For those who might be confused about libertarianism

[Liberty1911]

This is exceptionally silly.

The libertarian ideal does not preclude morals or a vocal opposition to things that one might disagree with. I'm starting to question your understanding of libertarianism.

Really, some of the comments here by professing Libertarians seems to indicate their disapproval of anyone who doesn't support "homosexual rights". The comment I was responding to is an example. In another thread, I was called a "bigot".

So, it would seem that Libertarians are not really vaules neutral as they claim to be. They seem to have a set of values, just like the rest of us.

If you haven't seen that in these thread debates, then you simply aren't paying attention.

Instead of criticizing me for suggesting that landlords shouldn't have to rent to homosexuals, you should be congratulating me for upholding libertarian principles.

 

[steveh_131]

No. But I also don't support letting them smoke that plant if I have to be responsible in any way for the outcome of that action.

Let's boil this down to really what it is.

You want to control everyone until we have rid ourselves of the nanny state, then allow us a little bit of liberty.

Most libertarians want to increase our liberties while working at ridding ourselves of the nanny state.

Your point kind of makes sense to me, on a completely theoretical level. I don't believe that it makes sense in any practical sense, however. There is overwhelming evidence that prohibition of things like plants does not, in fact, cause people to behave more responsibly. As a matter of fact, I can't think of any government prohibitions that cause people to behave more responsibly. And because I reject that premise, which you have done little to support, I must reject the rest of your argument.

 

[hornadylnl]

Your statement seems to indicate you think landlords who don't wish to rent to homosexual couples are being unreasonable.

Judging other people's exercise of freedom doesn't seem to be keeping with libertarian sentiment.

I notice that a lot with "libertarians" though. They have their own set of "moral values" that they are just as eager to shove down the throats of others as they accuse others of doing to them.

So, I'll give you a chance to reestablish your libertarian principles.

Do you support government forcing landlords to rent to those they don't wish to rent to?

Nope. Just like I don't support government forcing employers to allow guns on their property. Are gun owners against property rights?

 

[steveh_131]

So, it would seem that Libertarians are not really vaules neutral as they claim to be. They seem to have a set of values, just like the rest of us.

If you haven't seen that in these thread debates, then you simply aren't paying attention.

Nobody ever said that libertarians do not have a set of values. This is not a libertarian principle. We are not 'values neutral', and have never claimed to be.

Instead of criticizing me for suggesting that landlords shouldn't have to rent to homosexuals, you should be congratulating me for upholding libertarian principles.

Please, quote a libertarian who thinks that landlords should be forced to rent to homosexuals. This would be contrary to libertarian ideals, and I'd join you in calling them out on it. Calling a landlord a bigot for refusing to rent to homosexuals is not contrary to libertarian ideals, and if you think it is, then....well, you're wrong.

 

[hornadylnl]

You voted for a Republican? Wow, I'm speechless. It sounds like you did the same thing you ridicule me for - supporting Tea Party candidates in the Republican party.

No, I ridicule you for holding a standard of voting for a candidate not having the last name Obama. Was Romney a tea partier and I wasn't aware?

 

[Liberty1911]

Let's boil this down to really what it is.

You want to control everyone until we have rid ourselves of the nanny state, then allow us a little bit of liberty.

Most libertarians want to increase our liberties while working at ridding ourselves of the nanny state.

Your point kind of makes sense to me, on a completely theoretical level. I don't believe that it makes sense in any practical sense, however. There is overwhelming evidence that prohibition of things like plants does not, in fact, cause people to behave more responsibly. As a matter of fact, I can't think of any government prohibitions that cause people to behave more responsibly. And because I reject that premise, which you have done little to support, I must reject the rest of your argument.

There are plenty of people who obey laws simply because the law exists. Remove the prohibition of "x" and you will have more people doing "x".

I realize you disagree, but here's the problem - you're asking me to trust you on that. If it doesn't work out and we now have a 20% increase of dope heads receiving government services, your answer will be "oh well, sorry about that". It's not like you're going to reimburse the responsible taxpayers for their increased burden. Again - that is my freedom without responsibility argument.

And by the way, it's not about controlling people (for my part anyway). I would support the immediate repeal of all Federal drug laws because I don't think they have a Constitutional basis. Individual states should decide, as it should be with most things.

On that basis though, I wouldn't have a problem with individual states prohibiting it. Some states would and some wouldn't. Dope heads could move to the states that allow it.

 

[Liberty1911]

Nope. Just like I don't support government forcing employers to allow guns on their property. Are gun owners against property rights?

Some are.

 

[Liberty1911]

No, I ridicule you for holding a standard of voting for a candidate not having the last name Obama. Was Romney a tea partier and I wasn't aware?

That doesn't seem very libertarian of you.

My reasons for voting are just a valid as yours.

 

[lucky4034]

I love how you keep ignoring my question...

HOW? How does legalization of drugs equate to disability and how does legalizing homosexual marriage introduce a new "protected class"?

Those are bold statements considering you are proposing that libertarians are trying to suppress one group of people by giving freedom to another group.

If that is the basis of your argument... the LEAST you can do is discuss it with a little detail.

 

[Liberty1911]

I love how you keep ignoring my question...

Because it's already been answered. You just aren't paying attention.

 

[lucky4034]

There are plenty of people who obey laws simply because the law exists. Remove the prohibition of "x" and you will have more people doing "x".

I realize you disagree, but here's the problem - you're asking me to trust you on that. If it doesn't work out and we now have a 20% increase of dope heads receiving government services, your answer will be "oh well, sorry about that". It's not like you're going to reimburse the responsible taxpayers for their increased burden. Again - that is my freedom without responsibility argument.

And by the way, it's not about controlling people (for my part anyway). I would support the immediate repeal of all Federal drug laws because I don't think they have a Constitutional basis. Individual states should decide, as it should be with most things.

On that basis though, I wouldn't have a problem with individual states prohibiting it. Some states would and some wouldn't. Dope heads could move to the states that allow it.

Even if 20% more people become dope addicts.... how does that equate to disability?

And the trade off of decriminalizing drugs would more than pay for a 50% increase in disabled dope smokers....

So what if there is the possibility of give and take? If someone said... "I will give you a $100 bill, but only if you give me a $5 bill... would it make good economical sense to you?

The price of the "War on drugs" is ASTRONOMICAL!!!

You want to talk about "suppressing others" ... the war on drugs is so TAXING to the American Public... by YOUR OWN LOGIC... you should be BEGGING politicians to legalize drugs. The problem is that you have a value system that doesn't coincide with logic and therefore is preventing you from thinking clearly.

You want to talk about personal responsibility and then complain that legalization MIGHT possibly increase the number of people who CHOOSE to do drugs. Those ideas can't co-exist... can they?

 

[hornadylnl]

That doesn't seem very libertarian of you.

My reasons for voting are just a valid as yours.

What is it when refuse to vote for a libertarian because of principle but vote for another candidate because he's not someone else? It would seem to me that you require no principles of those you vote for.

 

[lucky4034]

Because it's already been answered. You just aren't paying attention.

Yes it has and it reads like this...

"I don't have an answer"


Way to skip out on answering the question YET AGAIN

 

[Liberty1911]

What is it when refuse to vote for a libertarian because of principle but vote for another candidate because he's not someone else? It would seem to me that you require no principles of those you vote for.

Well, two points. One of which I've already made.

1. I have problems with the Libertarian Part platform on principle, which I don't have with the Republican Party platform.

2. My "principle" this election was to defeat Obama. A valid principle, whether you agree or not. I chose the candidate who I though had the best chance to do that.

No candidate will ever line up 100% with my beliefs, and neither will anyone with yours. We all vote for the best choice we can, even you. So your faux cry about "principles" is invalid unless you're telling me you found someone who you agree with 100%.

I haven't found anyone like that yet.

 

[Liberty1911]

Yes it has and it reads like this...

"I don't have an answer"

Way to skip out on answering the question YET AGAIN

LOL. I can't read the thread for you, or make you understand what you're reading.

 

[lucky4034]

LOL. I can't read the thread for you, or make you understand what you're reading.

No... but you sure can dance around answering the question. Pretty soon i'm going to assume you have a mysterious blood clot and a husband who like cigars.

 

[Liberty1911]

Even if 20% more people become dope addicts.... how does that equate to disability?

And the trade off of decriminalizing drugs would more than pay for a 50% increase in disabled dope smokers....

So what if there is the possibility of give and take? If someone said... "I will give you a $100 bill, but only if you give me a $5 bill... would it make good economical sense to you?

The price of the "War on drugs" is ASTRONOMICAL!!!

You want to talk about "suppressing others" ... the war on drugs is so TAXING to the American Public... by YOUR OWN LOGIC... you should be BEGGING politicians to legalize drugs. The problem is that you have a value system that doesn't coincide with logic and therefore is preventing you from thinking clearly.

You want to talk about personal responsibility and then complain that legalization MIGHT possibly increase the number of people who CHOOSE to do drugs. Those ideas can't co-exist... can they?

Great. I'm on board with this plan. Please point me to the party platform and/or legislation that will guarantee a reduction in police expenditures, and the money saved will be used exclusively to pay for increased social problems related to drug use, AND no new burdens will be placed on existing taxpayers.

Wait. That doesn't exist. So I guess then we'll get your personal financial guarantee that no responsible taxpayer will have an increased burden, and if so, that you will personally reimburse them, since you're asking us to trust you on this.

 

[Liberty1911]

No... but you sure can dance around answering the question. Pretty soon i'm going to assume you have a mysterious blood clot and a husband who like cigars.

Seriously, it's been answered. I don't know why you're having such a comprehension problem and this will be my last comment on it to you.

 

[poptab]

LOL. I can't read the thread for you, or make you understand what you're reading.

The whole point of the op is that libertarians can have different value systems. I can be a pro choice or pro life libertarian. Libertarians can be judgemental. Only if you want to use the state as a club against your fellow man are you then not following libertarian principle.

Your point is something to take into consideration. The cost of supporting dope heads on welfare would have to be wieghed against the cost of throwing them all in jail. Do you see how that might not swing in your favor?

 

[steveh_131]

There are plenty of people who obey laws simply because the law exists. Remove the prohibition of "x" and you will have more people doing "x".

Please provide some evidence that people will behave more irresponsibly with drugs if they are legalized.

That doesn't seem very libertarian of you.

I'm starting to understand now. This statement illustrates that you really and truly don't have the slightest idea what libertarian ideals are about. I'm growing tired of explaining it to you.