It appears to be your intention to reject all purposes of the state, even the legitimate ones, and paint those that assert the state does have legitimate purposes as being the equivalent of Socialist\Communists, who strangely enough, share the Libertarian notions of all things moral.

Your anarchy yield to tyranny. It is ever thus.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/10/the_glue_of_civilization.html

why is the fed gov't involved in abortion? does the 10th amendment mean anything?

Yeah. What is important now is to get the State reduced in size. The reason abortion or any moral issue become something to argue about is the leviathan Govt wishes to apply its morality to all of us. Some folks who can't imagine limited govt only see that it's our morals or theirs. If Govt were really small, working on ONLY the things they are supposed to work on, no one would be arguing about the moral issues, because we would have freedom to go our own way. Any moral persuasion would have to be person to person, without the power of the State behind it. So, you are right. Best wishes, Susan Lee

"No. Not that kind."

Honestly, I stopped reading here.

Seriously though, this is the Time of the Minarchists. Government is too big.

DL,

I think you have failed to read me well.

What is wrong with liberals? They believe in state solutions to the problems that concern them the most.

What is wrong with conservatives? They believe in state solutions to the problems that concern them the most.

Get it? I'm for smaller government. And I really mean it. And me and mine hold the balance of power. Deal with it.

What can government do? It can keep crime to some tolerable minimum. It is incompetent to deal with vice. And I include the vice (and it is a big one) of abortion.

It can fight wars. And I'm in favor of slapping Islam upside the head until the Islamics get it.

Other than safe streets (how is the drug war working out?) and fighting wars government is either corrupt or incompetent. And even in the places it shows some competence we see plenty incompetence and corruption.

Smaller is better.

Now if you want help with your social issues and it doesn't involve government then just ask. Because I'm volunteering. I don't know how I could make it any clearer. I'm against abortion and I'm adamantly against government solutions to the problem. Although I'm of the opinion that ending the drug war might help. We shall see. Probably 20 years after it is over.

This is really not about me though. I merely give voice to what a lot of swingers and libertarian Republicans think. And I'd like to stay on your side. But I'm not bound to it. And I'm trying to show you that being consistent (smaller government and this time we really mean it) is a winner.

why is the fed gov't involved in abortion? does the 10th amendment mean anything?
newrouter · October 4, 2010 07:02 PM

THIS I agree with.

DL,
I think you have failed to read me well.

What is wrong with liberals? They believe in state solutions to the problems that concern them the most.

What is wrong with conservatives? They believe in state solutions to the problems that concern them the most.

No, this is a misstatement. Conservatives believe that the government exists to serve legitimate purposes, among them to protect people from each other. Many people believe that Abortion is Murder, and preventing\punishing murder is a legitimate government function.

Get it? I'm for smaller government. And I really mean it. And me and mine hold the balance of power. Deal with it.

I am also for smaller government. I want the government to stop performing NON LEGITIMATE functions. I want them to continue performing LEGITIMATE functions, like preventing Murder or various other crimes.

What can government do? It can keep crime to some tolerable minimum. It is incompetent to deal with vice. And I include the vice (and it is a big one) of abortion.

You are not arguing about the function of government, you are arguing whether something is a vice or a crime. The difference is, you accuse those with a different opinion about what constitutes a vice or a crime as being big government advocates because they do not agree with you that what is actually a CRIME is in your opinion a vice.

Anyone who doesn't agree with you that infant murder is a VICE is a COMMUNIST! Sorry, it's a crime.

It can fight wars. And I'm in favor of slapping Islam upside the head until the Islamics get it.

Other than safe streets (how is the drug war working out?) and fighting wars government is either corrupt or incompetent. And even in the places it shows some competence we see plenty incompetence and corruption.

As near as I can tell, it is preventing us from going into a 50% of the population, China-like addiction rate, and thereby preventing our society from collapsing. In that regard, the war seems to be a success so far, but people keep trying to undermine it, so we may end up with a collapsed society (and a dictator) anyways if these people manage to be successful.

Smaller is better.

Yes it is, but too small is just as bad.

Now if you want help with your social issues and it doesn't involve government then just ask. Because I'm volunteering. I don't know how I could make it any clearer. I'm against abortion and I'm adamantly against government solutions to the problem. Although I'm of the opinion that ending the drug war might help. We shall see. Probably 20 years after it is over.

I am against the social issue of murder. I'm not sure how you can help other than to stop voicing support or acquiescence for certain types of murder. In an evolutionary sense, the problem will eventually resolve itself, just as it is in Europe. Those who kill their children will be supplanted by those who do not.

This is really not about me though. I merely give voice to what a lot of swingers and libertarian Republicans think. And I'd like to stay on your side. But I'm not bound to it. And I'm trying to show you that being consistent (smaller government and this time we really mean it) is a winner.
M. Simon · October 4, 2010 09:39 PM

Oh, I agree that government needs to be smaller. Both Federal and State. That doesn't mean I believe it should become too small to enforce long existing and proper laws.

DL,

Here is the short and dirty: it does not matter whether you think abortion is murder or not. If you focus on abortion at the expense of the widest possible coalition to clean up the economy, abortion will stop being a problem because there will be abandoned babies dying in alleys right beside the starving people. If the starving people don't eat them.

When - and only when - the nation is prosperous and healthy again, then the argument over whether abortion is better than children in a household that doesn't want them (or worse, government care) can resume.

Oh, and DL? Abortion should never have been legalized by judicial decree. But right now, that's a very minor concern, and you can guarantee it's one the Parties of Big Government WILL use to split those of us who want goverment out of our homes, bedrooms, electrical appliances, and lives.

DL,

Here is the short and dirty: it does not matter whether you think abortion is murder or not. If you focus on abortion at the expense of the widest possible coalition to clean up the economy, abortion will stop being a problem because there will be abandoned babies dying in alleys right beside the starving people. If the starving people don't eat them.

When - and only when - the nation is prosperous and healthy again, then the argument over whether abortion is better than children in a household that doesn't want them (or worse, government care) can resume.

Oh, and DL? Abortion should never have been legalized by judicial decree. But right now, that's a very minor concern, and you can guarantee it's one the Parties of Big Government WILL use to split those of us who want goverment out of our homes, bedrooms, electrical appliances, and lives.
Kate · October 5, 2010 12:20 PM

I agree. The primary issue currently is the financial survival of our nation, and all other concerns ought to take a back seat to this issue.

That being said, the "moral" issues are topical in these few threads as being the distinctive dividing line between conservatism and libertarianism.

But yeah, to save the nation we should be far more concerned with economics currently.

DL,

I had a liberal friend tell me that if the right would keep social issues out of its governing platform it would never lose an election.

You believe in smaller government? Let the social issues be solved in the private sphere.

Me? I'm a balance of power voter. When the Rs over reach I will be pumping for Ds. Do you really want that with all the economic dysfunction that comes with it? You see. I do know what I'm doing.

And I'm no more interested in letting the cultural socialist get the upper hand (for long) than I'm interested in letting the economic socialist get the upper hand (for long).

So let me repeat. Are there any groups solving social issues without government intrusion you would like me to support? I keep asking the question and all I get from you is: crickets.

You know Samuel warned about government lovers. Take his message to heart.

DL,

What I'm telling you is that if you can curb your enthusiasm for government solutions (government solutions? how stupid to you have to be to be a Republican and believe in that) to social problems the economic socialists wouldn't have a chance.

I'm not denigrating what you are trying to do. Just your proposed methods.

If Jesus couldn't eradicate evil what makes you think that you in cahoots with government (because you know - government works - the cry of socialists of every stripe) can do it? Do you realize how stupid it makes you look to say "I'm against big government, except for... and except for... and except for... etc."

Really. If we had a truly anti-government party it would never lose an election.

So let me repeat. Are there any groups solving social issues without government intrusion you would like me to support?

And I asked you if there are any private groups trying to solve the MURDER problem without government support?

I keep asking the question and all I get from you is: crickets.

Crickets? So that's what you hear when you put your fingers in your ears? You need to get that checked out! Or, you could just pull your fingers out of your ears and actually listen to what I'm saying.

