Posted: 1/26/2014 9:17:58 AM EDT
This article is more or less the other side of the coin for the article in this thread http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1584353_Rebuttal_to_another__Why_Won_t_the_Social_Conservatives_Just_Shut_Up___Post.html
Instead of burying it in the 17 pages (so far) of that thread...
Broadly speaking, a conservative seeks to maintain existing institutions and uphold or restore traditions. A libertarian prioritizes individual rights above all else, even at the expense of institutions and traditions. One can be a “conservative-libertarian” by supporting an institution like the family or the church without condoning the use of force to that end. The philosophical line of demarcation separates collectivism from individualism.
Those of you who know me are familiar with my stance that there's no moral high ground to be taken over those who advocate violating individual rights when you advocate violating (other) individual rights.
What is everyone fighting about in there?
I just read somebody repeatedly posting about libertarians wanting bigger government so, I decided to stay out.
Whats wrong with being a Constitutionalist? Is it that cool to hate our founding document?
I would agree with libertarians except for certain key issues that many of them will not compromise on, but it's those issues that drive me away, and I think most others who might otherwise be attracted.
I DO NOT support gay marriage, or adoption, some things are just wrong (for several reasons, not just religious ones), and that is one of them, if they want to do that fine, but keep it behind closed doors (like all other fetishes, and that's exactly what it is a fetish), want to get "joined" fine use existing contract law, or "civil unions", but don't call it marriage. Adoption is right out, talk about a way to fuck up a kid.....
Drugs should be illegal period. They destroy communities, breed crime, and create a public health issue (some of them), it is NOT a victim less crime, and DOES effect other people, don't believe me? Go to any neighborhood with a high percentage of drug addicts, and ask yourself if you want to live there. Legalizing them will only encourage there use, and make them even more readily available.
Illegal aliens need to go home, and stay there. We have a border for a reason, if we didn't we wouldn't have a country. These CRIMINALS (and that's exactly what they are) need to be deported, and the border sealed to all illicit travel.
I believe in profiling. I do not advocate actually violating any ones rights, or mass roundups, but we DO KNOW the types of people who generally cause problems (hint: The USS Cole attack, the first World Trade Center bombers, the DC Snipers, The Fort Hood Attacker, and 9/11 hijackers all had something in common, likewise MOST drug dealers, armed robbers, home invaders, muggers, general criminals, etc. also have something in common), and to ignore that, and focus on everyone else to avoid offending anyone is lunacy, were one of the only countries that does this. I simply mean that some people bear extra scrutiny.
I believe we should have a strong military, at least strong enough to fight two major wars at once. I think we should be at least as strong as the next 2 strongest countries combined. A strong military is as much a deterrent to war as it is a fighting force. Or to put another way "SI VIS PACEM PARA BELLUM" if you want peace, prepare for war, or as Napoleon Bonaparte was fond of saying "SI VIS BELLUM PARA PACEM" if you want war prepare for peace. It is much cheaper both in terms of treasure, and life to have an ultra strong military sitting around than fighting war after war because your enemies see weakness, and tin horn dictators see an opportunity to get cheeky. Likewise we need foreign bases for force projection capability. Basically we need a 1991 level military, and the same will to use it. "If they do not love, at least they will fear."
On that note, I believe we need nukes, lots, and lots of nukes, pre START levels, and then a few more. In fact I would support scrapping the START treaties, and reactivating the Peacekeeper (MX) program, and returning IRBM's to Europe, Easern Europe this time along with strategic bombers, and interceptors, (not to mentioned armored, and mechanized infantry divisions along with artillery, and support) and I would also send nukes to Taiwan, and South Korea, and build a few new Ohio class SSBN's, reform SAC, and put the bombers back on 24 hour alert. I would also tell Fort Detrick to stop burning, and start researching, and building. (It also might be fun to switch "hail to the chief for "the imperial march", but maybe that's just me)
I would also blast Ronald Reagan's head into the side of Mt. Rushmore, but that's negotiable.
Other than those issues I would agree with them, but yet in conversations with them all I get is shrill name calling, and accusations of being: "a religious nut", or "bible thumper" (actually I don't even go to Church, or am particularly religious), or "bigot", "homophobe", or my personal favorites "fascist", or "Nazi" (Never mind that the Nazi's were actually on the far left). It's the immature name calling, and posts like the one referenced in the OP that really turn me off to the libertarians, and tune out anything, and everything they have to say, they are their own worse enemy.
Originally Posted By S_A_C:
I would agree with libertarians except....
Drugs should be illegal period.
I do not advocate actually violating any ones rights...
There ya go.
You're not consistent given that you made those 2 statements. Since I posted an article about MJ, I used that example. Since everyone has the right to their own life (from which all other "rights" are derived), and that includes their own body, by using force to attempt to prevent and punish people who choose to use "drugs," you're advocating violating others' rights. If you could, please tell me who you are to tell another what they may or may not put into their own body (tip: don't resort to gratutious assertions). If you don't have any business doing this (you don't), then neither do I or anyone else. Does refraining from forcibly preventing people from eating junk food encourage obesity?