. Nearly 34 percent of adults are obese, more than double the percentage 30 years ago. The share of obese children tripled during that time, to 17 percent.

“Right now we’ve halted the progress of the obesity epidemic,” said Dr. William H. Dietz, director of the division of nutrition, physical activity and obesity at the disease control centers. “The data are really promising.

Dr. Ludwig said the plateau might just suggest that “we’ve reached a biological limit” to how obese people could get. When people eat more, he said, at first they gain weight; then a growing share of the calories go “into maintaining and moving around that excess tissue,” he continued, so that “a population doesn’t keep getting heavier and heavier indefinitely.”

There’s no “epidemic”.

Antagonist on January 29, 2010 at 10:44 PM

I think people should distance their Libertarian views from the Libertarian party…it offers people NOTHING at all.

StevefromMKE on January 29, 2010 at 10:50 PM

The Reason Magazine crowd is always a lot better when Democrats hold the White House. If you’ve followed them as long as I have, you’ll know what I mean.

Jim-Rose on January 29, 2010 at 11:38 PM

I’m fat. My friends are skinny. WTF?…..pass the Cheetos.

Fartnokker on January 30, 2010 at 2:40 AM

Nick Gillespie makes libertarianism look pretty good hot.

FIFY

Michelle Dubois on January 30, 2010 at 5:51 AM

Libertarianism looks OK until they move into the side Ron Paul lives in .Some of these people believe everything goes from all drugs you want to use,legal sex clubs ,porn no limits.Thanks but no thanks i will just stay a plain old conservative .

thmcbb on January 29, 2010 at 7:21 PM

I wonder what they would say about being a neocon? And haven’t you heard about prohibition and what it did to alcohol and what is has done on the so-called war on drugs? People for the most part are forced to buy pot on the black market or even kill for it. This phony war on drugs is a BIG BOON TO BIG PHARMA making people take their drugs and poison their bodies with toxins or even worse cancer! Ever hear of Hemp USA, which sells products that are meant to detoxify the body from lead and other toxins, many of which can be cancerous?

And in terms of porn, this libertarian IS NO FAN OF IT nor would he want ANY strip clubs open. Those who would cry first amendment to defend them…sorry but porn cannot be defended because it would be described as offensive; only political speech is protected.

And in terms of MeMe Roth…SHE IS THE QUEEN OF THE NANNY STATE AND A SPOTLIGHT HOG TO BOOT!!

BobAnthony on January 30, 2010 at 6:46 AM

IMO, for what it’s worth, is that politics, as it’s been practiced for eons, is one side or the other is trying to mandate/force their beliefs on those who vehemently opposed to those beliefs. It’s a never ending power struggle. Human nature is not a one size fits all.

Unless and until people take up the libertarian mantle of “live and let live,” these arguments will never end.

Remember these cautionary words from C. S. Lewis: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. “

SoldiersMom on January 30, 2010 at 7:35 AM

Fat kids is a sorry sorry sight. I thought she made good points. Isn’t identifying potential problems and fixing them before they become real problems a smart thing do to? Risk management? Or do you think the morbidly obese in the country are all going to turn their lives around before their kidneys fail?

tlynch001 on January 30, 2010 at 7:58 AM

It takes a strong dose of Libertarianism in conservatism to keep Republicans, with their own mannerism, from becoming Progressives, engorging BIG government with more bureaucracy than ever, moving leftward in order to satiate the “need” for acceptance as the morally superior, “compassionate” and “adult” bi-partisans (McCain and Bush).

Libertarians are pro-Constitution. Conservatives must ally in order to defeat the Marxist coalition from the Left that still grips us at our throats for all of our income, flesh blood and bone should we fail to defeat this Administration and this Democrat Congress.

So long as you agree upon and within the Constitution, don’t undermine the ally you need, whether you like him or not, when that ally is making a point stronger than you prefer. There are always degrees of concern within E pluribus unum. Everyone has a point to make in the assemblage of conservative momentum.

Our American culture’s heritage of morals are all expressed within our Founding Documents with all historical references from that contemporary (Christian) civilization’s Age of Reason, and correspondences between our Founding Fathers and Honorable Statesmen (coming to embrace freedom of PEACEFUL religious expression, including agnosticism with its radical atheist outgrowth) throughout our history who share our Constitutional ideology now and forward through our day.

When this disrespectful potus formally addresses Congress and the Supreme Court as “you guys” and as villains, there is a breaching rupture in our nation’s culture that must not be dismissed.

maverick muse on January 30, 2010 at 8:10 AM

maverick muse on January 30, 2010 at 8:10 AM

I’ve had just one cup of coffee this morning, but I think that post is super.

petefrt on January 30, 2010 at 8:49 AM

Fat kids is a sorry sorry sight. I thought she made good points. Isn’t identifying potential problems and fixing them before they become real problems a smart thing do to? Risk management? Or do you think the morbidly obese in the country are all going to turn their lives around before their kidneys fail?

tlynch001 on January 30, 2010 at 7:58 AM

Definition of “Moral Busybody”

SoldiersMom on January 30, 2010 at 9:20 AM

Even if Fraulein Diet Nazi was right about obesity being “contagious”, the solutions the government proposes are invariably wrong and based on junk science, so banning foods and weighing children will not only not help, it will make matters worse.

Low fat foods have been pushed for the last decade based on the fallacy that fat makes us fat. The result? People are fatter. Why? Because low fat food (particularly artificially created low fat food) does not satisfy hunger, and does not taste good. By depriving people of fat, they eat more food in general, and crave more sugary foods (and sugar is used to enhance the flavor of the awful tasting low fat crap).
A big pet peeve of mine: The government has made a serious error in pushing low-fat milk (and yogurt) on kids who need fat in their diets. You cannot get whole milk in the schools. It’s almost impossible to find whole milk yogurt anywhere.

Buy Danish on January 30, 2010 at 9:41 AM

Fat kids is a sorry sorry sight. I thought she made good points. Isn’t identifying potential problems and fixing them before they become real problems a smart thing do to? Risk management? Or do you think the morbidly obese in the country are all going to turn their lives around before their kidneys fail?

tlynch001 on January 30, 2010 at 7:58 AM

I survived bulimia and still feel like I “need” to walk long distances every day. I also do half-marathons and endurance stair climbs. My husband is 5.4 and weighs maybe 250 and couldn’t walk a 5k if you waved a frappacino in front of him.
Neither of us wants or needs a government nanny.
‘K

Neither of us wants or needs a

annoyinglittletwerp on January 30, 2010 at 9:50 AM

This young lady has definitely been brainwashed as identified in her mindset that “You are fat and I have the right to fix you.”

People on the left must go back to school and relearn some basic facts of life. Primarily, that left and right are directions, not political viewpoints. The determination of right and left is based on the direction from which an object intersects an imaginary line running from North (top) to South (bottom).

What makes this concept so wonderful and difficult to understand when used to define political philosophy is demonstrated through visualization.

When approaching the imaginary North/South (top/bottom) line from the west side you have to travel in an easterly (right) direction. When passing the imaginary North/South line you continue in an easterly (right) direction. Likewise, when traveling from the easterly side of the North/South line you are on the right side but must travel in a westerly direction (or leftward) to the imaginary North/South line. When crossing that line you continue in a leftward direction.

To reach the determination that everyone has a right to something means they are east of North/South and to maintain that right they must not move in either direction because doing so invokes movement to the left (toward the North/South line, or proceeding in a easterly direction when moving in the opposite direction from their current position which is moving from left to right. Similarly, those who do not believe they have a right to a particular viewpoint must travel in an West to East direction or to the left to reach the North/South line. When crossing that line they will continue moving further left in the rights domain to maintain their belief.

So no matter what direction your political views are once you reach the North/South line you must proceed no further least you change your views altogether. Therefore, upon reaching the North/South line you must be in balance with the rest of the world.

MSGTAS on January 30, 2010 at 10:14 AM

The whole idea that it’s someone else’s business how you raise or feed your kids is just ridiculous. You can care all you want, but it’s still none of your business what someone else’s kid eats or drinks. Tht’s what parents are for.

samurai7 on January 30, 2010 at 10:44 AM

It is because of health nazis we are overweight. They used to use Palm oils like coconut in foods. Then the health nazis went on a “crusade” to take them out. The result? Manufacturers went to soy products instead. The problem is soy doesn’t taste as good as palm oils so they added corn syrup and the like to make up for it.

Soy products slow down your thyroid and corn syrup is simply stored as fat. Where palm oils are good for metabolism soy products are not. We aren’t eat more than we used to, we are eating bad junk thanks to the health nazis.

samurai7 on January 30, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Nick Gillespie makes libertarianism look pretty good

You can say that again. So does Matt Welch.

Mm mm mm…

Rae on January 30, 2010 at 11:46 AM

He was terrific. Down with socialized medicine.

Mojave Mark on January 30, 2010 at 11:54 AM

Fat kids is a sorry sorry sight. I thought she made good points. Isn’t identifying potential problems and fixing them before they become real problems a smart thing do to? Risk management? Or do you think the morbidly obese in the country are all going to turn their lives around before their kidneys fail?

tlynch001 on January 30, 2010 at 7:58 AM

And my kidney failure is your business because….?

Stupid question, I know, as my health is none of your damn business. And your health is none of my damn business. If someone is morbidly obese, it’s their problem, not mine. Unless it’s me that’s morbidly obese.

Are you seeing a theme here? Bugger off, you have no right to take care of me. Stop helping me, I do not want it.

runawayyyy on January 30, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Then what does it mean? Ask three libertarians and you usually get four answers.

How does a libertarian differ from a small government conservative? That difference is usually where they start getting flaky.

sharrukin on January 29, 2010 at 7:14 PM

It means that libertarians agree there are limits, and that’s why we have laws to enforce and address behaviors that do harm to others. See ‘non-coercion principle’.

Libertarians are not anarchists. Libertarians, by their nature, are small-government conservatives. They want government at all levels to be as small as sensibly possible and still maintain civil and social order.

Obviously this means there would be police, fire, legal/court system, and infrastructure (sewer systems, roads, etc.) that makes living in a civilized society possible. But in almost all other matters, government is seen by libertarians as a leviathan; something that has become an impediment to “…the pursuit of Happiness.”

eanax on January 30, 2010 at 12:02 PM

The GOP, the TEA party, Conservatives, Libertarians, no matter, the instant the left can pin the moralizing hypocrite badge on the Right (and I do mean instant) no less than 50% of the potential votes are adios, and for good reason, we have no excuse to meddle in anybodies personal affairs when the Constitution, Conservatism and limited government is our mantra, as it should be.

Speakup on January 29, 2010 at 7:50 PM

This is a salient point.

As a nation, I think we have forgotten the phrase “mind your own business.” We have too many people who want to share their private lives with the public, and too many people who are fascinated in, even transfixed by, knowing about others’ private affairs. It’s available instantly, 24/7/365, via cable, internet and all other channels of communication. It’s all rather disturbing…

eanax on January 30, 2010 at 12:17 PM

Libertarian: The government needs to make laws saying people can live their lives however they want to.

Knott Buyinit on January 29, 2010 at 10:10 PM

Correction -

Libertarian: Governments are instituted among men and derive and loan such power from the consent of the governed. Each individual realizes “…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.”

And this is done because the nature of governments, over the course of human history, is to become tyrannical. Therefore, limits on government are put in place in the form of a Constitution and a Bill of Rights outlining the structure and limitations in which the governed have agreed upon.

eanax on January 30, 2010 at 12:35 PM

Sorry, I made the assumption that you understood what the word “rights” meant, obviously you don’t. I think he was talking about rights in the U.S. government sense, just a guess on my part.
right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 5:46 PM

The first poster claimed that the reason why individuals could not discriminate was because the 14th ammendment guarenteed everyone equal treatment.

I showed how this interpretation was absurd.
I’m sorry that you are so invested in trying to disprove libertarianism that you can no longer even follow basic logic.

MarkTheGreat on January 30, 2010 at 6:49 PM

You lost me, you think that our gov. is just a group of people who call themselves a govt?
I posted about an individual taking away rights and you stated a group?….Mark, are you sipping out of that bottle again?

right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 5:46 PM

You are the one who is declaring that govt has the right to take rights from citizens. Yet you admit that you don’t even know what a govt is.

I was asking at what point a random group of people get the right to declare themselves a govt for the purpose of controlling what people around them are allowed to do.

MarkTheGreat on January 30, 2010 at 6:53 PM

Libertarianism looks OK until they move into the side Ron Paul lives in .Some of these people believe everything goes from all drugs you want to use,legal sex clubs ,porn no limits.Thanks but no thanks i will just stay a plain old conservative .

thmcbb on January 29, 2010 at 7:21 PM

I have no use for Ron Paul and have said so on many occassions.
That said, I wish to point out that there quite a few nuts who call themselves conservative as well.

Is every movement to be judged solely by the behavior of their nuts?

MarkTheGreat on January 30, 2010 at 6:54 PM

FLOTUS has had her kids on diets. Seems they were gaining weight. Since she is going to be starting her “fat kids project”, she had to get her own house in order. PARENTS not the gov are responsible for their children. In the UK, the gov is stepping in taking children from their parents because they are chubby and could get fat. They also have the “garbage police” going around checking how much trash one tosses and what it consists of. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea in the US is just as loony as the Brits. Aren’t overweight children traumatized enough without weighing them in everyday? It’s an abusive intrusion of government into personal space.

elclynn on January 30, 2010 at 7:30 PM

BobAnthony on January 30, 2010 at 6:46 AM

Your use of CAPSLOCK has once again tipped the Dept. of IWD off. They will be on your trail and you won’t even know it.

daesleeper on January 31, 2010 at 1:33 AM

A suggestion to MeMe: I suggest you need to talk to a psychologist. I believe the motivation for your “cause” in life, stems from your childhood embarrassment of your grandmother’s weight problem leading to her need of a “handicap parking permit”. You obviously judge a person’s merits by how they look.
I wouldn’t care if my grandma weighed 300 #’s if I could have her back again!
Keep your misguided agenda out of our lives. Take care of you and yours any way you like, leave the rest of us alone!

hopefloats on January 31, 2010 at 9:22 AM

That was pretty good, though I’ll stay Conservative, slighlty leaning libertarian. His response to get rid of socialized medicine hit her pretty good. heh

Interesting, I thought the Me Me in her name was Ed pulling a joke. This woman is nuts.

aikidoka on January 31, 2010 at 11:21 AM

Oops, forgot to finish the link

linky

aikidoka on January 31, 2010 at 11:21 AM

It’s understandable that only prissy men can be with liberal women. It all makes sense now.

daesleeper on January 31, 2010 at 11:40 AM

Did you notice how testy Meme got when Nick suggested what she should be doing instead of what she’s doing? “Thank you for the career plan…” She’s perfectly fine telling other people how to raise their kids, but can’t take a single sentence suggesting how she ought to behave. Typical, self-indulgent, narcissistic, arrogant control freak… just like all statists.

philwynk on January 31, 2010 at 6:02 PM

Your use of CAPSLOCK has once again tipped the Dept. of IWD off. They will be on your trail and you won’t even know it.

daesleeper on January 31, 2010 at 1:33 AM

The hell with this IWD and tyranny!

BobAnthony on January 31, 2010 at 10:49 PM

He owned that Nazi. The left will use their allies in government to try to dictate how people live their lives under the guise that everyone else pays for it. It’s Orwellian and he dispelled that argument quite well by turning it to reforming the massive entitlements that are crushing us to death. This guy rocks!

ntmaloney on January 31, 2010 at 11:20 PM

Hey, I’ll argue with MeMe anytime.

I would lose and have to be consoled.

If I have to stuff down a few bigmacs to catch her attention, so be it.

notagool on January 29, 2010 at 9:01 PM

Agreed.

ntmaloney on January 31, 2010 at 11:23 PM

The left will use their allies in government to try to dictate how people live their lives under the guise that everyone else pays for it.

ntmaloney on January 31, 2010 at 11:20 PM

Way too many people who claim to be conservative fall for this type of nanny stating as well.

MarkTheGreat on February 1, 2010 at 9:22 AM

Fat kids is a sorry sorry sight. I thought she made good points. Isn’t identifying potential problems and fixing them before they become real problems a smart thing do to? Risk management? Or do you think the morbidly obese in the country are all going to turn their lives around before their kidneys fail?

tlynch001 on January 30, 2010 at 7:58 AM

Many people are a sorry sight. Are all of them govt problems.
Identifying a problem is one thing. Proposing govt solutions is something else entirely.

MarkTheGreat on February 1, 2010 at 9:24 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4