• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Libertarian or Licentious?.....

MMC

MMC

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
56,981
Reaction score
27,029
Location
Chicago Illinois
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Rand Paul clearly is seeking to move the GOP in a more libertarian direction. Most recently, he has called for changes to "cookie cutter conservatism," referencing a change in the party's position on drugs (for one example) as a way to attract more young people to the GOP (Sen. Rand Paul on top congressional issues; pivotal moment in the battle over gay marriage | Interviews | Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace - Fox News).

In theory, libertarian principles often sound great, especially when you're young. After all, it sounds pretty good to announce that the government should just stay out of everbody's business.

No, talking about things like "civic virtue" isn't nearly as hip as signaling support for less stringent penalties for some kinds of drug use. But it's necessary both because intellectual honesty requirks it and also because liberty without virtue quickly devolves into licentiousness -- and carries the risk of justifying creation of a bigger-than-ever-before government to pick up the pieces.....snip~

Libertarian or Licentious? - Carol Platt Liebau

So are Libertarians ready to talk about the kind of virtues necessary to support the freedoms they espouse? Thoughts?
 
The only virtues the republicans push are jesus values, which always come at a major cost for someone, especially for gays and casual drug users.

The only virtue we need is to avoid violating someone else's rights, and for that we have laws.

Marrying your gay lover or smoking a joint is not violating anyones rights.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
The only virtues the republicans push are jesus values, which always come at a major cost for someone, especially for gays and casual drug users.

The only virtue we need is to avoid violating someone else's rights, and for that we have laws.

Marrying your gay lover or smoking a joint is not violating anyones rights.
Click to expand...

That's why not all of us believe in Rights, but rather in Privileges.
 
Tigger said:
That's why not all of us believe in Rights, but rather in Privileges.
Click to expand...

And no one pays attention to those people, for good reason, since that philosophy requires someone that grants privileges, which is rediculous because who decides who does that?

Anyway, no one cares that you and a couple other sociopaths believe that.
 
"Paleo-libertarians" - who believe in freedom "in theory", but who in practice ally themselves to every socially conservative cause they can attach themselves to at the hip - are more annoying than stalwart conservatives. At least the representatives of the latter are honest about their bad intentions.
 
Virtues are dangerous as vices insofar as they are allowed to rule over one as authorities and not as qualities one develops oneself.

Friedrich Nietzsche
 
ChezC3 said:
Virtues are dangerous as vices insofar as they are allowed to rule over one as authorities and not as qualities one develops oneself.

Friedrich Nietzsche
Click to expand...

We need more Fred and less Jesus in our society.
 
Einzige said:
We need more Fred and less Jesus in our society.
Click to expand...

it would make things more interesting, but we do have plenty already who misinterprete the former just as much as we do with the latter...
 
ChezC3 said:
it would make things more interesting, but we do have plenty already who misinterprete the former just as much as we do with the latter...
Click to expand...

To be fair, Nietzsche never insisted that there was a 'correct' interpretation of his works, and I think his perspectivist epistemology would have denied the very possibility of it.

I like reading existentialist Nietzscheans, but I think they largely get him wrong. Post-modernist Nietzscheans are probably closer to his "actual meaning" but are much less entertaining to read. And the less said about right-wing 'Nietzscheans', the better.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Marrying your gay lover or smoking a joint is not violating anyones rights.
Click to expand...

the state recognizing who you love is not a right either.

does the state prevent you from being with your gay lover? no.

does the state prevent you from smoking a plant? yes.
 
Last edited:
MMC said:
Rand Paul clearly is seeking to move the GOP in a more libertarian direction. Most recently, he has called for changes to "cookie cutter conservatism," referencing a change in the party's position on drugs (for one example) as a way to attract more young people to the GOP (Sen. Rand Paul on top congressional issues; pivotal moment in the battle over gay marriage | Interviews | Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace - Fox News).

In theory, libertarian principles often sound great, especially when you're young. After all, it sounds pretty good to announce that the government should just stay out of everbody's business.

No, talking about things like "civic virtue" isn't nearly as hip as signaling support for less stringent penalties for some kinds of drug use. But it's necessary both because intellectual honesty requirks it and also because liberty without virtue quickly devolves into licentiousness -- and carries the risk of justifying creation of a bigger-than-ever-before government to pick up the pieces.....snip~

Libertarian or Licentious? - Carol Platt Liebau

So are Libertarians ready to talk about the kind of virtues necessary to support the freedoms they espouse? Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Don't we have laws? Aren't we advancing the marijuana legalization and homosexual civil rights to state marriages? This isn't new. This is Rand jumping on the bandwagon because he's tired of his party losing to democrats.
 
Muddy Creek said:
Don't we have laws? Aren't we advancing the marijuana legalization and homosexual civil rights to state marriages? This isn't new. This is Rand jumping on the bandwagon because he's tired of his party losing to democrats.
Click to expand...


So, for example, if everybody wants to legalize drugs, just keep in mind that, without fundamental reform of our social safety net first, taxpayers will end up subsidizing those who become unable to hold jobs because of addiction. Likewise, it's easy to insist that government get out of the "marriage business," but there's little prospect that doing so will mean that the government will also get out of the "business" of having to care for the offspring of unmarried parents (who truly are, too often, the victims of their parents' terrible decisions).....snip~

Not quite.....whats wrong about talking about exactly what those virtues stand for? Why would Rand Paul be wrong for talking about virtues and being able to reach out to people of all demographics? But even moreso the Libertarian.
 
Einzige said:
To be fair, Nietzsche never insisted that there was a 'correct' interpretation of his works, and I think his perspectivist epistemology would have denied the very possibility of it.

I like reading existentialist Nietzscheans, but I think they largely get him wrong. Post-modernist Nietzscheans are probably closer to his "actual meaning" but are much less entertaining to read. And the less said about right-wing 'Nietzscheans', the better.
Click to expand...

it was to the last you spake I pointed my blade...and I will say no more

I agree about the incorrectness of correctness.

The PM's do share the flair for the dramatic I'll admit..
 
MMC said:
So, for example, if everybody wants to legalize drugs, just keep in mind that, without fundamental reform of our social safety net first, taxpayers will end up subsidizing those who become unable to hold jobs because of addiction. Likewise, it's easy to insist that government get out of the "marriage business," but there's little prospect that doing so will mean that the government will also get out of the "business" of having to care for the offspring of unmarried parents (who truly are, too often, the victims of their parents' terrible decisions).....snip~

Not quite.....whats wrong about talking about exactly what those virtues stand for? Why would Rand Paul be wrong for talking about virtues and being able to reach out to people of all demographics? But even moreso the Libertarian.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that decriminalizing drugs would mean more people being addicted ... except empirically (based on places that have decriminalized drugs), that simply isn't the case.
 
MMC said:
So, for example, if everybody wants to legalize drugs, just keep in mind that, without fundamental reform of our social safety net first, taxpayers will end up subsidizing those who become unable to hold jobs because of addiction. Likewise, it's easy to insist that government get out of the "marriage business," but there's little prospect that doing so will mean that the government will also get out of the "business" of having to care for the offspring of unmarried parents (who truly are, too often, the victims of their parents' terrible decisions).....snip~

Not quite.....whats wrong about talking about exactly what those virtues stand for? Why would Rand Paul be wrong for talking about virtues and being able to reach out to people of all demographics? But even moreso the Libertarian.
Click to expand...

Democrats are and have been talking about legalizing marijuana for years. They have already presented the virtues of not adding to the prison population for possessing pot. A lot of states, based on the initiatives of the democrats, do not criminalize small possessions of marijuana. The problem with Rand, is that he's a phoney and can't be trusted. He's an opportunist, not a visionary, and his plans are just talking points from the democratic party. He's dishonest and a late comer.

He's not for legalizing. He just wants the sentences reduced.

Rand Paul Clarifies Marijuana Position: Don't Legalize, but Reduce Sentencing

en. Rand Paul (R-Tenn.) spoke in more detail about his position on marijuana on "Fox News Sunday." He does not support legalization, but believes marijuana users should not be sent to prison.

"The main thing I've said is not to legalize them but not to incarcerate people for extended periods of time," Paul said.

Due to drug laws, Paul complained, there are too many non-violent criminals filling up prisons.

"There are people in jail for 37, 50, 45 years for nonviolent crimes. And that's a huge mistake. Our prisons are full of nonviolent criminals," Paul said.

Paul describes himself as a libertarian conservative, but unlike many libertarians, does not support the full legalization of marijuana. In a November 2012 interview, Paul also said he would support allowing each state to decide the issue.
Read more at Rand Paul Clarifies Marijuana Position: Don't Legalize, but Reduce Sentencing
Click to expand...

So where should they go? And why should states decide use of drugs? Illegal drugs? He's not making any sense and you aren't representing him very well.

The government isn't in the business of caring for the "offspring" (really? Children I believe we call them) of parents. They government uses taxes from the rich to help make sure the children of the poor can eat, sleep and go to school. Not too much to ask of in a nation, is it?
 
RGacky3 said:
You're assuming that decriminalizing drugs would mean more people being addicted ... except empirically (based on places that have decriminalized drugs), that simply isn't the case.
Click to expand...

