Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Thu Sep 19, 2019 3:06 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2011 3:15 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
christopher.wilkerson wrote:
goalieman wrote:

One of the things that quite frankly irks me about most Libertarians that I hear and read is that they always think they have a nice, tidy answer to everything. Suggesting here that my youthful behavior was due to Government somehow taking the role of my parents is humorous, but not in anyway accurate. Alcohol was legal and easily obtained, that why my crowd imbibed of it, not due to a drift from Federalism or any other governmental program.

I want to understand this statement. Did you drink alcohol because it was easily, legally obtained (like water)? Or did you drink it because you wished to become intoxicated? Surely you knew that alcohol use could lead to destructive choices in your life. Did your desire to become intoxicated stem from the fact that there was no law against it? What did you learn from your early experiences with alcohol?
goalieman wrote:
So glad God put some sense in me before I exercised my individual liberty to continue to get behind the wheel of an automobile after consuming libations..........my liberty may have run over someone elses.
So in this situation, you achieved self-governance without the state sticking a gun in your face. Amazing.


You see, this is the problem I have with the libertarian mindset. You seem to think that every action has some profound idealogical background to it. Why did me and my friends go out and drink? BECAUSE WE WERE STUPID TEENAGERS!!! And stupid teenagers tend to do things that, while they may not be the right thing to do, are legal to do! There was no thought, at least not any deep thought, given to the "destructive nature of drinking". You're young and indestructible, nothing can harm you (or so you think). Without at least some restraining influence of the law, what else would restrain those who haven't yet learned to restrain themselves? That person who gets killed by someone stoned on pot or whatever substance they may be on while behind the wheel doesn't have the time for that stoner to implement self restraint somewhere down the road. This isn't really a difficult concept.

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2011 3:24 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
christopher.wilkerson wrote:
Southern Doc wrote:
The market would adjust and folks would only do deals with folks they really trusted. In fact then the unethical would recognize that they were loosing profits and start dealing fairly. At that point we would have no need for civil courts at all and would no longer need to be taxed to support them. Everyone would then be happier. In fact the state would wither away from disuse. Utopia!

All the bromides have this nasty problem of running into the realites of this messy broken world and the messy nature of man that sits at its center.

The problem with the whole "my rights end where your nose begins," is that often the speed at which these rights collide is fatal to one or both.




Okay, it's easy to poke fun at the idea of Utopia. And I will concede that there are the realities of the messy broken world and nature of man. But is your attitude that the world is irreparably broken, and that man's nature can never change? That's pretty sad.

I don't share that attitude, and I don't think I'm alone. I believe there were some great men who thought differently, and laid the foundation for a future utopia with the creation of the United States. We took a step in the right direction.


To imply that the founders of this country were trying to achieve some sort of utopia is a mis-reading of what they did that I find amazing. Utopian thought is something that's found in left-wing idealogy, not among conservative thinkers of the past (unless you want to count neo-cons as actual conservatives). The founders set forth a constitution that allows it's citizens to achieve their goals, but that's hardly a utopian concept. Any Utopia always has a big government behind it, which is not what the founders had in mind.

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2011 3:32 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
WinningGuy wrote:
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
Actually, there is a little wiggle room between the total depravity of man vs. his perfection in the virtues. There is the theological principle of concupiscence, for example, which refers to man's weakness in the face of temptation as a result of the original sin, and this is the principle that most people espouse to some degree (even if they've never heard of the term before) because it is what most of us live & experience.

Most, if not all, of our Founding Fathers believed in man's vulnerability to doing wrong at some point along that spectrum between concupiscence and total depravity. Our govt was actually designed with that understanding in mind - that the people needed to be protected from those eventual leaders who would succumb to the temptations that come with power & authority.

So that's the idea - balancing the inalienable rights of the individual (what the FF communicated to posterity as their definition of freedom) with the good of society & the protection of the vulnerable.

In such a worldview, how could legalizing recreational drugs that have no real redeeming qualities but tons of negative ones possibly have been looked on favorably?


Liberals make similar arguments about fast food.

Also, legalizing drugs would save a lot of law resources that are currently spent trying to fight drug dealers and cartels. These people kill thousands every year because they have a lucrative business based on drugs being illegal.

And what is religion for? Do we need the government to make the rules for us instead of following what our faith tells us is right and wrong?


That's what I meant when I said libertarians have a tidy answer to all the questions of the day. You reduced QouVadisAnima's agrument about drugs to fast food. Yup, those folks consuming a big mac are just as likley to cause a fatal traffic accident as a meth user is. :roll:

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2011 3:45 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:49 am
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Liked: 14
goalieman wrote:
christopher.wilkerson wrote:
goalieman wrote:

One of the things that quite frankly irks me about most Libertarians that I hear and read is that they always think they have a nice, tidy answer to everything. Suggesting here that my youthful behavior was due to Government somehow taking the role of my parents is humorous, but not in anyway accurate. Alcohol was legal and easily obtained, that why my crowd imbibed of it, not due to a drift from Federalism or any other governmental program.

I want to understand this statement. Did you drink alcohol because it was easily, legally obtained (like water)? Or did you drink it because you wished to become intoxicated? Surely you knew that alcohol use could lead to destructive choices in your life. Did your desire to become intoxicated stem from the fact that there was no law against it? What did you learn from your early experiences with alcohol?
goalieman wrote:
So glad God put some sense in me before I exercised my individual liberty to continue to get behind the wheel of an automobile after consuming libations..........my liberty may have run over someone elses.
So in this situation, you achieved self-governance without the state sticking a gun in your face. Amazing.


You see, this is the problem I have with the libertarian mindset. You seem to think that every action has some profound idealogical background to it. Why did me and my friends go out and drink? BECAUSE WE WERE STUPID TEENAGERS!!! And stupid teenagers tend to do things that, while they may not be the right thing to do, are legal to do! There was no thought, at least not any deep thought, given to the "destructive nature of drinking". You're young and indestructible, nothing can harm you (or so you think). Without at least some restraining influence of the law, what else would restrain those who haven't yet learned to restrain themselves? That person who gets killed by someone stoned on pot or whatever substance they may be on while behind the wheel doesn't have the time for that stoner to implement self restraint somewhere down the road. This isn't really a difficult concept.


Though, getting behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated is illegal. At that point, you are operating a dangerous machine and taking it somewhere that you are endangering others. So there would always be consequences for that.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2011 3:48 pm 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:49 am
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Liked: 14
goalieman wrote:
WinningGuy wrote:
QuoVadisAnima wrote:
Actually, there is a little wiggle room between the total depravity of man vs. his perfection in the virtues. There is the theological principle of concupiscence, for example, which refers to man's weakness in the face of temptation as a result of the original sin, and this is the principle that most people espouse to some degree (even if they've never heard of the term before) because it is what most of us live & experience.

Most, if not all, of our Founding Fathers believed in man's vulnerability to doing wrong at some point along that spectrum between concupiscence and total depravity. Our govt was actually designed with that understanding in mind - that the people needed to be protected from those eventual leaders who would succumb to the temptations that come with power & authority.

So that's the idea - balancing the inalienable rights of the individual (what the FF communicated to posterity as their definition of freedom) with the good of society & the protection of the vulnerable.

In such a worldview, how could legalizing recreational drugs that have no real redeeming qualities but tons of negative ones possibly have been looked on favorably?


Liberals make similar arguments about fast food.

Also, legalizing drugs would save a lot of law resources that are currently spent trying to fight drug dealers and cartels. These people kill thousands every year because they have a lucrative business based on drugs being illegal.

And what is religion for? Do we need the government to make the rules for us instead of following what our faith tells us is right and wrong?


That's what I meant when I said libertarians have a tidy answer to all the questions of the day. You reduced QouVadisAnima's agrument about drugs to fast food. Yup, those folks consuming a big mac are just as likley to cause a fatal traffic accident as a meth user is. :roll:


So, are we attempting to use government to protect people from themselves, or others? If it's others, do we go after the fast food restaurants for trying to lure people into hurting themselves with fast food?

The answers are convenient, and they're also true.

