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.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
In our brave new world, the only rights that exist are those the majority want you to have.
MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 3:17 PM
Because we are a nation of laws…what you consider unfair, may be fair to others…libertarians don’t have solutions.
Their answer is…it isn’t the gov. job.
Yet it is, to enforce the laws…and we elect people to represent us.
right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 3:18 PM
So is that why there’s no longer a right to exclude people from lunch counters because of their skin color.
Dark-Star on January 29, 2010 at 3:19 PM
Plenty do. That’s why I put rarely.
Girls have their own drama with or without the boys.
And school isn’t the only place kids meet each other. This doesn’t eliminate the possibility for flirting or hooking up.
No, it’s really not, at all unless you think no one has sex at all girls schools or all boys schools.
And they’ll continue to do that until they can be convinced that abstaining is the best thing for them. Some kids are smart enough to see that instant gratification is rarely worth the trade off, but some just can’t.
But that’s not something you can force on anyone unless you plan on watching these kids 24/7.
Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 3:19 PM
Define pollution. Smoke is natural – nature makes it all the time.
That’s littering. Smoke is residue – so don’t exhale on people. Beyond that, it’s up to the property owner.
With consequences for inebriated/intoxicated/high actions to others, why not?
Look at the history of drugs and drug laws.
To use public roads, yes. If not, no. Plenty of farm kids were driving underage and without a license, but not on roads.
No.
Heh.
It’s an indication of nationality. Provided you have a nation of laws under the constitution, identifying citizenship is important. You’re confusing libertarian with utopian anarchist.
Again.
Setting standards for measures is in the Constitution. Again – L vs A.
126.
The property owner owns the property.
That is the purpose of the court system, yes. But the point of rules and regulations often becomes the focus of those who simply wish to rule and regulate as a means to their own power and influence. That’s the counterpoint.
Exit question: How did we survive before the law was 57 feet worth of books?
CPL 310 on January 29, 2010 at 3:20 PM
http://www.entnet.org/HealthInformation/Second-Hand-Smoke-and-Children.cfm
http://www.cdc.gov/features/childrenandsmoke/
http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/
http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,5431,00.html
http://www.ehjournal.net/content/9/1/5
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
Why do you insist on propagating lies?
I think Jefferson would, if those acts were to be proven harmful to others. The quote from Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address which I placed in a comment above should suffice to make that point.
unclesmrgol on January 29, 2010 at 3:20 PM
When I read a post that starts out with “the problem with libertarians is” I’m never surprised when it’s followed by a bunch of generalizations about what libertarians stand for, as if they’re one homogeneous group.
Sharke on January 29, 2010 at 3:21 PM
Because we are a nation of laws…do you want to get rid of all the laws pertaining to land ownership?
Do you want to get rid of baselines and meridians, or metes and bounds?
Of course you don’t, there are laws that are important, that do control what you do with your live and rights.
right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 3:21 PM
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
google “secondhand smoke children adults” for more:
Why do you insist on propagating lies?
I think Jefferson would, if those acts were to be proven harmful to others. The quote from Jefferson’s First Inaugural Address which I placed in a comment above should suffice to make that point.
unclesmrgol on January 29, 2010 at 3:21 PM
Governments have more power than I do because I am only one person and government is huge. The concept of rights on the other hand balancing things out because they guide the system to produce and enforce laws that protect individuals. The colonist gave their lives to create a system based on those rights. One of the rights was for the government to have only the powers granted to them. But states actually have very broad constitutional powers, and yes making me doing things I don’t like is well within their power. Conversely, I have to right to convince my fellow citizens to vote for laws I do like. The requirement for a majority and the fact that people are not as different from one another as they like to believe means that system allows most people to be happy most of the time.
You just have to deal with the fact that most people are comfortable with that and so that is the way it is going to be unless libertarians sharpen up their arguments considerably.
pedestrian on January 29, 2010 at 3:22 PM
That’s why the Oval Office has blinds on its windows.