In any event more users means more addiction.....does it not? But Rand Paul really doesn't think it is a good idea that people smoke Marijuana. Which in discussing such an issue he thinks that virtues would be a counter to drug use. But he is against the government locking nonviolent offenders up for long periods of time and over drug use.

That government should be neutral over the issue of Marriage.....I don't see why the Government needs to be involved in that issue. It has always been a state issue.
 
MMC said:
In any event more users means more addiction.....does it not? But Rand Paul really doesn't think it is a good idea that people smoke Marijuana. Which in discussing such an issue he thinks that virtues would be a counter to drug use. But he is against the government locking nonviolent offenders up for long periods of time and over drug use.

That government should be neutral over the issue of Marriage.....I don't see why the Government needs to be involved in that issue. It has always been a state issue.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but legalizing it doesn't mean more users ....EMPIRICALLY.
 
MMC said:
In any event more users means more addiction.....does it not? But Rand Paul really doesn't think it is a good idea that people smoke Marijuana. Which in discussing such an issue he thinks that virtues would be a counter to drug use. But he is against the government locking nonviolent offenders up for long periods of time and over drug use.

That government should be neutral over the issue of Marriage.....I don't see why the Government needs to be involved in that issue. It has always been a state issue.
Click to expand...

Because states violate human rights. NOT allowing slaves to marry, then not allowing interracial couples to marry and now not allowing gay couples to marry. Some states violate civil rights which means court cases travel to the Supreme Court where they are then decided on a national policy for the country based on constitutional civil rights.
 
MMC said:
In any event more users means more addiction.....does it not? But Rand Paul really doesn't think it is a good idea that people smoke Marijuana. Which in discussing such an issue he thinks that virtues would be a counter to drug use. But he is against the government locking nonviolent offenders up for long periods of time and over drug use.

That government should be neutral over the issue of Marriage.....I don't see why the Government needs to be involved in that issue. It has always been a state issue.
Click to expand...


Did the stopping of the prohibition of alcohol mean more alcoholics?
 
MMC said:
Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Libertarianism is a sign of cowardice for people that don't want to admit they are conservative (in the US) and want to support anarchy without having responsibility for their decisions.

They should admit they are Conservatives, but they don't. They are all scum.
 
Muddy Creek said:
Because states violate human rights. NOT allowing slaves to marry, then not allowing interracial couples to marry and now not allowing gay couples to marry. Some states violate civil rights which means court cases travel to the Supreme Court where they are then decided on a national policy for the country based on constitutional civil rights.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know Kinda like Chicago and their Gun bans while never accepting the SCOTUS Ruling. Its their state, their community of people. If that's what they want to live like. What's it to you?
 
Muddy Creek said:
Did the stopping of the prohibition of alcohol mean more alcoholics?
Click to expand...

How does it become the governments Right to provide a social safety net in the first place? It's not the government that instills virtues. Any freedom means suffering the consequences for those that make bad decisions.
 
MMC said:
How does it become the governments Right to provide a social safety net in the first place? It's not the government that instills virtues. Any freedom means suffering the consequences for those that make bad decisions.
Click to expand...

It becomes the governments right when we democratically decide that that entity will take care of that service that benefits all of society and is the moral thing to do.¨

The right of social security is as fundemental philisophically as the right to property, if we can collectively say that the state will protect private porperty, and create private corporations and protect them legally, then we can colelctively say the state provides social security.

Any freedom means suffering consequences for bad actions, but that isn't what capitalism is about, capitalism is about externalities, putting the bad consequences on OTHER people while keeping all the profits.
 
RGacky3 said:
It becomes the governments right when we democratically decide that that entity will take care of that service that benefits all of society and is the moral thing to do.¨

The right of social security is as fundemental philisophically as the right to property, if we can collectively say that the state will protect private porperty, and create private corporations and protect them legally, then we can colelctively say the state provides social security.

Any freedom means suffering consequences for bad actions, but that isn't what capitalism is about, capitalism is about externalities, putting the bad consequences on OTHER people while keeping all the profits.
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as civic virtue, unless you are a fundamentalist statist espousing a modified humanist philosophy; which unfortunately pretty much leaves out God. Our virtues historically cames from religion and faith.
 
MMC said:
There's no such thing as civic virtue, unless you are a fundamentalist statist espousing a modified humanist philosophy; which unfortunately pretty much leaves out God. Our virtues historically cames from religion and faith.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about a civic virtue. I fundementally believe that value comes from God (not faith or religion however).

But if you believe the state has a right to enforce private property, then there is no reason why it does not have a right to enforce social security.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom