Comments on: Libertarianism’s Libertine Underbelly — A Risk for America in the Current Populist Surge http://www.redstate.com/scotton/2010/02/12/libertarianisms-libertine-underbelly-a-risk-for-america-in-the-current-populist-surge/ Just another RedState: Where the VRWC Conspires Online weblog Sat, 29 May 2010 00:25:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Leopard1996 http://www.redstate.com/scotton/2010/02/12/libertarianisms-libertine-underbelly-a-risk-for-america-in-the-current-populist-surge/#comment-51 Leopard1996 Mon, 15 Feb 2010 19:02:01 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/scotton/?p=13#comment-51 I can only see one way, and that would be somebody getting a complaint from a neighbor, then the police knocking on the door. Do the police just walk away when they can find no evidence, or would the possesion of condoms be a "Probable Cause". Because, what I can see could be someone not liking a neighbor next door who may be two guys that may be a couple or two guys just living together to be roomates, and then getting consistently harrased by the police and therefore not being secure in the possessions. Hence the supreme court in my opinion there does have the right and responbility to say that said law although it sounds nice for "community standards", can violate somebody's right to be secure in their possesion from govenment intrusion. I can only see one way, and that would be somebody getting a complaint from a neighbor, then the police knocking on the door. Do the police just walk away when they can find no evidence, or would the possesion of condoms be a “Probable Cause”. Because, what I can see could be someone not liking a neighbor next door who may be two guys that may be a couple or two guys just living together to be roomates, and then getting consistently harrased by the police and therefore not being secure in the possessions. Hence the supreme court in my opinion there does have the right and responbility to say that said law although it sounds nice for “community standards”, can violate somebody’s right to be secure in their possesion from govenment intrusion.

]]> By: neomom http://www.redstate.com/scotton/2010/02/12/libertarianisms-libertine-underbelly-a-risk-for-america-in-the-current-populist-surge/#comment-50 neomom Sun, 14 Feb 2010 17:41:44 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/scotton/?p=13#comment-50 I strongly lean libertarian, but they lose me mainly on the drug issue and the foreign isolationist policies. Until the country is ready to let drug addicts truly fall on their faces and don't do anything to help them, then we shouldn't legalize drugs. No free clinics, no needle giveaways, no special counseling. If you commit a crime because of or to support your habit, you go to jail - not government-sponsored rehab. I cannot support under any circumstances the legalizing of these substances and then having to pay to take care of and rehab the addicts with social welfare programs. I strongly lean libertarian, but they lose me mainly on the drug issue and the foreign isolationist policies.

Until the country is ready to let drug addicts truly fall on their faces and don’t do anything to help them, then we shouldn’t legalize drugs.

No free clinics, no needle giveaways, no special counseling. If you commit a crime because of or to support your habit, you go to jail – not government-sponsored rehab.

I cannot support under any circumstances the legalizing of these substances and then having to pay to take care of and rehab the addicts with social welfare programs.

]]> By: ssshannon1026 http://www.redstate.com/scotton/2010/02/12/libertarianisms-libertine-underbelly-a-risk-for-america-in-the-current-populist-surge/#comment-49 ssshannon1026 Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:59:24 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/scotton/?p=13#comment-49 I agree with Jefferson that ultimately the law should reflect the will of the majority. There is no other possible standard. Otherwise, you must simply give control of your society to an elite ruling authority of some kind. As to D'Kos - that is the kind of slander I always expect from Libertairians when they are called on their real agenda. Next you'll be calling me a Nazi, or a proponent of shari'a law or some other sort of vitriolic accusation simply because I believe in American Federalism as it was originally formulated - real political power in the hands of the people at the local level so that they can define the parameters of their own society however they please. I agree with Jefferson that ultimately the law should reflect the will of the majority. There is no other possible standard. Otherwise, you must simply give control of your society to an elite ruling authority of some kind.
As to D’Kos – that is the kind of slander I always expect from Libertairians when they are called on their real agenda. Next you’ll be calling me a Nazi, or a proponent of shari’a law or some other sort of vitriolic accusation simply because I believe in American Federalism as it was originally formulated – real political power in the hands of the people at the local level so that they can define the parameters of their own society however they please.

]]> By: ssshannon1026 http://www.redstate.com/scotton/2010/02/12/libertarianisms-libertine-underbelly-a-risk-for-america-in-the-current-populist-surge/#comment-48 ssshannon1026 Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:52:17 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/scotton/?p=13#comment-48 Does not translate into a 'right to have sex". It is about being secure in one's possessions from government intrusion. Therefore, the supreme court has no legitimate authority to intrude into the people's sovereign right to formulate local community standards in regards to such issues. Obviously, if a forth amendment case can be made than that is an entirely different concern. No one is suggesting that a community can go busting into your house to find out what kind of sex you are having. But can they create laws to regulate what constitutes sexual deviance in their community? Absolutely, they can. On the issue of Gun control, the supreme court obviously does have such authority. So you have nothing to complain about in that regard. Does not translate into a ‘right to have sex”. It is about being secure in one’s possessions from government intrusion. Therefore, the supreme court has no legitimate authority to intrude into the people’s sovereign right to formulate local community standards in regards to such issues. Obviously, if a forth amendment case can be made than that is an entirely different concern. No one is suggesting that a community can go busting into your house to find out what kind of sex you are having. But can they create laws to regulate what constitutes sexual deviance in their community? Absolutely, they can.
On the issue of Gun control, the supreme court obviously does have such authority. So you have nothing to complain about in that regard.

]]> By: ssshannon1026 http://www.redstate.com/scotton/2010/02/12/libertarianisms-libertine-underbelly-a-risk-for-america-in-the-current-populist-surge/#comment-47 ssshannon1026 Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:45:13 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/scotton/?p=13#comment-47 You have done nothing except to affirm that I am correct. The difference between conservatism and Libertarianism could not be more glaring. Regardless of the supremacy of incorporation, if it could be done away with, conservatism would still stand, while Libertarianism would simply not be possible, or would return to being nothing aside from a silly political philosophy promoting social anarchy. In its current form Libertarianism depends upon a supreme legal authority dedicated to preventing The People from having any meaningful means of expressing their basic first amendment rights in any politically meaningful way. Can we offend one another? Sure. Can we express our opinions in any way that might actually have a chance of being translated into law - not if the supreme Libertarian legal authority disapproves. The right to be offensive is no right at all. It is meaningless for any real political purpose. You have done nothing except to affirm that I am correct. The difference between conservatism and Libertarianism could not be more glaring. Regardless of the supremacy of incorporation, if it could be done away with, conservatism would still stand, while Libertarianism would simply not be possible, or would return to being nothing aside from a silly political philosophy promoting social anarchy.
In its current form Libertarianism depends upon a supreme legal authority dedicated to preventing The People from having any meaningful means of expressing their basic first amendment rights in any politically meaningful way. Can we offend one another? Sure. Can we express our opinions in any way that might actually have a chance of being translated into law – not if the supreme Libertarian legal authority disapproves.
The right to be offensive is no right at all. It is meaningless for any real political purpose.

]]> By: aesthete http://www.redstate.com/scotton/2010/02/12/libertarianisms-libertine-underbelly-a-risk-for-america-in-the-current-populist-surge/#comment-46 aesthete Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:29:03 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/scotton/?p=13#comment-46 "the incorporation doctrine is not a defense of Libertarianism. " I wouldn't mind a return to localism and a non-incorporationist interpretation of the Constitution, myself, but we have to be realistic. Right now, there's no chance that we'll be able to restore non-incorporationist doctrine to the federal government without repealing the 14th Amendment, massive amounts of public education, and a paradigm shift of monumental proportions. Again, your assertion that libertarianism=big federal government is completely farcical, and there are several libertarians who support localism -- probably as many as a percentage of themselves as there are conservatives who support localism. “the incorporation doctrine is not a defense of Libertarianism. ” I wouldn’t mind a return to localism and a non-incorporationist interpretation of the Constitution, myself, but we have to be realistic. Right now, there’s no chance that we’ll be able to restore non-incorporationist doctrine to the federal government without repealing the 14th Amendment, massive amounts of public education, and a paradigm shift of monumental proportions. Again, your assertion that libertarianism=big federal government is completely farcical, and there are several libertarians who support localism — probably as many as a percentage of themselves as there are conservatives who support localism.

]]> By: aesthete http://www.redstate.com/scotton/2010/02/12/libertarianisms-libertine-underbelly-a-risk-for-america-in-the-current-populist-surge/#comment-45 aesthete Sun, 14 Feb 2010 15:20:53 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/scotton/?p=13#comment-45 anti-flag burning laws, that speech was protected. What was not protected was the law itself, much like speech concerning gun bans is protected, but gun bans themselves are not, under the Constitution. Again, localism has nothing to do with libertarianism. Some libertarians believe that the federal government is the proper venue for protecting our rights; others prefer local government (<a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/">LewRockwell.com</a> is a good example of this). It is the exact same way with conservatives (unless the enactment of an online gambling ban during the Bush administration was a hallmark of localism). anti-flag burning laws, that speech was protected. What was not protected was the law itself, much like speech concerning gun bans is protected, but gun bans themselves are not, under the Constitution.

Again, localism has nothing to do with libertarianism. Some libertarians believe that the federal government is the proper venue for protecting our rights; others prefer local government (LewRockwell.com is a good example of this). It is the exact same way with conservatives (unless the enactment of an online gambling ban during the Bush administration was a hallmark of localism).

]]> By: renny http://www.redstate.com/scotton/2010/02/12/libertarianisms-libertine-underbelly-a-risk-for-america-in-the-current-populist-surge/#comment-44 renny Sun, 14 Feb 2010 14:03:03 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/scotton/?p=13#comment-44 In 2008, many cons. in letters to editors and across the blogosphere bragged they would not vote for McCain to "send a message." I wonder if they are happy with that message now. However, it was vile of Ron Paul never to have endorsed McCain, and more vile of his followers to sit out the last election. See the latest pix of King-Elect O with his feet up on the Oval Office desk? In OH, only 5000 more voters went to the polls in 2008 than in 2004. Experts think most were Reps. who just stayed home. O won OH by 200,000 votes. This is that story: OH supposedly registered 700,000 new voters. Even the RNC was appalled. In a case that went to the Sup. Ct., the sec. of state for OH said that she could not possibly verify 700,000 registrees and if maybe 200,000 were fraudulent, they would be addressed AFTER the election. The cons. SC agreed. O won OH by c. 200,000 votes. I always wondered where those other 500,000 new voters disappeared to—but they didn’t really ever exist. It was all a scam to divert attention from Rep. get out the vote efforts. Just as much of the Cong. program is a scam to divert us from the stream of executive orders and law invented whole cloth by czars that are running the country not democratically but by monarchial fiat. In 2008, many cons. in letters to editors and across the blogosphere bragged they would not vote for McCain to “send a message.”

I wonder if they are happy with that message now.

However, it was vile of Ron Paul never to have endorsed McCain, and more vile of his followers to sit out the last election.

See the latest pix of King-Elect O with his feet up on the Oval Office desk?

In OH, only 5000 more voters went to the polls in 2008 than in 2004. Experts think most were Reps. who just stayed home. O won OH by 200,000 votes. This is that story: OH supposedly registered 700,000 new voters. Even the RNC was appalled. In a case that went to the Sup. Ct., the sec. of state for OH said that she could not possibly verify 700,000 registrees and if maybe 200,000 were fraudulent, they would be addressed AFTER the election. The cons. SC agreed. O won OH by c. 200,000 votes.

I always wondered where those other 500,000 new voters disappeared to—but they didn’t really ever exist.

It was all a scam to divert attention from Rep. get out the vote efforts.

Just as much of the Cong. program is a scam to divert us from the stream of executive orders and law invented whole cloth by czars that are running the country not democratically but by monarchial fiat.

]]> By: Leopard1996 http://www.redstate.com/scotton/2010/02/12/libertarianisms-libertine-underbelly-a-risk-for-america-in-the-current-populist-surge/#comment-43 Leopard1996 Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:20:23 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/scotton/?p=13#comment-43 How about Chicago, where it is currently against the law to own a handgun, which is now being reviewed by the supreme court, where you got a few of the judges trying to loophole, the law stating that Congress shall make no law means its only a ban on the federal level making said law, and that the states and localiies can do what the hell they want. Sorry, I don't think so. And I have said numerous times that Roe v. Wade was a piss poor decision in regards to abortion, but I do think something like sodomy being illegalized is a clear violation of the bill of rights because it is a violoation of behavior that you are doing on your own private property. Something about illegal search and siezure. How about Chicago, where it is currently against the law to own a handgun, which is now being reviewed by the supreme court, where you got a few of the judges trying to loophole, the law stating that Congress shall make no law means its only a ban on the federal level making said law, and that the states and localiies can do what the hell they want. Sorry, I don’t think so. And I have said numerous times that Roe v. Wade was a piss poor decision in regards to abortion, but I do think something like sodomy being illegalized is a clear violation of the bill of rights because it is a violoation of behavior that you are doing on your own private property. Something about illegal search and siezure.

]]> By: Leopard1996 http://www.redstate.com/scotton/2010/02/12/libertarianisms-libertine-underbelly-a-risk-for-america-in-the-current-populist-surge/#comment-42 Leopard1996 Sun, 14 Feb 2010 13:10:13 +0000 http://www.redstate.com/scotton/?p=13#comment-42 To force your standards on someone else as long as you are part of the majority. That is good to know. I don't buy into that because a majority in certain states back in the 1960's pretty much stated that people like me didn't have the right to vote, or own property, or own a weapon. That is the protection that I expect from the federal governmnet is to state that since I am a citizen of the United States, I am entitled to certain rights, that can't be taken away by the whim of someone like yourself. Your concepts are starting to fall right in line with those on D'Kos. Which is the antithesis of what the U.S government is supposed to be. To force your standards on someone else as long as you are part of the majority. That is good to know. I don’t buy into that because a majority in certain states back in the 1960′s pretty much stated that people like me didn’t have the right to vote, or own property, or own a weapon. That is the protection that I expect from the federal governmnet is to state that since I am a citizen of the United States, I am entitled to certain rights, that can’t be taken away by the whim of someone like yourself.

Your concepts are starting to fall right in line with those on D’Kos. Which is the antithesis of what the U.S government is supposed to be.

]]>