since it's not the job of the government to protect you from yourself
This is why I tend to identify myself to others as a moderate libertarian. Well, it's a part of why. Most of my political beliefs are based in the idea that if it only affects the person doing it, it shouldn't be illegal. Regulated, maybe. Illegal, no. The point where I differ from most Republicans, which is how I'd otherwise identify myself, is in what I think affects other people. Gay marriage, abortion in the first two trimesters, suicide, smoking marijuana... all fine with me.
I'm personally against abortion but I'd rather try to decrease the number of them through social welfare programs than through a blanket ban. Gay marriage I see as a civil rights issue since religions aren't forced to perform marriage ceremonies for gays. Most people misconstrue the issue and think that gay marriage means "We force churches to perform marriages for gay people" but actually it's more like "We changed a certain piece of paperwork that you have to fill out for the state." The problem was, that piece of paper gives you certain rights and priviledges but gay people weren't allowed to have those rights until that Massachusetts court decision. I identify myself as liberal because I believe that, in the economic sphere, the government should act when there is a problem that can be fixed by effective regulation - that's where I differ from Republicans and libertarians, who usually want to deregulate.
As far as abortion goes, I think that in a situation where, for example, birth control fails, a woman who doesn't want to have a child should be able to terminate the pregnancy. The same for rape victims who for whatever reason can't get to the morning-after pill in time. I think that more women who don't want to raise children should be encouraged to consider adoption, and that more people should learn about birth control methods as kids, so that you both lower the number of unwanted pregnancies and increase the number of those babies that are carried to term - but I believe that a woman should always have the choice, and in that sense it's a civil rights issue for me. Again, the same for gay marriage. I believe in regulation where that helps the problem; I don't believe that making something illegal counts as regulation.
The problem is, all regulations make something illegal. Take the lawsuits against VIOXX. Vioxx was marketed as a painkiller for arthritis, but in fact it caused a great number of people to have heart attacks. There a federal laws in place that state that you're not allowed to market a drug which causes such things, but if this regulation did not exist, the victims would have no legal recourse.
Hickey, two things: 1. you're a dirty hippie pinko communist who hates freedom- but I love you anyway 2. it IS the government's job to protect you from yourself-that's why suicide (both solo and assisted) are illegal. The government has been in the business of public safety (that means protecting you, even from yourself) for a very long time, and has a constitutionally mandated duty to do so: Article 1, Section 8 " The Congress shall have the power to....provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" add the Necessary and Proper Clause in with that, and it seems to me that you've got yourself a pretty strong constitutional framework for the prohibition of marijuana.
Tim, the problem with the argument that the government can protect you from yourself is that it then becomes the government's prerogative to define what is in your own best interest. So if the government suddenly decided that it's in your best interest to stop playing guitar, they could stop you from playing. If the government suddenly decided that because my family has a history of heart disease, it needs to protect me from my own negative dietary choices, it could regulate what food I choose to eat and force me to be a vegetarian for the rest of my life. (*shudders
( ... )
Hickey, I've got to hand it to you, you've got yourself a pretty compelling argument. I must admit that my knack for Constitutional interpretation has become woefully decayed. My only objections to your statement are these
( ... )
The government is not supposed to define what's in our best interests. It's supposed to act to prevent individuals from being harmed by other individuals. That is the one and only legitimate purpose of government. As such, the government may not act to protect you from yourself even if it claims to be acting in your best interest - communists claimed to be acting in the best interest of Russia's people, but they were in fact acting on the greed for power
( ... )
Comments 9
This is why I tend to identify myself to others as a moderate libertarian. Well, it's a part of why. Most of my political beliefs are based in the idea that if it only affects the person doing it, it shouldn't be illegal. Regulated, maybe. Illegal, no. The point where I differ from most Republicans, which is how I'd otherwise identify myself, is in what I think affects other people. Gay marriage, abortion in the first two trimesters, suicide, smoking marijuana... all fine with me.
Reply
Reply
I believe in regulation where that helps the problem; I don't believe that making something illegal counts as regulation.
Reply
Reply
1. you're a dirty hippie pinko communist who hates freedom- but I love you anyway
2. it IS the government's job to protect you from yourself-that's why suicide (both solo and assisted) are illegal. The government has been in the business of public safety (that means protecting you, even from yourself) for a very long time, and has a constitutionally mandated duty to do so: Article 1, Section 8 " The Congress shall have the power to....provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" add the Necessary and Proper Clause in with that, and it seems to me that you've got yourself a pretty strong constitutional framework for the prohibition of marijuana.
much love from Worcester-Tim
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment