Libertarians seem to be conservative when it comes to economic matters, and more liberal when it comes to social issues. That John Stossel guy is always pushing to legalize marijuana and other drugs. I simply cannot support that stance.

Like Charlie Munger says is the interview, "a system of wise restraints" on the economy and on financial markets is necessary.
We in the Tea Party should be encouraging those who can produce that system of restraints and put it into place, not  running around sounding the equation of freedom with unrestrained financial activity.
People making a lot of money have used that money to lobby Congress
to take the reins off.  Nowhere was this plainer than in the real estate business.
Two other nagging areas are balance of trade and export of jobs.
Needless to say, federal over spending sets a bad example.
We should be able to find people who understand the situation and can come up with the right rules.  It is a joke when Barack Obama talks about financial matters. I feel like stuffing a rag in his mouth. The Federal Reserve is just as bad. They are a bunch of social engineers, not bankers. Bankers, when they are ethical, do not encourage their customers to go bankrupt. If the shoe fits...

Quote from: ConservativeGirl on April 02, 2014, 10:10:11 AM
In a 1975 interview with Reason magazine, Ronald Reagan said, "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." Do you agree with President Reagan or not?

Yes, and he was more libertarian by far than any president in my lifetime.  I always enjoyed how he got the socons to love him while he did nothing for them.  Conservative was his values, but he didn't try to have government run morality.  Which is what's wrong with the socons.

Quote from: Kaz on April 06, 2014, 08:23:06 AM
Yes, and he was more libertarian by far than any president in my lifetime.  I always enjoyed how he got the socons to love him while he did nothing for them.  Conservative was his values, but he didn't try to have government run morality.  Which is what's wrong with the socons.

Absolutely agree. We shoot ourselves in the foot repeatedly fighting the social issue tar baby.

Quote from: Solar on April 05, 2014, 04:14:19 PM
Still, you fail to grasp the point. would you agree that raising your own food on your own property is a right so to speak?
But what if you have a small parcel in the city, and the stench is disrupting the tranquility of the area, is it still your right?

The point is, when you are in the confines of a close community, you follow the etiquette/morality of society.
However, if you are out in a rural area, it is completely acceptable.
I think you fail to see that society sets laws to keep harmony, regardless of your desires.

What you fail to understand is that society cannot create ANY law it wants, willy nilly, and maintain a rule of law society based on individual liberty.

There are limits to the KINDS of laws allowable under a rule of law regime.

The only laws in a free society are the kind that protect life and property.

Quote from: AndyJackson on April 05, 2014, 05:16:56 PM
Luckily, the imposition of individual, personal values has been avoided by the "no state religion" clause.

The belief that there can be no community values of any sort is just as silly as the basic story of Marxism.

We're reaping the rewards of the liberal / progressive efforts to get rid of community values, in the inner city lawlessness, the 75-90% illegitimacy and illiteracy of certain communities, the abortion holocaust, and so on.  Or communism and socialism and other despots, that always eschews all values other than the glory and brute force of the state.

It's easy to trivialize it all as "getting high" and other silliness.  A little harder to explain the other, real results of deadly, horrific evil people.

No one said anything about getting rid of these values. The point is they cannot be enshrined in law without making a mockery of equality before the law.

For when one group can dictate to another what the law is, outside of considerations of justice, then we have inequality before the law.

Quote from: red_dirt on April 05, 2014, 04:54:09 PM
Many interesting thoughts. I don't see anyone taking issue with
the idea that Libertarianism has as much to do with smoking dope
as with those things we traditionally associate with liberty or freedom.
Take that out of the equation and you might as well be Tea Party.
One of the comments i found interesting:I think that context is where most people get off the Libertarian bus, and, where a lot of people get on. The timeless comment is that liberty and license are not the same.

That is definitely where the debate is.

Though, it is not much of a debate. A cursory reading of Bastiat's "The Law" is more than enough to understand the nature of law in a free society, and the nature of law in an un-free society.

Bastiat makes the argument in the economic realm, as it concerns tariffs, licenses, subsidies and so on. But the same framework applies to all forms of law, in all realms.

I encourage all to read this timeless classic.

Quote from: TowardLiberty on April 06, 2014, 09:05:36 AM
No one said anything about getting rid of these values. The point is they cannot be enshrined in law without making a mockery of equality before the law.

For when one group can dictate to another what the law is, outside of considerations of justice, then we have inequality before the law.

By the constitution, by the law, there's only one group.....Americans.  Not some ever-cleaving, Balkanized mishmash of communes that have their own boutique laws and values, never to be put upon by the people 5 minutes in either direction.

You just keep writing treatises and theses and dissertations for us, but sheer poundage won't make a silly notion magically become logical.  Anymore than juche and maoism and hoism and 100 other weird variations can make communism make sense.

If you really want to get constitutional, then there's 50 x "one group", one for each state.

Which is really the answer to your problem.  If we really operationalized the American constitution, there would undoubtedly be states with no laws, just for you lol.  And some that are highly values driven, and some in the middle.  And a few federal laws to keep them from forcing themselves on their neighbors.

Quote from: AndyJackson on April 06, 2014, 11:08:07 AM
By the constitution, by the law, there's only one group.....Americans.  Not some ever-cleaving, Balkanized mishmash of communes that have their own boutique laws and values, never to be put upon by the people 5 minutes in either direction.

Great- now do you think such a constitution ought to be bound by a recognition that there is such a thing as the rule of law?

Quote

You just keep writing treatises and theses and dissertations for us, but sheer poundage won't make a silly notion magically become logical.  Anymore than juche and maoism and hoism and 100 other weird variations can make communism make sense.

The rule of law is a silly notion?

Do tell!!

Quote

If you really want to get constitutional, then there's 50 x "one group", one for each state.

Which is really the answer to your problem.  If we really operationalized the American constitution, there would undoubtedly be states with no laws, just for you lol.  And some that are highly values driven, and some in the middle.  And a few federal laws to keep them from forcing themselves on their neighbors.

You sound confused.

No one said anything about not having law. We are speaking about the rule of law vs the rule of men.

So I would suggest you have yet to enter the debate!

In case you need help, I was saying that you are silly, not the rule of law.

You're the one who's railing against the concept of overarching laws or standards or values.

How did you get from that to "haha you don't believe in rule of law". ?  That's just childish, buddy.

No matter how much 'smarter than though' you spew forth, no one will  think of you as anything but a silly 15-25 year old.  Regardless of your age.

Anarchy has never worked anywhere except for a few random communes or aborigines lol.  Typically it only gets you Somalia or Yemen.  Even the aborigines have some values lol.

Quote from: AndyJackson on April 06, 2014, 11:26:45 AM
In case you need help, I was saying that you are silly, not the rule of law.

So you are engaging in ad hominem attack.

No one cares about your impression of me. This is a debate. We discuss ideas. Not our feelings about other posters..

Quote

You're the one who's railing against the concept of overarching laws or standards or values.

Yeah, and how they violate the RULE OF LAW.

Have you even read my posts?!

Quote

How did you get from that to "haha you don't believe in rule of law". ?  That's just childish, buddy.

I am just going off your response to my words...

The inference is obvious.

How was I to know you were engaging in one giant ad hominem attack? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt!

Quote

No matter how much 'smarter than though' you spew forth, no one will  think of you as anything but a silly 15-25 year old.  Regardless of your age.

I would prefer a response rooted in substance. I am not looking to engage in an insult war. By the way, it is "smarter than thou."

Quote
Anarchy has never worked anywhere except for a few random communes or aborigines lol.  Typically it only gets you Somalia or Yemen.  Even the aborigines have some values lol.

Anarchy?

Are you in the right thread?

Is it Andy's M.O. to engage in straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks, or is this something personal with me particularly?

Just curious.

Quote from: AndyJackson on April 06, 2014, 11:26:45 AM

No matter how much 'smarter than though' you spew forth, no one will  think of you as anything but a silly 15-25 year old.  Regardless of your age.

If my arguments are so silly then you should have no problem forming a cogent response.

So far you have failed to escape logical fallacy.

I will ad hominem all I care to.  It's all that one can offer to the childish annoyers, most times.

You are playing the classic " brilliant momma's boy who is the only one who understands", to the hilt.

Just like the annoying progressives.  Thus, it 's what you deserve, and the only thing that will even slow down your babble.

Quote from: AndyJackson on April 06, 2014, 11:40:01 AM
I will ad hominem all I care to.  It's all that one can offer to the childish annoyers, most times.

You are playing the classic " brilliant momma's boy who is the only one who understands", to the hilt.

Just like the annoying progressives.  Thus, it 's what you deserve, and the only thing that will even slow down your babble.

BS.

I am simply making an argument.

You are the one making it personal.

So far you have yet to contribute a single thing to this debate, other than hot air.