Electrongod on January 29, 2010 at 3:23 PM
Yep, that’s what I mean by ‘privatize’. Though it is probably worthwhile to have federal standards, even if get back to state an local funding, just so the education is transferable across state lines in a portable way.
Maybe even have grades of diplomas.
Count to 10 on January 29, 2010 at 3:23 PM
Yup
dedalus on January 29, 2010 at 3:24 PM
That’s because the libertarians can’t agree on what they believe…they say “no gov.” but embrace gov to protect their rights.
Do you want to give up all laws? No, you pick and choose, but are they the same ones as other libertarians? No…
So add up all the laws that libertarians want to remove, and you end up with none.
I gave specific examples…which of those do you want removed?
Birth certificates, social security numbers, metes and bounds?
right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 3:24 PM
Let me be sure you understand…I gave specific examples, yet you generalized about my post…interesting how you tried to twist that.
right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 3:26 PM
No. Neither of these affect me. He’s even welcome to put artfully painted pink nude sculptures outside his mansion if he wishes.
But if they smoke, all bets are off.
unclesmrgol on January 29, 2010 at 3:28 PM
I think “Libertarian” is now a word with no solid meaning. It means too many different things to too many different people.
Count to 10 on January 29, 2010 at 3:29 PM
They embrace LIBERTY.
Since the government has the monopoly on force, government is the chosen avenue to get rights respected. Falling back on force of arms is a functional, but arguably not the most prudent course in a civilized society.
Constitutional Libertarians in general want some kind of return to founding principles, minus the onerous restrictions of government regulation that have followed in the last 200some years.
C’mon…
Let me help you with your next post:
;)
CPL 310 on January 29, 2010 at 3:30 PM
Welcome to the Wonderful World of Zoning Laws.
Do I really want your skyscraper obscuring my sunlight? Do I really want your toxic dump upstream from my cattle? Since I don’t, you can’t build it. So there!
unclesmrgol on January 29, 2010 at 3:31 PM
Interesting. It might even serve to make some diplomas worthwhile for more than just a McDonald’s job.
Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 3:31 PM
The what of the what?
AsianGirlInTights on January 29, 2010 at 3:31 PM
That was generally economically dumb and socially reprehensible on the part of the restaurant owners, but they should have had the right to do it.
Count to 10 on January 29, 2010 at 3:32 PM
Heh.
unclesmrgol on January 29, 2010 at 3:33 PM
Just to set you correct (I am no fan of smoking, but you must be accurate).
The cancer stats on smoking is hugely false.
What they have done is combine stats.
If you are overweight, have had a beer, and smoked, while talking on a cell phone, and were killed in an auto accident, you are listed like this.
You officially died of:
Obesity
DUI
Smoking
Killed while talking on a cell phone
That’s right you have died 4 times.
An MIT professor showed where more people “die” each year then actually die.
If you are 98 years old, have diabetes, and at one time diagnosed as an alcoholic, and smoked…you died of smoking, diabetes, and alcoholism…that 98 year old didn’t die of old age, he died three times from three different “diseases”.
That is how cancer and smoking and second hand smoking is counted.
right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 3:33 PM
Maybe Nick can change that. Many just think of Ron Paul and leave it at that, but I wouldn’t even call the majority of his supporters libertarians.
Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 3:33 PM
Frankly, I think we should start vocational schooling in high school, not just have it be college prep. College isn’t for everyone, and over used as it is.
Count to 10 on January 29, 2010 at 3:34 PM
Only if the government first takes away the public thoroughfare upon which they rely upon as a public inn to draw business.
unclesmrgol on January 29, 2010 at 3:34 PM
He might have more luck retaking “Classic Liberal”. Nobody is really using it at this point.
Count to 10 on January 29, 2010 at 3:36 PM
The federal government gets to restrict the use of locally owned and maintained infrastructure based on being displease with who they are willing to do business with?
Count to 10 on January 29, 2010 at 3:38 PM
Yet, you did not answer my question…which law do you want repealed.
The laws pertaining to land ownership, birth certificates, social security numbers?
