Only Liberals Are Pro-Liberty

[The T]

It's funny when idiots look at 1984 as a blueprint instead of the cautionary take it is.

Of course, what's not so funny is those idiots vote.

And they can negate your vote to boot...

And yours, too, if they follow standard Dem policy: "Vote early, vote often!"

Dead people and illegals especially!

 

[Dragon]

Sure you do. Perhaps you have heard of GOD?

I am God, as are we all. Thus, God is not my better. He/She/It and I are one.

And... You got owned. You are left in this thread flailing around in the jucies of your own defeat and the mud bog you've created for yourself.

That's not up to you to say. It's up to me.

 

[Dragon]

It's funny when idiots look at 1984 as a blueprint instead of the cautionary take it is.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about when I say I have no betters here. Nobody on this thread has looked at 1984 as a "blueprint." I merely expanded the cautionary tale to apply to conservatives, beyond Orwell's application of it to certain of his socialist peers. I pointed out that the motivations of conservatives are the same as those of the Ingsoc Party, but in that context it was STILL being presented as a cautionary tale.

Either Dave didn't realize that, in which case he demonstrates that he's a good deal less intelligent than I am, or he did and is being dishonest about it, in which case he demonstrates that he's less honest than I am. And in the latter event, he's also demonstrating his contempt for the intelligence of most posters here in that he seems to think they won't catch his mistake (in which he's probably right -- most posters here really are too dumb to catch him in that).

On this forum, I'm slumming. That's a fact.

 

[BOBO]

...AGAIN. Government by it's VERY NATURE is coercive. Mandatory taxation is a PRIME EXAMPLE as it's EXTORTION. "ABSOLUTE FREEDOM" regarding YOUR body & personal life(not other peoples bodies & lives) is what you need to focus on. Your strung out on group identity & show a herd mentality dominated by groupthink. I'd much prefer zero government & anarchy than "Der Fuhrer" & death camps. Get out of your 'controlled' thinking process, take charge of your OWN life, marry up with us Libertarians & help us take back our country from the DNC/GOP puppet masters.
A PRIME example of your lack of insight is that the Obama admin is a cloned copy of the GWB admin. The Obama administration just took off where the GWB admin left off. The useless & ILLEGAL war on drugs continues, the Obama admin actually INCREASED military operations & the LGBT community is still looked at like 2nd class citizens. Your "us vs them" mentality suggests that you are a VICTIM of political polarization...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polarization_(politics)

...like read the above link CLOSELY. Because of a particular lifestyle I have belonged to forever I have more liberal minded friends than conservative minded friends, yet I get along great with the conservatives that associate within our lifestyle. NONE of the liberals &/or conservatives in our lifestyle are supportive of government regulation that encroaches on their individual lives.
If more people would take the time to sip hot cocoa & play with their playmates come party time we would not have this polarization problem. I suggest you do the same & I will absolutely guarantee you that you will see it more as I do!

Among liberals, conservatives, and libertarians, only liberals are consistently pro-liberty across the board. Conservatives are consistently anti-liberty, and libertarians are neither one nor the other.

Liberty is the ability of ordinary people to live their lives without being under the domination of others, whether of government or of any private power.

Government action, w/r/t the issue of liberty, falls into three general categories. The first two categories are direct government infringement of liberty, and government protection of the people against the infringement of liberty by private power.

Liberty may be infringed directly by law or government force, or directly infringed by private non-government force, or indirectly infringed by an economy that denies people the means to the economic success that is a prerequisite for the enjoyment of liberty. (There is no liberty without property.) This brings up the third category: government action to promote economic equality and provide for social welfare.

When government action directly infringes liberty, the pro-liberty position is to oppose this. Thus, a pro-liberty advocate would oppose government action that tries to control people's sexual behavior unreasonably, denies reproductive rights, or violates the due process or other protections of the Bill of Rights, among other things.

Liberals and libertarians, on this sort of government action, adopt pro-liberty positions. Conservatives adopt anti-liberty positions.

When government action restrains private power from infringing liberty, e.g. with regulations on the financial industry, protection of workers' rights, or environmental protection laws, the pro-liberty position is to support this.

Liberals, on this sort of government action, adopt pro-liberty positions. Conservatives and libertarians adopt anti-liberty positions.

When government action attempts to narrow income gaps, raise wages, and provide for social welfare and safety nets, the pro-liberty position is to support this.

Again, liberals adopt pro-liberty positions in this context, while libertarians and conservatives adopt anti-liberty positions.

Liberals are pro-liberty.

Conservatives are anti-liberty.

Libertarians are neither pro-liberty nor anti-liberty, but are, instead, anti-government, which they often seem to think means they are pro-liberty, and in some matters -- when the government really is the major threat to liberty -- they are. But not consistently.

Only liberals consistently defend liberty. And conservatives never do.

