Point me to the #2 folks.
Paul is definitely the real conservative in the race. Unless you got your "conservative" philosophy in the last 20 years.
Legalizing dope and welshing on our treaties isn't conservative, s0n.
It is far more conservative than your brand of forcing people to believe and live as you do. You want to dictate what people can and cannot do - a naturally big government and less freedom point of view. I have to ask, what do you actually think the cornerstone of conservatism is? I see it as freedom which requires smaller government. What are you basing your brand of conservatism on?
Being a totalitarian is the same as being a social conservative.
That is ridiculous, as are most all of your lame takes.
Social conservatives respect the law of the land, which a Libertarian system of totalitarian rules could never do, because once the will of the people would be exercised at the ballot box to create new law of the land which disagrees with you, it would create a crack in the damn collapsing the whole thing.
And you couldn't have that, could you?
Liberarianism is nothing more than mental masturbation as it could never operate in the real world.
This nation was founded on those ideals - the ideal of freedom. Somehow I fail to see how such a system cannot exist. Libertarians are the exact opposite of totalitarian by the way. Totalitarian regimes require little to no freedom to exist, like social conservatives want, not libertarians. Tell me, how can you connect libertarians with totalitarianism when libertarians believe so completely in personal freedom.
There is certainly a difference between 'social conservative' and 'totalitarian', as I have demonstrated.
You certainly did not demonstrate. You stated it as fact without anything to back it up and then went on to say that social conservatives have a respect for the law. How is that contrary to totalitarianism? A little fact for you, totalitarian regimes have lots of law. That is the one thing they are not lacking in. What they do lack is personal freedom...
If that's what they wanted, that's what they should get as long as it's constitutional.
So people can vote to make prostitution and drug use illegal in your Libertarian world?
bump. I am sure 'Dr. Drock' accidently overlooked this.
Here is a hit for you - such things do not exist if there are no customers for them! I guess you would rather force people to not patronize these businesses by taking such things away even if they have no impact on you. Why are you against such freedoms? As already expressed, zoning protects against the straw man argument of hiding behind the children. Care to actually address why you have the right to put people in jail for charging for something that is perfectly legal to give away for free?????
Another little detail too - prostitution and drugs are both VERY alive and well in this country today. The only thing illegalizing them has accomplished is creating black market violence and an unregulated product. Good job!
It's not a deflection, you fool.
Your favored policy keeps the drug lords and street hoodlums in business, just like alcohol prohibition did...And that's the fact, Jack.
No it actually doesnt. That is more narco-libtard myth.
Lack of effective enforcement of draconian laws is what keeps them in business. That and
consumer demand.
And it is a deflection. You have deflected from the idea of people being able to destroy their lives at will with no cost to society.
Enfocement has nothing to do with it. It is compleatly driven by consumer demand, a demant that you can do NOTHING about no matter what laws you wrote. Then you make statemetns like this:
So we don't need any laws at all? We dont need laws against rape because people really don't rape other people. Or laws against fraud because people really dont commit fraud.
That show you compleatly miss the point. Ill try and slog through this and hope that you actually do want to engage on this topic.
Laws against rape, murder ect. exist because they infringe on other rights. Period. They have a victim. Drug use on the other hand infringe on no one's rights. There is no victim other than yourself. I do not need to be protected from myself and it is infringing on my rights to do so. Who is the victim that you are protecting me from with drug laws? Society itself? That is asinine. Such laws do nothing to help the problem in the first place.
This has already been proven with prohibition. What is the difference from alcohol and pot? Give me ONE,
JUST ONE, thing that pot does that is more damaging than alcohol? Do you feel that alcohol should be illegal? If not, how do you rationalize position against drugs with your support for legalized alcohol?
We tried illegalizing alcohol and we ended up with exactly the same thing as we have now with drugs. The solution is NOT illegalization but rather regulation. Just like alcohol.
