In response to:

Bad Rules

OldMexicanblog Wrote: Oct 17, 2012 10:11 AM
Re: Illbay, -- I used to think Libertarians were "libertines" - and a good many of them are. -- A "good many of them"? You know them all? -- I can speak out against those things that I think most Libertarian favor...because I have the freedom to do so. -- That is, until those that want to act upon their objections of liberty do so. It is not like you're especially protected because you disagree with libertarians. -- I'm not actually aware of anyone on the Right who is hell-bent on restricting freedom -- *cough* Patriot Act! *cough* *cough*
JustMC Wrote: Oct 22, 2012 10:23 AM
There are thousands of examples of infringement on freedom. For starters, Congress took a look at the loosening of restrictions on warrants, sold to the people only for defense against domestic terrorism. By the time they studied it, ALL BUT THREE out of 700+ warrants were issued for simple drug cases.

For another disgusting example, try this one. A farmer who did NOTHING wrong. NOTHING. He's still out a bunch of money and under lots of gov't threats.
http://www.aipnews.com/talk/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=23893&posts=1
nawlins72 Wrote: Oct 17, 2012 1:05 PM
"And I'm sorry, but "Patriot Act" *cough cough* ****-all to do with "restricting liberty." The idea that different levels of law enforcment can share information about ongoing investigations of suspected terrorist activity is hardly and infringement on freedom."

I can see why you think that way, seeing as your perception of this act is very simplistic. It didn't just increase information sharing between agencies, but loosened restrictions on information gathering, detention of suspects and legal representation (4th & 5th Amendment protections).
nawlins72 Wrote: Oct 17, 2012 1:03 PM
"I know there are quite a few - around 5% of the electorate - who have voted in the past for candidates like Harry Browne who made drug legalization THE primary plank in his platform."

Nope. That is how the Right mischaracterize the Libertarian Party platform, but "drug legalization" was NOT the primary plank. Nevertheless, the fact that conservatives don't see the War on Drugs as a major drain on national resources, an expansion of government power and abuse and a violation of individual liberty shows that they approve of the State so long as its boot is on the necks of those they dislike.

JustMC Wrote: Oct 17, 2012 12:49 PM
And yes, we can show you tons of examples. And many we can't, where the government imposes gag orders unConstitutionally (see also Amendment 1).
JustMC Wrote: Oct 17, 2012 12:48 PM
First,, do you agree that the 4th and 5th Amendments are higher law?
Illbay Wrote: Oct 17, 2012 11:34 AM
I know there are quite a few - around 5% of the electorate - who have voted in the past for candidates like Harry Browne who made drug legalization THE primary plank in his platform.

So by inference, yeah, "a good many" of "big L" Libertarians are obsessed with drug legalization.

And I'm sorry, but "Patriot Act" *cough cough* ****-all to do with "restricting liberty." The idea that different levels of law enforcment can share information about ongoing investigations of suspected terrorist activity is hardly and infringement on freedom.

And I will ask you, as I've asked scads of you "Patriot act haters": Can you show me even ONE INSTANCE of someone whose freedom was abridged BECAUSE of the Patriot Act? Just one?

So far I've had no takers
Illbay Wrote: Oct 17, 2012 11:32 AM
I know there are quite a few - around 5% of the electorate - who have voted in the past for candidates like Harry Browne who made drug legalization THE primary plank in his platform.

So by inference, yeah, "a good many" of "big L" Libertarians are obsessed with drug legalization.
JustMC Wrote: Oct 17, 2012 11:21 AM
cough...NDAA...cough cough

We take free speech for granted in America, unlike elsewhere. The furor over that anti-Muslim video is the latest reminder of that.

But freedom of speech is never safe, even here. Many colleges now impose "civility codes." Civility is nice, but enforcing a "civility rule" against offensive speech would put an end to lots of useful provocative speech. As a University of North Carolina student put it, "A picture of Mitt Romney would offend 70 percent of residence hall students."

Taping my Fox Business Network show at UNC, I also learned that the college, to "protect" women, had dropped...