Big government is big government. Leftists always have the best of intentions. It's not like liberals go around wanting to take away freedom because of bad intentions. They believe that it's best for the safety of society.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2011 5:05 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Posts: 1623
Location: Atlanta, GA
Likes: 177
Liked: 225
goalieman wrote:
You see, this is the problem I have with the libertarian mindset. You seem to think that every action has some profound idealogical background to it. Why did me and my friends go out and drink? BECAUSE WE WERE STUPID TEENAGERS!!! And stupid teenagers tend to do things that, while they may not be the right thing to do, are legal to do! There was no thought, at least not any deep thought, given to the "destructive nature of drinking". You're young and indestructible, nothing can harm you (or so you think). Without at least some restraining influence of the law, what else would restrain those who haven't yet learned to restrain themselves? That person who gets killed by someone stoned on pot or whatever substance they may be on while behind the wheel doesn't have the time for that stoner to implement self restraint somewhere down the road. This isn't really a difficult concept.


I don't find it to be a difficult concept. It seems your point of view is that Americans have the sensibilities of stupid teenagers, and we need government to stop us from making bad decisions. Learning from mistakes allows us to implement self restraint in the future. We can't grow if we don't learn. Driving while intoxicated is illegal, and for good reason. Choosing to become intoxicated should not be illegal, no matter the substance.
goalieman wrote:
To imply that the founders of this country were trying to achieve some sort of utopia is a mis-reading of what they did that I find amazing. Utopian thought is something that's found in left-wing idealogy, not among conservative thinkers of the past (unless you want to count neo-cons as actual conservatives). The founders set forth a constitution that allows it's citizens to achieve their goals, but that's hardly a utopian concept. Any Utopia always has a big government behind it, which is not what the founders had in mind.
We just have different definitions of Utopia. For some reason you jump to the leftist ideal, which always incorporates government imposed restrictions and micro-managing of society. That idea doesn't really belong in our conversation, does it?

Yes, I think Government by the people is an utopian idea. The founders may not have used the word Utopia, but don't you think they had in mind the the improvement of mankind and society?

This thread has gotten way off track, and I don't think the argument is going to be solved here. But at the same time, I'm dying to figure this out. I don't drink or do drugs. But it has never entered my mind to punish those that do.

Scenario: a man grows cannabis in his garden, uses it to make clothing, and occasionally smokes it to soothe his arthritis.
Now what about this bothers you so much that you would throw him in prison?

A man should be able to grow whatever he chooses on his property and partake of it however he wishes. If you disagree with this proposition, you may need to reevaluate how conservative you really are.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2011 6:31 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 8:03 am
Posts: 4844
Likes: 1174
Liked: 782
Had to have something to do to get rid of my nerves about Huckabee's announcement tonight. So I sat down to respond to this thread.

QuoVadisAnima wrote:
Most, if not all, of our Founding Fathers believed in man's vulnerability to doing wrong at some point along that spectrum between concupiscence and total depravity. Our govt was actually designed with that understanding in mind - that the people needed to be protected from those eventual leaders who would succumb to the temptations that come with power & authority.

So that's the idea - balancing the inalienable rights of the individual (what the FF communicated to posterity as their definition of freedom) with the good of society & the protection of the vulnerable.

In such a worldview, how could legalizing recreational drugs that have no real redeeming qualities but tons of negative ones possibly have been looked on favorably?



WinningGuy wrote:
...legalizing drugs would save a lot of law resources that are currently spent trying to fight drug dealers and cartels. These people kill thousands every year because they have a lucrative business based on drugs being illegal.

And what is religion for? Do we need the government to make the rules for us instead of following what our faith tells us is right and wrong?



Not instead of, but in addition to. Certainly God calls for the necessity of government, for He instituted it. Why is each one's conscience not enough? Or his or her religion?


Why do we need government?

...To keep others from hurting us,
To restrain evil so we do not hurt them back,
To keep our kids safe,
To prosecute the offenders who prey on the innocent,
To take away the freedom of those who hurt, kill, maim, or steal from others in our civil society,
To keep our streets and our homes safe,
To keep the powerful from trampling the powerless.
(Now, if we are at war, the rules change, and we try to kill the enemies of our nation before they kill us.)


Government is ordained of God:
…"So we may lead quiet and peaceable lives;"
"To be a terror to the one who does evil,"
So we may have freedom to spread the gospel truth,
So we may believe in God and not be persecuted for it,
So we may have law and an orderly society,
So we may settle disputes over property,
So we may protect our borders,
So we may take care of our families, make a living and not give it all to government,
So we may protect the institution of the family...


Also, certain personal rights are particularly protected by the first ten amendments to the Constitution; they are defined as the Bill of Rights (my paraphrase below):

I. We do not have to attend a certain state church (established church) against our belief or be persecuted or punished for our religion. We can quote the Bible in the open market, assemble for a prayer meeting, and ask our government for a redress of grievances.

II. Our right to keep and bear arms and use them responsibly is a right necessary for our own (and probably our community’s) protection.

III. During peacetime we do not have to let soldiers live in our houses.

IV. We have a right to be secure in our homes, our persons, our papers, and other things we own privately. Government can't come in and search our castle, nor can they seize our property. The only way they can do this is if there is reason to suspect us of crimes, and then someone has to swear an oath or affirmation and narrowly describe the place, person, or things to be seized.

V. If you are charged with murder or a capital offense, except in a grand jury indictment, you do not have to incriminate yourself, unless it is a military or wartime crime. Also no double jeopardy is allowed, where you would be tried twice for the same offense. Also, you get a trial or other "due process of law," before punishment or fines. The government is not supposed to take your private property either, without just compensation.

VI. You have a right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury in your own district or state. You have to be confronted by witnesses and have counsel for your defense.

VII. If the value of the controversy is over twenty dollars, you have a right to be tried by jury. And the facts of the case cannot be re-examined in any court in the United States, except by common law.

VIII. No excessive bail and fines nor cruel and unusual punishment are permitted.

IX. These enumerated laws do not mean that other rights can be disparaged.

X. Powers not enumerated in the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the respective states and to the people. (The states and the people are to be protected from a powerful central government.)

I agree that there is nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that would indicate we have any rights to participate in behavior of the kind that would jeopardize the health and safety of others. But also, if there is any need to regulate health issues, it should be a right or responsibility of the state or the people, not the federal government. Perhaps meat or produce shipped across state lines would also need some regulation by the federal government under interstate commerce law. But states license doctors, nurses, and health facilities. By saying that the people could regulate such matters, I take it to mean local governments and principalities. It does not mean that individuals could or should be “a law unto themselves.” That sort of liberty borders on lawlessness and leads to chaos, for we are none of us perfect in behavior or motive. Only a totally pure, perfect, and loving populace can be free to do as they please. And we have found no such population under the sun.

---------------

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2011 8:06 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
christopher.wilkerson wrote:
goalieman wrote:
You see, this is the problem I have with the libertarian mindset. You seem to think that every action has some profound idealogical background to it. Why did me and my friends go out and drink? BECAUSE WE WERE STUPID TEENAGERS!!! And stupid teenagers tend to do things that, while they may not be the right thing to do, are legal to do! There was no thought, at least not any deep thought, given to the "destructive nature of drinking". You're young and indestructible, nothing can harm you (or so you think). Without at least some restraining influence of the law, what else would restrain those who haven't yet learned to restrain themselves? That person who gets killed by someone stoned on pot or whatever substance they may be on while behind the wheel doesn't have the time for that stoner to implement self restraint somewhere down the road. This isn't really a difficult concept.


I don't find it to be a difficult concept. It seems your point of view is that Americans have the sensibilities of stupid teenagers, and we need government to stop us from making bad decisions. Learning from mistakes allows us to implement self restraint in the future. We can't grow if we don't learn. Driving while intoxicated is illegal, and for good reason. Choosing to become intoxicated should not be illegal, no matter the substance.
goalieman wrote:
To imply that the founders of this country were trying to achieve some sort of utopia is a mis-reading of what they did that I find amazing. Utopian thought is something that's found in left-wing idealogy, not among conservative thinkers of the past (unless you want to count neo-cons as actual conservatives). The founders set forth a constitution that allows it's citizens to achieve their goals, but that's hardly a utopian concept. Any Utopia always has a big government behind it, which is not what the founders had in mind.
We just have different definitions of Utopia. For some reason you jump to the leftist ideal, which always incorporates government imposed restrictions and micro-managing of society. That idea doesn't really belong in our conversation, does it?

Yes, I think Government by the people is an utopian idea. The founders may not have used the word Utopia, but don't you think they had in mind the the improvement of mankind and society?

This thread has gotten way off track, and I don't think the argument is going to be solved here. But at the same time, I'm dying to figure this out. I don't drink or do drugs. But it has never entered my mind to punish those that do.

Scenario: a man grows cannabis in his garden, uses it to make clothing, and occasionally smokes it to soothe his arthritis.
Now what about this bothers you so much that you would throw him in prison?

A man should be able to grow whatever he chooses on his property and partake of it however he wishes. If you disagree with this proposition, you may need to reevaluate how conservative you really are.



Why do you avoid the obvious implication that during the time someone may be "learning from their mistakes", other people may not have the luxury of time while that person is texting on their cell phone while driving or being buzzed while exercising their liberty? And why, following your logic here, shouldn't someone be able to drive while stoned? Not everyone is a bad driver after a few tokes afterall. :wink:

This whole libertarian thought process of "If the government can prohibit me from owning material to build a nuclear bomb, they can take away all my other rights as well!" just doesn't pass the test with me. And I think it's you who may need to re-evaluate whether your a conservative or not, not me. If a man "should be able to grow whatever he wants on his property" is your line of demarkation on conservatism, I think I'll move next door to you and raise me some hogs in my backyard. Enjoy the smell! 8)

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....



Post by goalieman Liked by: christopher.wilkerson
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 14, 2011 8:24 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
WinningGuy wrote:
goalieman wrote:

That's what I meant when I said libertarians have a tidy answer to all the questions of the day. You reduced QouVadisAnima's agrument about drugs to fast food. Yup, those folks consuming a big mac are just as likley to cause a fatal traffic accident as a meth user is. :roll:


So, are we attempting to use government to protect people from themselves, or others? If it's others, do we go after the fast food restaurants for trying to lure people into hurting themselves with fast food?

The answers are convenient, and they're also true.

Big government is big government. Leftists always have the best of intentions. It's not like liberals go around wanting to take away freedom because of bad intentions. They believe that it's best for the safety of society.


See my above response. We're using Government to stop person A from ending person B's right to liberty and pursuit of happiness (e.g. running over someone because he thought the governments imposition that his car be inspected for having functioning brakes was intrusive into his personal liberty). It seems that you want no government, which would make even a scaled back form of government seem tyrannical.

As an example, do you honestly think people will stop text messaging while driving if there are no laws against it? No way, they'll keep endangering other drivers while they type highly intellectual things like "LOL, U my BFF!" while entering an intersection, palming the steering wheel with the hand that has a cigerette in it as well (I've witnessed this more times than I care to).

It's all about having a sensible government that protects it's citizens from the idiots among us. That's a government that a Huckabee administration would be all about. :)

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 15, 2011 2:13 am 
Offline
Sergeant

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 3:49 am
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Liked: 14
Honestly, these don't sound like conservative arguments. They are liberal arguments.

We can agree to disagree. Our philosophies are different. And I'm not arrogant enough to say that I am definitely right and others are wrong. I can only say that my belief in freedom leads me to believe that I am right. And I believe that if people are given enough freedom, responsibility, and education, they can handle that freedom.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 15, 2011 2:23 pm 
Offline
***** General

Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2008 8:45 pm
Posts: 1792
Location: Pennsylvania
Likes: 208
Liked: 275
WinningGuy wrote:
Honestly, these don't sound like conservative arguments. They are liberal arguments.

We can agree to disagree. Our philosophies are different. And I'm not arrogant enough to say that I am definitely right and others are wrong. I can only say that my belief in freedom leads me to believe that I am right. And I believe that if people are given enough freedom, responsibility, and education, they can handle that freedom.


No, they're commonsense agruments, which in essence are conservative arguments. Libertarianism does not equal conservatism, as much as it's adherants would like to believe it does, though they cross paths at certain points. One of the often given cures to all mankind's ills that the left throws out there is that if we just had more education we could cure most of our social woes. It's a bogus arument coming from the left, a very peculiar argument coming from someone on the right.

_________________
Most people believe what they see, the Left see's what it believes.....


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 15, 2011 2:25 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 7:47 pm
Posts: 4564
Location: Texas
Likes: 554
Liked: 523
Quote:
And I believe that if people are given enough freedom, responsibility, and education, they can handle that freedom.

So then why do people kill, murder & steal? Not enough freedom, responsibility or education? Seriously?



Post by QuoVadisAnima Liked by: goalieman
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
POWERED_BY