Since you like to put words into people mouths allow me to return the favor.
Get it? Speak for yourself, and let me speak for myself…I gave you specifics, you posted a lie…
right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 3:39 PM
But, all the more argument to privatizing the infrastructure where possible.
Count to 10 on January 29, 2010 at 3:39 PM
Ah! So glad we agree! 8-)
That’s what I’m thinking – to have the ‘how’ left up to We the People, just so long as we can turn out educated young minds.
Yep…kinda like “socialist”.
Dark-Star on January 29, 2010 at 3:40 PM
Which is why the UN has a right to dictate the amount of greenhouse gases to the world. Because it’s common property, it is the province of all to be able to regulate it.
Trace particulate matter that you encounter if you go to a bar or nightclub or coffee house isn’t going to be enough to give you cancer. If you inhabit smoke-heavy locations, you’re the one making the decision. If you work there, you could take it up with the owner as an OSHA hazard – and even so, that’s kinda tough. A deep sea diver can’t complain because there are sharks, even if we could kill them all to make his life easier.
Sunlight is a carcinogen. Oh noes!
That’s a question of liberty of the individual. The property owner can’t exclude people from lunch counters because his decision is based not on behavior or actions. There’s a difference between someone who’s a smoker (a choice) and someone who’s X color (not a choice). Doesn’t hold up.
CPL 310 on January 29, 2010 at 3:44 PM
Then you are a religious bigot. The bible is a very important historical school text.
Anti-Religious people want to ban all tradition and history that has to do with religion.
PrezHussein on January 29, 2010 at 3:46 PM
Probably true, but to a lesser extent, I think. What is the difference between socialism and communism, anyway?
Count to 10 on January 29, 2010 at 3:46 PM
I’d almost agree with this, but I don’t think all high schoolers are able to make that decision that early. I’d prefer a more blended approach that gradually steers more towards either higher education or vocational studies throughout high school.
Not everyone will go to college, but I don’t think it’s as obvious who will and won’t at least a year or two into college.
Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 3:46 PM
Prove it. Show me a scientific study stating that. Even better, show me full google pages of scientific studies showing that, as my stated search above gives in opposition to your view.
My son as a kid used to suffer horrible asthma attacks in the presence of cigarette smoke. My wife’s father tried (but failed) to give up smoking because some of these happened in his house.
I have, according to biopsy, smoke damaged lungs, although I’ve never been a smoker. I vicariously smoked my mother’s cigarettes during the 17 years I lived in her 3-4 pack a day house. All second hand smoke, and all damaging to my lungs.
The above are anecdotal, but certainly in line with the cancer.gov website. Unfortunately, I linked several medical studies showing transport of a few of the 40+ known nasties in secondhand smoke, but I linked so many that the whole post went into the HotAir dustbin. Do the search, and a ton of medical studies pop up.
You can claim there’s no fire, but there’s sure a lot of smoke…
unclesmrgol on January 29, 2010 at 3:47 PM
There were numerous replies to my Marijuana statement, so let me simply state this: If 1, I repeat 1 single person in the entire country died because some pot head drove to Taco Bell it would not be worth it.
I would meet you in the middle if we legalized Pot, but a federally mandated deathpenalty for anyone driving under the influence of pot or alcohol. If you disagree with that limit, then would you like to be the person who personally travels to the victims (or familiess of)of every single person who is harmed by DUI and tell poor kids that yeah, their dad is dead, but the world is better off because you can get high?
I realize that alcohol is every bit as dangerous as pot, the difference is it is already legal.
jeffn21 on January 29, 2010 at 3:48 PM
With some great quotable references that us atheists miss out on.
I’d probably teach some of it to my kids the way you would teach them Greek mythology, but it would probably be a mess if the public schools did it.
Count to 10 on January 29, 2010 at 3:49 PM
So we can again begin discriminating in accommodation by race.
Do we really want to go there?
unclesmrgol on January 29, 2010 at 3:49 PM
I’d rather get away from liberal and conservative. That’s the only real appeal of a third party.
Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 3:49 PM
The federal government has only the powers granted to it by the people. By passing the 14th ammendment we granted the federal government the power to enforce equal protection under the law. Insofar as businesses are an artifact of the law, yes they do have to power to require businesses to treat people equally.
pedestrian on January 29, 2010 at 3:50 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
And if we have enough laws, human nature can be perfected and everyone will get their own personal unicorn.
MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 3:51 PM
We’re mostly discussing laws that pertain to property rights concerning property owners to allow or disallow smoking on their own land.
Wow. You can’t take a joke, can you?
See this thingy here
;)
It’s called an emoticon, or a smiley.
It’s winking at you – see ;)
It indicates a joke. I’m making fun of the fact that your examples are well beyond the pale of the discussion at hand – that is, smoking and property rights.
CPL 310 on January 29, 2010 at 3:52 PM
So is the Koran, even more so these days.
Personally, I believe we should teach kids about all religions and the different forms of nonbelief. Then let them decide on their own.
I think it would do more to keep them from repeating past mistakes than teaching history.
Esthier on January 29, 2010 at 3:52 PM
You are aware that it was laws that required businesses to exclude by skin color.
The reason such laws were necessary was because businesses were doing something that the majority didn’t like.
MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 3:53 PM
Ah, no. First, private businesses are not ‘artifacts of the law’, and second, those businesses did not violate anyone’s rights when they refuse serous.
Count to 10 on January 29, 2010 at 3:54 PM
You are way to emotional, notice I said I am no fan of smoking, by wife suffers terribly from the slightest bit of smoke.
I stated what I stated, it is fact, that is how the bureau of stats obtain their information.
If someone is overweight and dies of a heart attack, what did they die of? They don’t differentiate, so they list both, overweight and heart failure. If they smoke, they put down smoking.
I don’t make up the rules for reporting, the gov. does.
But if you think that the Cancer society doesn’t “skew” their stats, then no amount of linking will convince you other wise…much as I don’t link any stats about global warming to global warming believers.
If you “believe” in something, like you do, no one will convince you differently.
So now answer the question…does the man die of obesity, or of smoking? How would you report it.
A man severely overweight, who was a smoker died…
right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 3:55 PM
I may lose but I’m voting “no” on this in California.
I lost over $50K to my son’s pot habit — a whole year of college and zero units complete, and a rather substantial lawyer’s bill and bail for him.
In other comments to other posts, I’ve indicated the five years of hell his pot-smoking habit gave us before the crescendo.
If I could wave the conductor’s wand and make every cannabis bush in the universe disappear forever, I’d do it in a second.
unclesmrgol on January 29, 2010 at 3:55 PM
There’s a big difference between a property owner – like a bar or restaurant – and smoking in those locations – than continuous exposure in one’s own house.
In bars or restaurants, it’s obnoxious for patrons, but non-lethal (again, if you work in the environment, that can be a different story).
CPL 310 on January 29, 2010 at 3:56 PM
I always thought it was the liberals who wanted to use govt to control what other people did.
MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 3:56 PM
Of course, any law requiring businesses to refuse service based on race is just as much a violation of the business owners’ rights as one requiring them not to.
Count to 10 on January 29, 2010 at 3:56 PM
We should teach the Rigveda too by that reasoning
DarkCurrent on January 29, 2010 at 3:58 PM
Well then…answer the question.
As a “libertarian” do you remove laws pertaining to metes and bounds, social security numbers, or notice of birth certificates, drivers license?
All required by the gov., but not in the constitution…
This has nothing to do with perfection, but with rights…
right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 3:58 PM
Only since the socialists started calling themselves liberals.
Count to 10 on January 29, 2010 at 3:58 PM
I have my mother’s death certificate, which states that emphysema was the secondary cause, and pneumonia the primary. Nowhere in it is a reference to smoking, which was the reason she had emphysema.
Proof by example, but that’s all that’s needed.
unclesmrgol on January 29, 2010 at 3:59 PM
I have been wading through the Swamp of No Logic in this topic for far too long. This comment alone is a perfect example:
You, sir or madam, have absolutely NO understanding of rights, or logic. When it is a pet peeve issue of yours the other person has no rights. When it is not something that bothers you, they do have rights. If you cannot see the stupidity of that I feel sorry for you.
Please take some time to educate yourself on rights, liberty, property, and responsibility. Some books/courses on logic and thinking logically would be helpful.
Rights CANNOT be taken away by the whim of another in a Constitutional Republic.
A persons right to smoke, no matter how much you dislike it, cannot be taken away at your whim. If the majority of the people of a single State wish to outlaw smoking, that is within the power of the State (provided the state in question has such rules/laws allowing it in the States constitution/structure).
But choosing to have the State get involved in this matter is a bad idea as others may want to outlaw something YOU enjoy, and as long as a majority agree to it will become illegal.
Regardless of what each State does or does not do on this subject it is NOT a matter that the Federal Government has any business dealing with. Individual choices are that, and the results of those choices should be only the individuals responsibility to deal with.
Voidseeker on January 29, 2010 at 3:59 PM
Keep going after him!
CPL 310 on January 29, 2010 at 3:59 PM
She’s a hottie, but I don’t think I could handle the talk afterwards. Sheesh.
J.J. Sefton on January 29, 2010 at 4:00 PM
I will agree, though, that government has a responsibility to restrict access to psycho active substances.
Count to 10 on January 29, 2010 at 4:01 PM
*STANDS AND APPLAUDS*
DarkCurrent on January 29, 2010 at 4:02 PM
Did you flunk comprehension…he is stating that the Gov. should not be involved in governing us…but when pressed what laws are not needed, like most libertarians, he will ignore the challenges.
If he doesn’t want the gov. to be involved, except by the laws enumerated by the constitution, then things like drivers license, land descriptions, etc. he would want removed.
You should really read the posts, and understand the thread before commenting….really.
Maybe this will help you as to what I am responding to.
Yet the gov. controls the method as to ownership of land…now do you get it?….I didn’t think so, sit down and let the adults argue.
right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 4:07 PM
Yep…DinnerJacket things his version of Sharia is “Liberty”, Obama thinks what he’s doing is “Liberty” and on and on.
Thomas Jefferson naively thought that French Revolution was the same as ours, that was fought under the guise of “Liberty”.
Man often confuses his want for Autonomy as “Liberty”. Not always the case.
The big question is: Where does true Liberty come from?
jp on January 29, 2010 at 4:10 PM
For the record, the Founding Fathers overall beleived in Ordered Liberty in a Fallen world, which is basically the root of Conservatism not “Libertarianism”. They also placed a high value on Prudence.
the idea that they were secular is one of the more amazing lies the Left has been able to get away with telling, given the history.
jp on January 29, 2010 at 4:12 PM
Yesterday I had a giant serving of french fries.
I’m 5’2″, 105lbs and have a training run of 22 miles this weekend (I’m training for my first 50 mile race).
French fries do not make you fat. Eating more calories than you burn makes you fat. I can eat 3000 calories worth of apples each day and I will gain weight. No one would suggest banning apples. I don’t see why french fries get treated any differently simply because they’re more popular.
JadeNYU on January 29, 2010 at 4:17 PM
You can’t conduct commerce without a business license or some other permit that grants you an exception. You can’t get the courts to enforce your contracts unless your business is legally defined.
People have a natural right to be treated equally. The 14th amendment gives the federal government the power to enforce that right.
pedestrian on January 29, 2010 at 4:18 PM
The best and briefest summary of socialism/communism/capitalism I’ve found yet:
“Socialism, as envisioned by Marx and Engels was, ideally, a where everyone would share the benefits of industrialization. Workers would do better than in the English system at the time (The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848) because there were more workers than bosses and the majority would rule. As a purely economic system, socialism is a lousy way to run a large scale economy. Socialism is not a political system, it’s a way of distributing goods and services. At their ideal implementation, socialism and laissez faire capitalism will be identical as everyone will produce exactly what’s needed for exactly who needs it. In practice, both work sometimes in microeconomic conditions but fail miserably when applied to national and international economies. And they fail for the same reason: Human pervserity. Too many people don’t like to play fair, and both systems only work when everyone follow the same rules.”
