Author Topic: RAND PAUL for 2016??  (Read 8117 times)

Offline TowardLiberty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 827
  • Gender: Male
Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
« Reply #135 on: December 07, 2012, 09:54:56 AM »
So to confirm, you're for legalizing all drugs, regardless of the damage they do, correct?

Yes.
Quote

What part of public street, do you not get?

Why would I favor public ownership of streets? As long as we are doing away with drug laws, and laws against victimless crimes, lets also do away with public property.

Quote
No, you use a partial truth to make your case, when in truth, it was society that wanted control over the issue.

Society wanted nothing for society is a group of people. Society does not act, value, think or plan.

Individuals do.

Quote
Wrong again, murder is a moral issue, as well as many other moral issues, and drugs have proven to be the cause of many immoral actions.
But lets not go back in circles again, that is an extremely weak open ended  argument.

Yes, murder is a moral issue. But it is also a violation of property rights. All violations of property rights are moral issues.

The drug war, and the laws that put people in cages when they have not harmed anyone are immoral.

The problem arises when one attempts to enforce their brand of morality on others, when the acts in question do not amount to property rights violations.

So I may find prostitution or gambling to be morally wrong, but providing these acts are undertaken by consenting adults, the law can say nothing about it without becoming arbitrary to my preferences.

When private property rights violations are the standard the law cannot become arbitrary.
« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 09:59:01 AM by TowardLiberty »
Only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts. Ludwig von Mises

Offline kramarat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5192
  • Gender: Male
Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
« Reply #136 on: December 07, 2012, 10:03:16 AM »
I wouldnt say it is pointless. Obviously something is gained by it or we wouldnt engage in these acts.

Check out anarcho-capitalism for a more specific explanation of what I am proposing.

Everyone has some skills. They can cook or clean, answer phones or work a fryer.

There are a huge number of jobs people with little skills can do to provide for themselves.

How about pet sitting?

Working in a legal pot farm?

I agree that people that can, should be working. But I think an overnight withdrawal of the government freebies would lead to mayhem.

What I think is naive, is to think that millions of people that have, (in many cases), only experienced public assistance, many for multiple generations, are going to suddenly stand up and say, " Oh wow, no more free money, house, food, healthcare. I'll go get a minimum wage job and buy all of those things myself."

Clinton's welfare to work bill was working, and could have incrementally been drawn down to shorter and shorter periods of public assistance, and eventually bringing it to a minimum. Obama has destroyed any chance of that happening in the near future.

Humans are very adaptable. There is also a learning curve involved. Take a person that has never left the city, (rich or poor), and dump them in the wilderness, and they will be dead within a few days.

It took the government decades to create these legions of people with no will whatsoever. Undoing it won't happen in a week.

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62856
  • Gender: Male
Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
« Reply #137 on: December 07, 2012, 10:35:39 AM »
#WWG1WGA

Offline Yawn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3262
Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
« Reply #138 on: December 07, 2012, 01:08:18 PM »
Then I see no reason to continue.

This is why so many Conservatives are turned off by this brand of "libertarianism," although I consider the Founders true Libertarians.  This label was taken over by the OWS types and it is really anti-libertarian, just as the true "liberals" were the Founders who rejected the oppressive State.  Today's, "liberal" loves a powerful State at the expense of the Individual.

The Founders were heavily into ECONOMIC liberty but were a moral people. They warned that our nation wouldn't survive without it. Today's pretend libertarian never talks about economic freedom just what they call "social" issues--really the foundational MORAL issues are what they resent.

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 62856
  • Gender: Male
Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
« Reply #139 on: December 07, 2012, 01:30:53 PM »
This is why so many Conservatives are turned off by this brand of "libertarianism," although I consider the Founders true Libertarians.  This label was taken over by the OWS types and it is really anti-libertarian, just as the true "liberals" were the Founders who rejected the oppressive State.  Today's, "liberal" loves a powerful State at the expense of the Individual.

The Founders were heavily into ECONOMIC liberty but were a moral people. They warned that our nation wouldn't survive without it. Today's pretend libertarian never talks about economic freedom just what they call "social" issues--really the foundational MORAL issues are what they resent.
In the Founders day, someone using drugs was seen as a sinner, and were usually left to their own demise.
In fact society back then knew the dangers and steered clear for two reasons, one you would probably go to Hell and secondly, they knew there was no one to bail them out, they would be on their own.
Not to mention the fact that most people were struggling to develop a better life for their offspring.

Shame played a huge part as well, something lost on today's generation.
#WWG1WGA

Online walkstall

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24762
  • Gender: Male
  • WYSIWYG
Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
« Reply #140 on: December 07, 2012, 02:11:38 PM »
In the Founders day, someone using drugs was seen as a sinner, and were usually left to their own demise.
In fact society back then knew the dangers and steered clear for two reasons, one you would probably go to Hell and secondly, they knew there was no one to bail them out, they would be on their own.
Not to mention the fact that most people were struggling to develop a better life for their offspring.

Shame played a huge part as well, something lost on today's generation.

The only "shame" in this day and age is getting found out.  Then it is sweep under the rug.
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession.  I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first.  ~ Ronald Reagan ~

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

Offline TowardLiberty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 827
  • Gender: Male
Re: RAND PAUL for 2016??
« Reply #141 on: December 07, 2012, 02:41:48 PM »
Today's pretend libertarian never talks about economic freedom just what they call "social" issues--really the foundational MORAL issues are what they resent.

You must have been talking to some really idiotic libertarians if they cant speak rationally on economic freedom, property rights and morality- and they should be able to relate them to each other in a coherent manner.
Only the individual thinks. Only the individual reasons. Only the individual acts. Ludwig von Mises

 

Powered by EzPortal