I do not say you mean well to your enemies. I say you mean to do well (mostly) which is to say you're a man of good will except when you get seriously irritated at a defeat.

Understandable, really, but courteous in victory, gallant in defeat is generally the ideal to strive for.

There's more than just the recognition of the humanity of one's opponent in this which then compels mercy for another fallen soul. On a practical level, the first outrageous insult is a shock, but soon after that, it becomes a joke.

As to AuH20's statement, he is of course, right. But like all statements it has to be taken in a context. One does not after all, blow up daycare centers in the defense of liberty, and Goldwater would probably have been happy if he could shoot someone who suggested such an idea.

Perhaps this is a bad definition of 'fanatic', but I asked myself a while ago, what was so wrong to be enthused about a Truth? And it comes to me....to be so enthused about the spread of that Truth, or the further applications of such that you forget the basics of that Truth. A problem that I may have as well.

Which is to say: If you got the chance to impose Libertarianism by force, say, Fred Flintstone's alien buddy gave you a button, would you? You have the power to zap anyone you wish who does not comply with the M. Simon way, either one at a time, or in large groups.

Tennwriter,

Perhaps you could explain how one "imposes" leaving people alone by force?

I see a very simple statement: you have no right to tell me what I must do. And I have no right to tell you what you must do.

If I choose to harm others, there are consequences, in the form of laws that are generally agreed to by almost 100% of my society. If my actions harm only me, I get to live with the consequences.

I don't tell you what to believe, and you don't tell me what to believe. How hard is that to understand? We're both free to try to persuade each other, which tends to work rather badly when you insult people by suggesting that they want to make everyone else sheep in their image rather than allow them to make their own decisions.

Dude,

I'm not defeated. I'm a Navy Man. I have not yet begun to fight.

BTW I note you have yet to refute my proposition: the Drug War spawned the TSA.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2010/11/for-children.html

Ah Yes. I will leave you alone by force. How is that done exactly?

Dude. You can't win arguments with that kind of logic.

Conservatives are as prone to solipsism as liberals. Which is why "debating" with them is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Do whatever you want to do or I'll kill you!

Phelps,

That is tricky. How can I be sure you are really doing what you want to do and not just pretending to avoid being killed? I'm going to have to look into this further.

Kate,

Is Libertarianism a moral position? Do other people have moral positions that disagree with it? If you force someone to support your moral position, you're imposing your morality on them, are you not?

The proper question is 'What morality ought to be imposed by justice and practicality?'

I insult no one with this viewpoint.

What I do is take away the Cheap and Easy Attack Club from the Libertarian's hands: the one that goes 'you theocrat, you're imposing morality!'.

Instead, I make them do what M. Simon does, the much harder....You ought to do this because of A, B, and C. It makes for a fairer and more useful arguement instead of 'shut up, you theocrat' its more 'here's what we ought to do, and why'.

Of course, Libertarians are right to be afraid of a fair arguement.

M. Simon, to some degree does the 'shut up, theocrat', but he also does the 'here's some good arguements you haven't heard as to why the drug war is bad.'

As to why I haven't tried to rebut him, its because that's not my purpose here. I'm not here to defend every social conservative position. I'm here to defend the right of social conservatives to have a position.

Libertarianism if it is a moral position is a negative one. Leave people alone if they are not initiating force or fraud.

DRUG WAR = BIG GOVERNMENT

And the Drug War is the protoype for many rights violations now impacting the general public. And you are powerless. The precedents have been set and you were silent or cheered them on. Them dopers deserved it. Well now so do you.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2010/11/liberty-and-justice-for-all.html

whatever you did to the least of these, you did to Me

It is way worse than that my friend. You have done it to yourself.

So you agree with me? Excellent. We're all moralists. The question is what boundaries should be built?

One issue on drugs that we can certainly agree on is the giving of drugs to the terminally ill in pain. My grandfather had lungs that were basically iron, but the high doses of morphine he received may have shortened his life, they also prevented him from feeling like he was suffocating for day after day.

I supported this action.

I think that Justice would support it, and that Practically, there was no chance of my ninety year old plus grandfather becoming a drug dealer on the street corner. So in the case of mercy to the dying, I don't see a problem with high doses of various painkillers including heroin, if properly supervised. Its relatively unlikely that doctors in ICU's are going to pick up a side career as a drug dealer anyways, or any more likely than they already have the chance of doing so.

I would approach the drug issue, cautiously and tentatively with an experimental approach.

First, I'd cut out the obvious abuses that anyone would agree with. No more SWAT teams busting in on marijuana dealers and shooting the next door neighbour on the word of an unreliable drug using informant.

Instead, I'd turn to some sort of drug testing kit that could be stuck in a toilet.

I'd support painkillers for the dying under supervision.

I've considered having one state have the right to soft drugs. First take a state wide audit, in detail, of many relevant factors. Make it as hard and solid as you can.

Second, legalize for a limited time period. Say three years or five years.

Third, take a second detailed audit at the end of the time.

Fourth, based on teh audit and on the voters wishes. Vote again.

Other states then can take the test bed state as a cautionary tale or a way forward. Either way, it should result in an end to this arguement. Either everyone says 'You libertarians are nuts! We're never going to listen to you again about drugs.' or 'Hmm, that didn't work too bad.'.

But, I admit that I could easily be swayed by arguements against drug legalization. Unlike you, I haven't spent that much effort educating myself about this issue. Nor, am I likely too.

Another thing I have considered is some sort of Grand Bargain. Pro-life for Drug Legalization. Because even if Drug Legalization is a horrible idea, people who drugged themselves up volunteered for it. Babies didn't volunteer to get their heads squashed without benefit of painkiller.

So, yeah, if you had a magic button for that Grand Bargain, I'd take it.