Only Liberals Are Pro-Liberty

[daveman]

No, they're [Democrats] progressives.

Same thing, and no, many of them aren't.

Ahhh. The ol' "No True Scotsman" argument.

Let me know how that particular bit of petulant foot-stamping works out for you.

Oh, and I can't help but notice you refused to acknowledge my proof that your assertion about liberals supporting liberty is false.

 

[Dragon]

Some HISTORY of the USA Partriot Act. Why does it continue to be extended? ( And look who is for extensions)...

Proves exactly what I said: most Democrats aren't liberals. That emphatically includes the President.

 

[Liability]

The OP is a lie, of course.

In reality, the modern American liberal hates individual liberty -- at least for anybody other than the modern American liberals.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[Dragon]

Ahhh. The ol' "No True Scotsman" argument.

No, it simply follows logically from the correct definition of "socialism" as an economic system in which the means of production are publicly owned. Most liberals do not advocate such a system, therefore most liberals are not socialists.

Oh, and I can't help but notice you refused to acknowledge my proof that your assertion about liberals supporting liberty is false.

I didn't feel like a few isolated links taken out of context proved anything, and therefore I saw no need to respond. When you post something of substance, I will.

 

[Cuyo]

Only liberals aren't pro-liberty.

Conservatives want economic freedom but have no problem with the government interfering in people's social lives.

Liberals want social freedom but have no problem with the government interfering in people's economic lives.

Only libertarians are consistently pro-liberty, even if a disproportionate amount of them are batshit insane.

If all above is stipulated, the assumption must be made that any said 'government interference' in people's economic lives is inherently exclusive with liberty; Ergo by extension you could argue that the argument is dependent on the assumption that tyranny can only be perpetrated by the government.

Example, if a single non-government entity owned every apartment complex in New York City, would not that same non-government entity be capable of perpetrating tyranny against it's tenants? If the government broke up that entity on behalf of the collective, would not that result in less tyranny?

Answer: No, not according to contemporary 'Libertarians,' because by definition, only the government can be guilty of tyranny. Things such as oppression by a majority and dominion by private entities either simply do not exist, or, by doctrine, should be ignored according to this crop.

 

[Si modo]

So, Orwellian society is a goal for you.

As if I didn't know already.

You know, there's no rule of this board that what you say has to follow logically from anything someone else said or even have anything to do with it, but if you want to actually participate in the discussion it's likely a good idea.

There is no discussion to be had. Your premise is false.

And, when that happens, you try Doublespeak.

That fails, too.

You're a good student of Orwell and of propaganda, though. That's why you strive for it and practice propaganda.

 

[The T]

Some HISTORY of the USA Partriot Act. Why does it continue to be extended? ( And look who is for extensions)...

Proves exactly what I said: most Democrats aren't liberals. That emphatically includes the President.

And point being what? They're Statists that have voted FOR extensions with measures added to impede liberty.

 

[Dragon]

There is no discussion to be had. Your premise is false.

Really? Let's see if you can correctly identify my "premise."

 

[Dragon]

And point being what? They're Statists that have voted FOR extensions with measures added to impede liberty.

Or in other words, conservatives. Exactly.

 

[daveman]

Ahhh. The ol' "No True Scotsman" argument.

No, it simply follows logically from the correct definition of "socialism" as an economic system in which the means of production are publicly owned. Most liberals do not advocate such a system, therefore most liberals are not socialists.

Really? Who's supporting single-payer healthcare again? What is that, if not the nationalization of the health care industry?

Oh, and I can't help but notice you refused to acknowledge my proof that your assertion about liberals supporting liberty is false.

I didn't feel like a few isolated links taken out of context proved anything, and therefore I saw no need to respond. When you post something of substance, I will.

All too transparent. Pretending those links don't prove you wrong does not make it so.

That's the problem with you leftists. You think your wishes define reality.

 

[daveman]

And point being what? They're Statists that have voted FOR extensions with measures added to impede liberty.

Or in other words, conservatives. Exactly.

It would help discussion if you'd stop making up definitions for words.

Of course, it would utterly devastate your case.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

 

[Si modo]

There is no discussion to be had. Your premise is false.

Really? Let's see if you can correctly identify my "premise."

Conservatives hate liberty.

When you can't even identify the first word, yeah, you have no foundation. At all.

You're the best statist here. You're the best I've ever known about. Thus, an Orwellian society is what you strive for.

 

[daveman]

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

Sheer projection.

 

[Si modo]

And point being what? They're Statists that have voted FOR extensions with measures added to impede liberty.

Or in other words, conservatives. Exactly.

It would help discussion if you'd stop making up definitions for words.

Of course, it would utterly devastate your case.

It's his Doublespeak.

He has wet dreams about the USA becoming an Orwellian society.

 

[The T]

And point being what? They're Statists that have voted FOR extensions with measures added to impede liberty.

Or in other words, conservatives. Exactly.

It would help discussion if you'd stop making up definitions for words.

Of course, it would utterly devastate your case.

What Statist can resist redefining terms, moving the goal posts, and revising history?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Sheer projection.

Will you allow a woman the liberty of choosing to have an abortion?

 

[Dragon]

Really? Who's supporting single-payer healthcare again? What is that, if not the nationalization of the health care industry?

The nationalization of health insurance, actually, not the health-care industry.

Everyone except anarchists supports socialism in some parts of the economy. If nothing else, everyone supports a socialized military and law enforcement. A genuine socialist supports all or most of the means of production being publicly owned. Those who don't, aren't socialists.

Pretending those links don't prove you wrong does not make it so.

I'm not pretending anything. They don't. They don't prove anything. And you claiming a blatant falsehood does not turn it into a truth.

 

[Cuyo]

Ahhh. The ol' "No True Scotsman" argument.

No, it simply follows logically from the correct definition of "socialism" as an economic system in which the means of production are publicly owned. Most liberals do not advocate such a system, therefore most liberals are not socialists.

Really? Who's supporting single-payer healthcare again? What is that, if not the nationalization of the health care industry?

Single payer healthcare is not the same as nationalization of the healthcare industry. It's simply the government providing a public insurance option which might or might not co-exist with primary and/or supplemental private insurance options.

The industry remains private; Doctors work for their respective private employers and individuals covered by single-payer have their bills paid by the plan.

You can argue that it's a bad idea, fine, but it isn't "Socialized" anything.