Credit:
http://www.romm.org/soc_com.html
(emphasis mine)
Dark-Star on January 29, 2010 at 4:22 PM
Communist is the malignant tumor form of socialism. It endeavors to undermine the system in other countries in order to spread, using whatever means are necessary.
pedestrian on January 29, 2010 at 4:25 PM
And in case somebody gets the wrong idea from the previous post, that is NOT to endorse Communism as a superior system. Marx’s system has the most basic economic underpinnings correct and nothing else.
Communism makes no provision whatsoever for the human nature when individuals are put in positions of ultimate power. It can never achieve its original goal – that being a classless society. Any such top-down, involuntary system is totally doomed to being highly unfair.
Dark-Star on January 29, 2010 at 4:26 PM
All of this is just how a person is able to own such an abstract object as private property. It does not make them an arm of the government.
They have the right to be treated equally by the law. Not by other citizens. The 14th amendment is a restriction on government, not a power granted to it.
Count to 10 on January 29, 2010 at 4:26 PM
I’m not sure how that distinguishes communism from socialism.
Count to 10 on January 29, 2010 at 4:29 PM
That was only part of the article for space reasons. Although it does tell the difference, that paragraph alone is subtle about it and doesn’t mention why Communism (the system that actually got tried) failed.
I’ll try to sum it up in more obvious ways:
What Marx wanted: a different flavor of “by the people and for the people”.
What happened as it was tried in Russia and elsewhere: hopeless corruption of the system because the participants (namely the elite) refused to play by the rules, a problem that was only magnified on a nationwide scale.
There are two things not mentioned – the element of human nature (“absolute power corrupts absolutely”) and the little fact that socialist revolutions tend to involve taking power at the point of a gun, making the rule-breaking trend even worse.
Dark-Star on January 29, 2010 at 4:38 PM
“nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
That means if one person has the right to go into a store and conduct business, then other people do also. And Section 5 gives the federal government the power to make sure that happens.
While a business is private property, you can’t run a business unless you operate according the laws that apply to businesses. And the 14th amendment means you can’t treat people unequally.
pedestrian on January 29, 2010 at 4:41 PM
As a traditional conservative (closer to libertarian than Republican since the Cheney/Bush takeover), the top priority has to be to end the occupations overseas and second is to stop the Federal Reserve. Third would be to prevent Obamacare/Romneycare messes from either Republicans or Democrats. Fourth would be to restore the 10th amendment, and fifth is end the War on Drugs. That’s a more conservative platform than almost anything in politics today.
The Dean on January 29, 2010 at 4:55 PM
I notice that the “libertarians” are so against government intrusion, but when challenged what intrusions they would like to do away with, they become vague.
There are many laws where the gov. has stepped into decide personal liberties that libertarians would never get rid of. They want to pick and choose what gov. laws are necassary, no different then most anyone else.
They just mouth the words, but they don’t really mean it…now when you try to pin down what laws they want to get rid of.
Privatize schools? Most conservatives would go for that, less government restrictions on taxes, or business licenses, most conservatives would go along with that as smaller government.
Where we actually split is when the “libertarians” start talking about no drug laws, which is basically a liberal ideal…and a way not to own up to being responsible “if it feels good do it”, and has nothing to do with “freedom”.
They don’t want gov. to support the arts, not any different from most conservatives.
Like I said, libertarians like to throw around words…but they really don’t want anything much different from conservatives, when they are pinned down.
right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 5:01 PM
As any scientist will tell you, in low enough quantities, toxic substances are no longer toxic.
MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:04 PM
A gang has more power than I do, because there are many of them, and there is only one of me.
I for one do not want to live in a world where might makes right.
MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:06 PM
Every single libertarian says “no gov”?
Do you enjoy making yourself look stupid?
MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:07 PM
The Founding Fathers grew hemp. The idea that the prohibitionist stance is conservative is just false. Drug laws first came up in the late 1800s, which was an expansionist government period.
“If it feels good, do it” is just dishonest. I don’t think anyone should use marijuana, but the point is that it is immoral for the government to lock up people for their own choice that only affects their own body.
The Dean on January 29, 2010 at 5:07 PM
You gave no specific examples, just inaccurate generalizations.
MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:08 PM
The government has far more rights than any citizen. The current standard is they can sweep you up, and either jail you indefinitely or torture you without trial. If we did the same thing to Congress or the Federal Reserve board of governors (which I’m not advocating), it would be a crime!
The Dean on January 29, 2010 at 5:15 PM
And in the world of those who claim the govt has the authority to do whatever the majority wants, both sets of laws are equally justifiable.
MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:15 PM
Do you take classes in how to look dumb?
1) The govt has more power, not more rights.
2) The govt only people the govt has the power to incarcerate indefinitely are legal and illegal enemy combatants. The same power govt has had in every other war.
3) The govt isn’t torturing anyone.
MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:17 PM
right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 3:58 PM
There you go with your patented, anyone who wants to get rid of any laws must want to get rid of all laws nonsense again.
MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:18 PM
I don’t know how much more specific one could get then citing social security numbers, birth certificates, or gov. requirements for metes and bounds, or later I stated drivers licenses…I even defined the metes and bounds with baseline and meridians…how much detail do you need? I really can’t sit here and define every word you don’t understand, but tell me what word you need more specifics on and I will explain. Baseline? Drivers license? Birth certificates? Social security numbers?
I was pointing out that various libertarians proclaim they don’t want gov. interference, yet in most cases the gov. does govern for the betterment of society…even in these specific examples that are not constitutional.
right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 5:18 PM
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
unclesmrgol on January 29, 2010 at 5:19 PM
1) Why?
2) Explain the fact that until 1950 or so, there were no restrictions on said substances, and the world failed to end.
MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:20 PM
Do you like lying, or did you just flunk reading comprehension. I said no such thing.
MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:21 PM
From whence did govt get the right to make it’s citizens beg for the right to do business?
MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:22 PM
I am afraid that the libertarians throw out they don’t want gov. interference, yet time after time, as shown by your post that you do want them involved.
It is just, like most everyone else, you want to pick where they get involved and where they don’t.
But a true libertarian, wants them only involved with what is enumerated in the constitution.
You want what most conservatives want, government intervention when it makes sense…now who’s sense?
You made my point…faux libertarian just like the label, but not what is actually attached to the label.
right2bright on January 29, 2010 at 5:22 PM
communism is the goal
socialism is the means
MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:23 PM
You’re right about power vs. rights, but the fact remains that government can declare anyone an enemy combatant and whether or not they are torturing now, they have in the past and the legal groundwork was created by cronies that they could do it again.
The Dean on January 29, 2010 at 5:23 PM
You are way to generous, marx had basic human nature wrong, as a result, everything he proposed was wrong. Marx got nothing right, except perhaps his own name.
MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:25 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
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
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
You really need to work on your reading comprehension. The part you quote states that this is a limitation on govt, not individuals.
MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:27 PM
As always, vague generalities substituting for critical thinking.
All libertarians say that they don’t want any govt restrictions? As usual, you substitute your personal fantasies for reality. Every libertarian I know favors govt actions in the case of personal harm and fraud.
Therefore your founding case is based on a falsehood as is all the conclusions drawn from it.
As this is like the 20th time your error has been pointed out, yet you insist on coming back to it, I must assume that you have ulterior motive that has nothing to do with the truth or with reality.
MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:31 PM
unclesmrgol on January 29, 2010 at 5:19 PM
Yea we know. In your world there is no such thing as rights, just temporary permission from govt.
MarkTheGreat on January 29, 2010 at 5:32 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »