Libertarian or what ?

[Texas1911]

Like tobacco, or bourbon?

I didn't know bourbon was addictive?

My problem with it is that the companies knowingly used the substances for their addictive properties and the ingredient was never labeled on the bottle to allow the consumer the chance to avoid the substance. If you label the bottle 100% heroin and 50 people go out and down the thing and die, then well ... they are just stupid people. If you smoke 50 packs a day and die at the age of 34 of lung cancer, then that's your damn fault.

 

[Libertarian_Longhorn]

I didn't know bourbon was addictive?

 

[Texas42]

lib I'm not truly convinced we need a prescription for drugs from a pharmacy.

We do need prescriptions.

We need doctors AND pharmasicsts. I know quite a bit about pharmacology. If I was ever on any serious medications, I'd get a second doctor's opinion AND a pharmasists to check up on it.

The stuff is very complicated, and people make mistakes.

 

[Roscoe]

I think on the local, and to some degree state level a third party could be competetive. At this time I don't see any third party candidate winning a national election. Maybe if things continue to go down the crapper it could happen in the next decade or so. I think there are many conservative republicans who want to do the right thing. When they get their faces pushed into the feed trough on capital hill, they quickly forget what they believe.

 

[eriadoc]

I am a libertarian (little "L"). In my estimation, libertarians are what conservatives are supposed to be. They place a high value on liberty, which is the thing I value most. Republicans, on the other hand, have become contaminated with progressives. There is a sect of the Republican party that wants to coerce you to behave a certain way beyond what is necessary for society to function, in much the same way that liberals do. The issues are different, but the paradigm is the same: government say-so is a must.

I may disagree with a great many things that my fellow citizens say or do, but I agree with their right to say and do those things within the framework of not harming others. Gays can be gay, atheists can be atheists, smokers can smoke, people can drive around without seat belts, bikers can ride around without a brain bucket, etc., etc., etc. And the police do not ever increasingly become Gestapo-like. Obviously, I'm never represented in elections in this country.

 

[eriadoc]

My problem with it is that the companies knowingly used the substances for their addictive properties and the ingredient was never labeled on the bottle to allow the consumer the chance to avoid the substance. If you label the bottle 100% heroin and 50 people go out and down the thing and die, then well ... they are just stupid people. If you smoke 50 packs a day and die at the age of 34 of lung cancer, then that's your damn fault.

That pretty well falls under the classic "Harm Principle" which was/is the hallmark of libertarian philosophy. Do what you want as long as you harm no one, to oversimplify it. Libertarianism does not in any way excuse irresponsible companies from such wrongdoing.

 

[DCortez]

I am a libertarian (little "L"). In my estimation, libertarians are what conservatives are supposed to be. They place a high value on liberty, which is the thing I value most.

That's what my impression was of them. TBH, I've never taken a hard look at them.

 

[eriadoc]

That's what my impression was of them. TBH, I've never taken a hard look at them.

I was having a similar discussion with a friend of mine, and I ran across this page and sent it to him. From the page:

Just like the definition of liberal, the definition of conservative can be divided into 6 key principles:

1. Belief in natural law
2. Belief in established institutions
3. Preference for liberty over equality
4. Suspicion of power—and of human nature
5. Belief in exceptionalism
6. Belief in the individual

The problem within the conservative base is the misapplication of belief structure and the valuation of one tenet over another to a faulty degree. For instance, I personally buy into every one of these bullet points. However, I personally value liberty more than I value the belief in natural law. That's not to say I don't value both, but liberty trumps religion for me in all instances where politics are involved. That way, in my personal life, I have the liberty to value God over anything else.

What I mean when I say misapplication is that the "religious right" or "social conservatives" (both misnomers) obviously value natural law (which encompasses religious persuasion). Where they fail as true conservatives, however, is in their belief that they are required to coerce others into believing those same things, to the same degree, and with the same conclusion, through politics and/or legislation. By attempting to dictate the behavior of others, they are abridging points 3, 4, 5, and 6. They are infringing upon people's liberty to decide for themselves how to live their lives, they are suspicious of human power, except when it comes to their own, their belief in exceptionalism only holds true when it's their narrowly defined version, and they do not believe in the individual; they believe individuals need to be told how to act.

The "social conservative" sect is what's poisoning the true conservative ideals, IMNSHO. They're really just social progressives.

Also, "libertarian" should not be a separate sect, IMO. From the page:

[15] The preference for liberty over equality is the most difficult part of the definition of conservative for most people to understand, particularly since liberty and equality are almost used as synonyms in our times. Put simply, all societies face a fundamental choice between emphasizing freedom or emphasizing equality.

[16] The unfortunate reality is that we can either be equal or free, but we cannot be both. Though both the right and left wings claim to promote both freedom and equality, the right is most concerned with freedom and the left most concerned with equality. In the words of Barry Goldwater, "the Conservative's first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom?"

The liberals very plainly want to push equality at the expense of freedom. Some of us true conservatives (libertarians to some of you) prefer establishing the freedom to make yourself equal to whomever you wish. Of course, that also means you have the freedom to starve. It's up to you what you do with that freedom.

JMO and YMMV.

 

[ChrisV]

I have been an Libertarian for many years and agree with a lot of what Longhorn said. I did not join the Libertarian party just because they speak my language but because they listen and come up with ideals that I think would work better and with less government. Read some of our ideals on the website and see if its for you.

 

[Texas1911]

That pretty well falls under the classic "Harm Principle" which was/is the hallmark of libertarian philosophy. Do what you want as long as you harm no one, to oversimplify it. Libertarianism does not in any way excuse irresponsible companies from such wrongdoing.

Pretty much how I see it.

 

[Big country]

I guess I'm with Dcortez in the sense that I'm an "independent conservative". I'm for the candidate (not the party) that is defending the constitution at the time. My views are pretty straight forward, if the US constitution says it then that is what needs to happen. One more thing while I'm in politics mode this morning. There needs to be a term limit of two terms on any form of government position whether it's the 3rd chairman on a city council or the president of the United States.

 

[MAPS1350]

So, if I'm reading this right, it would be OK for me to do herione, as long as I wasn't hurting anyone else? So, I could drive, up until the moment I hit someone else. I could use up until the moment I stole something from someone else to support my habbit.

My mother is on RX. (I know...I"m sorta late in this thread). Should she have the abilty to get whatever she wants? WEll, having to rely on doctor's to give her what she wants, she's still an addict. Right now, she's not hurting anyone, and things are a bit more under control....but she had to hit rock bottom, and lay off a bit, but DH and I are starting to see signs she's getting back in deep again. IN the middle of us trying to have our babies, DH working hard to succeed in work, she was doing uppers and downers that are much stronger than any street drug. She stopped working, ate through her 401K, ate through some of our money (asking constantly to "contribute" to her bills so she could live without working), sold her house, make LOTS of money off of it and promptly ate thorugh that in 6 months. She lived with some friends, then in a motel, and then finally got a job and got her act togteher. What would've happened if she wasn't regulated in how much she could have taken? (Ie, she was only allowed a certain amount of MG/month....but if she didn't need RX, it would've been a different story.)

But of course, you'll say she's the exception, not the rule. How about how many mothers would have taken ritalin if they could've gotten it easily? How many took it by using their sons natural hyperactvity to get an RX from the DR that the mothers used as speed? So how many more, and I hate to say it, but me included, would've at least tried it.....the meth of the stay at home mom?

And people die from pot all the time...it's called lung cancer...it's just usually written up as cigarette smoke caused because pot is illegal.

So, yeah, I guess if no one got hurt, that's a great idea. But people DO get hurt. Just my opinion with my limited experience in my small circle.

Liberatarians seem to me to be socailly liberal and conservative the other ways. I"m conservative conservative. I don't think we've had many good politicians in eithe rparty......but I still believe what I believe.

April

 

[M. Sage]

Shall we start talking about all the people killed in the war on drugs? Should we start talking about all the Constitutional rights kicked to the curb in the name of that war? How about the way it's done nothing but empower both the criminals selling the crap and the ones in Washington, and made both groups rich beyond their wildest dreams?

I know that no controls might not be the answer, but what we have now certainly isn't.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

So, if I'm reading this right, it would be OK for me to do herione, as long as I wasn't hurting anyone else? So, I could drive, up until the moment I hit someone else. I could use up until the moment I stole something from someone else to support my habbit.

My mother is on RX. (I know...I"m sorta late in this thread). Should she have the abilty to get whatever she wants? WEll, having to rely on doctor's to give her what she wants, she's still an addict. Right now, she's not hurting anyone, and things are a bit more under control....but she had to hit rock bottom, and lay off a bit, but DH and I are starting to see signs she's getting back in deep again. IN the middle of us trying to have our babies, DH working hard to succeed in work, she was doing uppers and downers that are much stronger than any street drug. She stopped working, ate through her 401K, ate through some of our money (asking constantly to "contribute" to her bills so she could live without working), sold her house, make LOTS of money off of it and promptly ate thorugh that in 6 months. She lived with some friends, then in a motel, and then finally got a job and got her act togteher. What would've happened if she wasn't regulated in how much she could have taken? (Ie, she was only allowed a certain amount of MG/month....but if she didn't need RX, it would've been a different story.)

But of course, you'll say she's the exception, not the rule. How about how many mothers would have taken ritalin if they could've gotten it easily? How many took it by using their sons natural hyperactvity to get an RX from the DR that the mothers used as speed? So how many more, and I hate to say it, but me included, would've at least tried it.....the meth of the stay at home mom?

And people die from pot all the time...it's called lung cancer...it's just usually written up as cigarette smoke caused because pot is illegal.

So, yeah, I guess if no one got hurt, that's a great idea. But people DO get hurt. Just my opinion with my limited experience in my small circle.

Liberatarians seem to me to be socailly liberal and conservative the other ways. I"m conservative conservative. I don't think we've had many good politicians in eithe rparty......but I still believe what I believe.

April

You can't legislate common sense and morality. Drugs and addiction are a tough thing, but it's just like with guns or anything else that is regulated, restricted, etc. If someone wants it bad enough, they are going to get it regardless. There are always black markets out there for all that sort of stuff. If someone wants to screw up their life, that should be their own problem as far as I'm concerned, but as soon as it starts affecting other people physically, financially, etc then that's when the law should step in and put a stop to it.

 

[eriadoc]

So, if I'm reading this right, it would be OK for me to do herione, as long as I wasn't hurting anyone else? So, I could drive, up until the moment I hit someone else. I could use up until the moment I stole something from someone else to support my habbit.

On the first point, no, because driving under the influence is risking other people's life, whether or not the result comes to pass. On the second point, yes. It's a victimless crime. If you want to lock yourself away in your room and shoot up, you should be free to do so. It's stupid, but you should have the freedom to be stupid. Hell, we subsidize stupidity in this country. Hell, we elect it.

As for the rest of your story, the litigation laws in this country obfuscate the issue a lot, but at the heart of the ideal (which is unrealistic), yes your Mother should be able to judge what is best for her life. If you as an adult child are "harmed" by that, it's no different from my father depriving me of his company after smoking cigarettes for 30 years and dying of lung cancer at age 50. Adults should be free to choose their life's path to whatever extent is reasonably possible - even if their loved ones don't like it.

Liberatarians seem to me to be socailly liberal and conservative the other ways. I"m conservative conservative. I don't think we've had many good politicians in eithe rparty......but I still believe what I believe.

What are you conserving? True conservatives value liberty above all else, and that is precisely what you are arguing against. It's very easy to find reasons to abrogate liberty, either on an individual or collective scale. It's a lot harder to stand up for liberty, especially when you don't agree with the resultant actions. I hate smoking, but I disagree vehemently with any laws that seek to ban smoking, for example. Republicans today, and many "conservatives" are setting out to do precisely what progressives have done for centuries - seek to make others change the way they behave just to suit their agenda. And it's happened because the progressives that used to be Dems flipped parties once Reagan became President (some before, but that was the tipping point). So now they label themselves "social conservatives", but their agenda is very much on the same track it was when they labeled themselves Democrats.

 

[Gutshot]

All I can say is look back when Perot ran. It split the Republican vote we were stuck another 4 years with a liberal Democrat. Do you guys want 8 years under the Big O or what? With the current tide of events the people will be wanting a conservative candidate. 2010 is not the year to try and get a third party in for president. Hopfully we will get new and conservative members in both houses of Congress as well as a new conservative president in 2012.

 

[eriadoc]

All I can say is look back when Perot ran. It split the Republican vote we were stuck another 4 years with a liberal Democrat. Do you guys want 8 years under the Big O or what? With the current tide of events the people will be wanting a conservative candidate. 2010 is not the year to try and get a third party in for president. Hopfully we will get new and conservative members in both houses of Congress as well as a new conservative president in 2012.

As I posted in another thread, change starts locally, and there's nothing more local than YOU.

Good luck getting a conservative candidate, by the way.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

All I can say is look back when Perot ran. It split the Republican vote we were stuck another 4 years with a liberal Democrat. Do you guys want 8 years under the Big O or what? With the current tide of events the people will be wanting a conservative candidate. 2010 is not the year to try and get a third party in for president. Hopfully we will get new and conservative members in both houses of Congress as well as a new conservative president in 2012.

I guarantee failure in 2012 if the GOP continues along the same path. Seriously, Palin and McCain are the best the Conservative party has to offer? If I was in a battleground state, I may consider a lesser of two evils, but in Texas, a vote for either Lib or Rep is a waste. As far as the house, local and senate goes, unless I really feel someone is doing their job, I'll vote against the incumbent everytime. Besides, both parties have the same stench at this moment. "When one hand is at your throat, and the other is at your wallet, who cares if it's the right or the left?"

 

[Texas1911]

All I can say is look back when Perot ran. It split the Republican vote we were stuck another 4 years with a liberal Democrat. Do you guys want 8 years under the Big O or what? With the current tide of events the people will be wanting a conservative candidate. 2010 is not the year to try and get a third party in for president. Hopfully we will get new and conservative members in both houses of Congress as well as a new conservative president in 2012.

Eventually you have to vote in change. You have to hand the Republican party a loss and make them work to gain your vote. That's what they are doing now, and that's what happened in Congress in the original Red Revolution.

More and more people are demanding conservatism out of Washington, what do you think the politicians are going to run on in 2010? It certainly isn't going to be socialized medicine.

 

[FreedomJoyAdventure]

Libertarian, yep. I swore to uphold & defend the Constitution. Ron Paul has been my congressional hero since around 1985. I was his delegate to the State convention last year. I wrote him in on the presidential ballot, I couldn't see that McCain was going to be that much better than Obama.