"…We are entering the Third Stage of Liberalism – freedom from responsibility…"
I gotta hand it to him, he keeps on trying. Not sure he succeeded – certainly not with me – he decided to go almost full frontal Libertarian, problem is, I’m not a Libertarian. While I wrote a reaction already, let me switch to fisking mode here:
Skip, bad decisions that harm no one but oneself should not land someone in jail. Why should (example) cocaine or heroin be illegal when you can get a legal prescription for oxycotton?
Let’s try the fact that we are back to the Rule of Law no longer applies here? This is often why Libertarians just don’t get elected to anything – it is just too far outside the norm for most that this question just gets the rolled eye looks.
Why should we be putting pot users in jail for something that grows freely in the wild? Nor should I have to foot the bill for it either. This is a conservative pro-liberty group right?
You don’t want to pay for the jail time for dope smokers? Simple – instead of merely pouting – do the hard work and change the law. Simple.
As a libertarian, I don’t believe in democracy. This country was founded as a Constitutionally-limited Republic and people were recognized as having inalienable rights – that which they don’t have to ask permission of the state to exercise. A democracy is 50% plus 1 voting to deny said rights to those in the minority. I referred the 9th Amendment to you and you must have totally overlooked it. One’s right to privacy, drug use or any other harmless, voluntary act is covered there by default.
While I will admit that there are a lot of freedoms that have been curtailed, he just destroys his own argument by invoking Godwin’s Law with the start of his following paragraph. There is just so much with this paragraph that is just plain awful:
Regarding this being a nation of laws: Nazi Germany was a nation of laws so was it ok to…
…do what they were doing to certain people because the law said so? The American south had laws condoning treating certain people like 2nd class citizens: Was it ok because the law enshrined it? Was it right for Rosa Parks to be civilly disobedient in the trek to stand up for her rights or should she have just did what the masters of the day said to do? Laws don’t make right since they were instituted by a majority of voters at the time. What if a law was made to ban the practice of worshiping Jesus Christ in violation of the 1sy Amendment? Would you just lay over and do what you’re told cause the codeword of law was used to prohibit you from doing so? What if the 2nd Amendment was repealed arbitrarily? Would you then cease to possess weapons? So, "the law is the law doesn’t" resinate [sic] with me. Natural law allows for one rule – do no harm to others.
Next, I’m not going to comment on how you would throw your sons under the bus for a law that was is violation of the Constitution.
Regarding knowing the laws, there are more laws on the books than you can shake a stick at. Plus, I can tell you that every cop does not know every law. Though, I do obey all of your laws sir.
So, it’s childish to do drugs huh? Really? It’s actually an adult thing practiced by millions daily. Anything that distorts one’s mind is effectively a functioning drug.. What does alcohol do to someone? Again, here we are back to the concept of legal vs. illegal. Laws are arbitrary, and bad laws deserve to be broken. Many of the Founding Fathers grew and smoked marijuana and opium, I guess they suck now in your book. But, as for the drug war which imprisons hundreds of thousands per year, I can’t support the laws that put my friends and family in jail. Nor am I liberal enough to accept paying for it. These same people get out of jail and are royally screwed and now they go on the welfare rolls which I’m forced to pay for. So in essence, I favor the individual’s right to choose over the state’s power to oppress.
The problem is that many actions that "harm no one but themselves" DO have costs that impact citizens as the Liberals have dictated, under the rubric of compassion, that government should pay for that compassion. Like all true Libs, they have tried to redefine compassion from being individual based to being government based. What they dismiss is that the former is purely voluntary; the latter is coerced via taxes – I have no freedom to choose.
You and I are in agreement with your description of democracy vs a Republic. The Right To Privacy in the 9th, as you state, as been trumped by our elected representatives, urged on / blackmailed by special interest groups, by making sure that we all pay for someone’s poor choices via the welfare state. I’ll stand with you to unwind that unconstitutional behemoth, one law at a time.
Not all laws are just – OUR standard for laws is supposed to be the Constitution – which if Obama gets more Libs as Supremes, watch out.
I get rather annoyed when someone brings up slavery – at a tremendous cost, this nation corrected that wrong and has continued to do so. No, I do not agree with affirmative action nor reparations – I simply want all to be equal before the Law (and stop being hyphenated Americans to boot!). Rosa Parks took an action (as she had been a long term activist and NOT just the tired working woman that has past into mythology) that she knew would land her in hot water – her adult decision. The laws were then Judged by Judges and changed by Legislators – as they should be (and should have been earlier).
>> What if a law was made to ban the practice of worshiping Jesus Christ
I would willfully disobey that law – not only from a religious basis but also from a Constitutional basis. That said, AND MAKE NO MISTAKE! I would be breaking the law! I realize that from a legal standpoint and a societal basis, I would be making a poor judgment as it could land me in jail. That said, I would do so – but doing so just because I believe my cause is just is NOT an automatic "get out of jail card".
Ditto for breaking ANY law. Always keep in mind that the following is supposed to be true:
- Jurors must judge the person / behavior by the law
- Judges judge the law.
- Legislators create the law.
That means that we do not get to ignore the law just because we dislike the law – that is mere anarchy.
BTW, I agree with you that we have way too many laws – many that no longer apply should be removed. Many are generated by politicians showing that they deserve to be re-elected because they are doing something (and which often take our freedom away) – generally bad laws. I would support a politician who ran on the platform that would be willing to remove such.
My "childish" and "immature" comment was meant in the case that adults breaking the laws who felt they should be given a free pass just because "I don’t like those laws". If one cannot control their urges and wants in such a way that makes them break the law, I have no pity for them. I expect adults to act as such, and when they don’t, they will be punished.
>> These same people get out of jail and are royally screwed and now they go on the welfare rolls which I’m forced to pay for.
Think this over: job-wise, they are screwed….but it was their decision to do that which has been judged to be wrong by society. Society has arbitrarily decided to lessen the cost of that bad decision by allowing them and their family to live on the public dole.
Take that dole away - thus vastly raising the cost of making bad decisions. It is my contentions that welfare state is too big of a cushion – deflate it and many people would make better decisions as there would be no fallback except for friends and family….
…who would hold them MUCH more accountable for their actions than society as a whole.
We are entering the Third Stage of Liberalism – freedom from responsibility. The welfare state is the financial instrument that is making this possible. And redefining the sense of what freedom really is.