 

[hortysir]

It also explains why conservatives, who pretend to be against government expansion (of course, only libertarians really are against this across the board; neither liberals nor conservatives truly oppose it), are perfectly fine with expanding the power of government to investigate people for crimes, or even to detain people without charges or due process indefinitely as "enemy combatants." It explains why conservatives see nothing wrong with the U.S. having the biggest prison population (per capita) of any advanced nation in the world. It explains why conservatives so often want to punish sexual behavior, sexual orientation, and drug use and commerce, and to re-outlaw abortion. In all of these areas, the private sector cannot or will not suffice to put the boot in the face, because there is usually no money to be made doing so. Just like everyone else, conservatives are happy to call on government to do those things that people in their individual capacity cannot do, or cannot do as well as government -- but, just like everyone else, only to do those things that are really valued.

Correct.

For example, consider the following case, with a petition currently before the Court:

Florida v. Jardines

Issue(s): (1) Whether a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected grow house by a trained narcotics detection dog is a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause; and (2) whether the officers’ conduct during the investigation of the grow house, including remaining outside the house awaiting a search warrant is, itself, a Fourth Amendment search.

Petition of the day : SCOTUSblog

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The Miami-Dade Police Department received
a Crime Stoppers tip that Jardines was growing
marijuana in his house. About a month later, on
December 6, 2006, at 7:00 a.m., Detective Pedraja,
along with a drug task force that included several
agents of the United States Drug Enforcement
Agency, conducted surveillance at Jardines’ house.
After observing no activity at the house, canine
officer Detective Bartlet, with his leashed narcotics
dog, Franky, and Detective Pedraja, in that order,
using the sidewalk, went to the front porch of the
house. Franky alerted at the front door. At that
point, the canine officer and the dog left.

Detective Pedraja then knocked on the front
door to obtain consent to search. There was no
response. He then personally smelled the odor of
marijuana. Detective Pedraja also noticed the air
conditioning running constantly for fifteen minutes,
which, in his experience, is a sign of a grow house.
While the task force remained behind in public areas
to secure the scene, Detective Pedraja went to obtain
a search warrant.

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Jardines-petition-final.pdf

The search warrant should have been obtained pursuant to the ‘Crime Stopper’ tip, before the state went on the property. The drug-sniffing dog constituted an un-warranted search, along with the officer remaining on the property.

Unfortunately this Orwellian motif is becoming common, with citizen spying on citizen and the state responding to anonymous tips and investigating individuals without probable cause.

Sadly, and needless to say, conservatives are likely to support expanding the state’s authority to ‘investigate crime,’ and not holding the police to a ‘higher Constitutional standard’ with regard to 4th Amendment search and seizure rights.

I see no difference in the dog sniffing and hitting on the house and a dog sniffing and hitting on an automobile.
Probable cause

 

[The T]

Sure you do. Perhaps you have heard of GOD?

I am God, as are we all. Thus, God is not my better. He/She/It and I are one.

And... You got owned. You are left in this thread flailing around in the jucies of your own defeat and the mud bog you've created for yourself.

That's not up to you to say. It's up to me.

Spoken like a true Communist...Commrade.

 

[hortysir]

The Right is wholeheartedly for 'liberty' as long as the Right gets to define what is or isn't 'liberty'.

The Left is for Liberty as long as the Government gets to define who is granted said Liberty.




Fixed that for ya

 

[daveman]

And they can negate your vote to boot...

And yours, too, if they follow standard Dem policy: "Vote early, vote often!"

Dead people and illegals especially!

Pffft. Everyone knows they'd vote Dem if they could. Why do you want to disenfranchise dead people and citizens of other nations?

 

[daveman]

It's funny when idiots look at 1984 as a blueprint instead of the cautionary take it is.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about when I say I have no betters here. Nobody on this thread has looked at 1984 as a "blueprint." I merely expanded the cautionary tale to apply to conservatives, beyond Orwell's application of it to certain of his socialist peers. I pointed out that the motivations of conservatives are the same as those of the Ingsoc Party, but in that context it was STILL being presented as a cautionary tale.

Either Dave didn't realize that, in which case he demonstrates that he's a good deal less intelligent than I am, or he did and is being dishonest about it, in which case he demonstrates that he's less honest than I am. And in the latter event, he's also demonstrating his contempt for the intelligence of most posters here in that he seems to think they won't catch his mistake (in which he's probably right -- most posters here really are too dumb to catch him in that).

On this forum, I'm slumming. That's a fact.

On this forum, you're an arrogant prick with no reason to be arrogant.

You know, just like you are in real life.

Face it, kid. You're just not as smart as you like to pretend you are.

 

[The T]

And yours, too, if they follow standard Dem policy: "Vote early, vote often!"

Dead people and illegals especially!

Pffft. Everyone knows they'd vote Dem if they could. Why do you want to disenfranchise dead people and citizens of other nations?