You know Samuel warned about government lovers. Take his message to heart.
M. Simon · October 6, 2010 03:52 AM

"Government Lovers" is just propaganda, like "Homophobia" or "Nigger Lover". Your accusations do not describe me or other social conservatives, and i'm not going to accept your characterization of people who believe that law enforcement is a LEGITIMATE purpose of government.

The tactic of repeating the same accusations over and over seems to signify that it's an orphan in your quiver.

What I'm telling you is that if you can curb your enthusiasm for government solutions (government solutions? how stupid to you have to be to be a Republican and believe in that) to social problems the economic socialists wouldn't have a chance.

I don't have an enthusiasm for governmental solutions, I regard them as the last resort when trying to deal with people insisting on hurting other people. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to use the last resort.
It is, like the death penalty, simply a case of Ultima Ratio Regum.

I'm not denigrating what you are trying to do. Just your proposed methods.

You disregard the notion that "authority" and "Society" are a mutually driven feedback system. They are NOT independent. Despite being a fallacy, MOST people follow the Argumentum ad Verecundiam, and accept something as legal and moral simply because the AUTHORITIES say that it is. Because this is simply an aspect of human nature, it cannot be overcome, so therefore the beliefs of society are highly influenced by the dictates of government, and vice versa.

One will eventually follow the other.

If Jesus couldn't eradicate evil what makes you think that you in cahoots with government (because you know - government works - the cry of socialists of every stripe) can do it? Do you realize how stupid it makes you look to say "I'm against big government, except for... and except for... and except for... etc."

I am not an advocate of Jesus OR the Government. You might as well be citing Gaia and Star Trek for all I care. I do not offer any exception to big government, I want it at it's proper size, which is NOT Zero.(Libertarian) And Not 100%.(Communist) I want it as small as possible to perform it's necessary functions, among which I regard Law enforcement as a primary one.

Really. If we had a truly anti-government party it would never lose an election.
M. Simon · October 6, 2010 04:00 AM

Ditto if it were a Dictatorship! This argument is nothing but an attempt to trade bribery for convictions. It matters not to me that we can win by jettisoning inconvenient principles, in the manner of RINOs. Many is the time I fervently wished the Republicans would stand on principle and LOSE a vote in the house or Senate, thereby demonstrating a stark distinction between them and the Democrats, but invariably enough "pragmatists" and "squishes" would side with the Democrats and give them their fig leaf of "bipartisanship" to hide behind.

It is how we came to our current sorry state of affairs. No... if we have to cut the brake cables and let the whole sorry mess fall, i'd rather do THAT then incorporate the seeds of our future destruction into the subsequent social/governmental contract. Better that it should fall on me here and now than on my children alone in the future.

A traditional American value you may have missed.

Americans don't respect authority.

It has something to do with the way the country was founded I'm told. I'm sure you must have read about it. Traditional American culture for quite some time. In need of renewal to be sure. But I think it will be done. I intend to help.

If you go the authoritarian route you give the economic authoritarians an opening. But if you insist I will join them for a time to defeat any grand schemes you propose. With the economic wreck that will ensue.

Find another way.

You will eventually. Out of self preservation.

And I have allies. Read the numbers and weep:

Obama/Keyes vs Kerry/Bush

And I have allies. Read the numbers and weep:

Obama/Keyes vs Kerry/Bush
M. Simon · October 6, 2010 12:33 PM

Well... if you want to talk about allies...

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/05/survey-most-tea-partiers-are-socially-conservative-almost-half-identify-with-religious-right/

:)

DL,

You do have the bigger numbers. But not enough. And if you drive away those loosely attached the socialists win. We have seen it over and over. But if you want to try the experiment again...

Nothing. The only thing government does well. If it can do it at all.

Nice comment that remakes my point:

Because the Tea Party agenda, at the moment, is fiscal conservatism. That was the whole point of the movement. "Taxed Enough Already". Defeating the economic socialism of the liberal agenda.

It wasn't ever about social conservatism.

Now some, like DeMint, are trying to corrupt it to push the so-con crap. If that happens, huge swaths of independents and moderates who support the Tea Party movement now will abandon it in the future.

I'm not surprised. I've been suspecting for a while now that the true cons were referring to a little more than just economic socialism when they rail against "RINOs" and moderates.

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/06/quotes-of-the-day-474/comment-page-2/#comment-3964038