Three Reasons Conservatives are Losing the Battle for Americ

[The Annoyed Man]

just curious, but in the Liberterian Utopia, who ends up caring for the "litter of children" spawned by the crack heads that made the wrong choices?

In describing the libertarian utopia candidate, canvasback said "we will take care of those WHO CANNOT take care of themselves." I would presume that to include the "'litter of children' spawned by crack heads." But I would also presume that to mean that "when we take care of them, you lose your parental rights in any way shape or form until you can demonstrate a track record of sobriety and personal responsibility." An adult who digs their own hole SHOULD have to dig themselves out of it.....but not all poverty is self-inflicted. I don't think that society has a primary responsibility to rescue the children of the poor from the poverty of their parents, so long as their parents are able to work and better themselves. But when a parent's deliberate choices to pursue behaviors which lead to addiction then deprecate the health and safety of their children, I believe that there is a role for society in rectifying that, at least temporarily; and the BITTER TRUTH is that if we leave it to churches and the charitably minded to care for these children, MOST MEMBERS OF SOCIETY WON'T STEP UP AND DO IT. What then? At that point, government must have some role to play. I think the only real sticking points occur when we begin discussing the pros and cons of forced sterilization of chronic drug and alcohol abusers. The substances may be legal, but the rest of us should not have to carry the burden of the addict's addictions. There must be a balance between looking after the truly innocent children, and simply allowing the state to become the repository of the addict's continuing sexual irresponsibilities. On the other hand, can we enforce something like forced sterilization without individual adjudications? I'm not really claiming to know all the answers, but I am agreeing that no libertarian utopia can be a truly just place if we do not address these gray areas.......and yet I find myself increasingly libertarian.

[canvasbck]

just curious, but in the Liberterian Utopia, who ends up caring for the "litter of children" spawned by the crack heads that made the wrong choices?

In describing the libertarian utopia candidate, canvasback said "we will take care of those WHO CANNOT take care of themselves." I would presume that to include the "'litter of children' spawned by crack heads." But I would also presume that to mean that "when we take care of them, you lose your parental rights in any way shape or form until you can demonstrate a track record of sobriety and personal responsibility." An adult who digs their own hole SHOULD have to dig themselves out of it.....but not all poverty is self-inflicted.

No need for me to answer Mr. Surveyor, this answers it.

[mr surveyor]

I thought that the pure Libertarian idealism was based on a principle that as long as your personal actions have no effect on your neighbors/peers, then all is well?

[SF18C]

I'll take the "liberterian utopia" over the "Democratic Utopia."

But I will also add I have no idea what the Republican Utopia is any more!

[K.Mooneyham]

The way I understand a true libertarian society is that you pretty much need a strong bit of intestinal fortitude to live in such a society. Because in such a society, you do not rescue people from their problems, and if that includes their kids not doing so well, that is that. It is a bit of dog-eat-dog. I'm not advocating for that exact model in any form or fashion, just stating what I have gathered reading things about libertarianism, including things by libertarians themselves. Which is why I still consider myself a conservative with a strong nod to libertarianism.

IF we had a government with some backbone, we could get STARTED on cleaning up this mess by way of shutting off handouts to those who do not deserve things handed to them, and by TRUE means testing those who seem to have problems and may actually need assistance. Not everyone's kid needs an iPad or a giant flatscreen TV to play their X-Box99 on and its not torture or cruelty to not hand them the money to do so. But, that would involve cutting through the political correctness that has infested our nation, and finally offering some plain talk. And I don't see that happening any time soon.

[bnc]

The way I understand a true libertarian society is that you pretty much need a strong bit of intestinal fortitude to live in such a society. Because in such a society, you do not rescue people from their problems, and if that includes their kids not doing so well, that is that. It is a bit of dog-eat-dog. I'm not advocating for that exact model in any form or fashion, just stating what I have gathered reading things about libertarianism, including things by libertarians themselves. Which is why I still consider myself a conservative with a strong nod to libertarianism.

The issue is not whether people are being helped or left to fend for themselves. What matters to libertarians is that the help is voluntary rather than coerced. Charity is certainly permitted, but forced redistribution is not. You are certainly correct about the need for intestinal fortitude since individual action will be neccessary in order to realize your preferences. Rather than complain that "somebody should do something", it would be up to us to take voluntary action.

[ClarkLZeuss]

Here are my opinions.

Forced sterilization - I don't want us to become Communist China. I have lived in China and have read real stories of women onto whom this was forced. As was abortion. No government should ever have that kind of control over someone's body. However, I believe in making sterilization an incentivized option for addicts. Let them get something in return for it, and let it be their own decision. Here is another thought: I am friends with a family who has adopted two children from a drug addict who kept sleeping around. These friends of mine love those children like their own. Some food for thought. God has a plan for every child born.

As a conservative who feels strongly about social issues, I feel that way because I believe that laws about abortion and marriage matter because family is the fabric of society, and anytime the basic structure of family is tampered with, society pays the bills. That's all I want to say on that so as to be respectful for the forum rules, but again, just some food for thought.

Handouts - there is no way that does not involve mass chaos and rioting by which we can just go cold turkey and turn off the handout faucet. Look at the riots all over Europe due to the austerity measures. Now multiply that by hundreds of gangs and thousands of illegal weapons, and kabloom, big problem. It is not realistic. Maybe I am too pessimistic, but that's my take on it. So, we have to - again - incentivize people getting off the government dole. Make it worth it to them. Or make it really painful to stay on handouts. Either way, make it a choice they own.

[anygunanywhere]

I'll take the "liberterian utopia" over the "Democratic Utopia."

But I will also add I have no idea what the Republican Utopia is any more!

Look at the democrat utopia of 80 years ago and you will see the current republican utopia. They all shifted left. Repubs are now moderates - middle of the road.

Anygunanywhere

[stevie_d_64]

I'll take the "liberterian utopia" over the "Democratic Utopia."

But I will also add I have no idea what the Republican Utopia is any more!

Look at the democrat utopia of 80 years ago and you will see the current republican utopia. They all shifted left. Repubs are now moderates - middle of the road.

Anygunanywhere

Bingo!!!

And from my position, this insider is not impressed with the leadership of the party in question...I will continue to infect, and do things that might enact some sort of change in philosophy, but I feel it is only a finger in the dike of politics...We need to have a lifeboat on the davits ready to cast off when the levy breaks...

And I accept ALL criticism for my past and current political affiliation with open arms...

To address the OP's original thoughts...

I believe the country, much less its elected caste of characters has lost its virtue...How can we really accept the blessings from God, if we ALL are responsible for the decline of this culture...

The republicans have lost the culture at the expense of trying to win the political battle of issues...Until republicans recognize this we will continue to lose the war...

But, what do I know...Right???

The answer, in my opinion is NOT libertarianism, it is still, and will remain conservatisism based upon originalist intent...Those old foagie white guys in wigs thought this out pretty good...It wasnt perfect, but it was still inspired, and blessed from the beginning...Liberalism, Fabian Socialism, "progressives" have every intent upon destroying this country,and they are winning the cultural side of the battle...We need to take that away from them if we are ever to recover those basic principles upon which this country was founded...It is ever as pertinant today, as it was 230+ years ago...

Just my opinion...

[VMI77]

just curious, but in the Liberterian Utopia, who ends up caring for the "litter of children" spawned by the crack heads that made the wrong choices?

Who does now?

[Jaguar]

just curious, but in the Liberterian Utopia, who ends up caring for the "litter of children" spawned by the crack heads that made the wrong choices?

Has any libertarian (big or small "l") ever said their goal is a Utopia?

Freedom is messy, stupidity hurts, fear effects decisions, this is not a utopia. But I would rather live where I am free to fail then where I am compelled to mediocrity.

Choices have consequences, if someone cannot accept the responsibility of their choices then private charity would have to step in and either correct the person, or cut them loose, while shoring up the responsibility they have created.

Government just pays these folks to keep doing what they are doing, how’s that working?

[mr surveyor]

If the Libertarian view is to legalize all drugs, is it just possible that there may be a few more "crack babies" than we have now? The way I see it, right now the taxpayers (what few of us there are now) are paying to support a lot of innocent children (babies) that were born into very unfortunate circumstances. With full legalization of drugs, will there be an increase or decrease in drug users? I don't know, and I don't think anyone can predict the outcome. As for the crack head drug users, if they are unable to resist the temptation after some type of therapy, I personally don't care if they drown in their own puke. Someone will still be responsible for the care of their babies.

And, the "gay issues".... I probably shouldn't go there. This is a firearms forum after all.

[SF18C]

If the Libertarian view is to legalize all drugs, is it just possible that there may be a few more "crack babies" than we have now? The way I see it, right now the taxpayers (what few of us there are now) are paying to support a lot of innocent children (babies) that were born into very unfortunate circumstances. With full legalization of drugs, will there be an increase or decrease in drug users? I don't know, and I don't think anyone can predict the outcome. As for the crack head drug users, if they are unable to resist the temptation after some type of therapy, I personally don't care if they drown in their own puke. Someone will still be responsible for the care of their babies.

And, the "gay issues".... I probably shouldn't go there. This is a firearms forum after all.

While I do not have any fact or data to support this I will just have to say it is my belief...we spend a heck of a lot more taxpayer money arresting, prosecuting and locking up people for the victimless crime of drug possession that caring for all the crack babies we have now!

[C-dub]

I'll give you one more. Rand Paul!

As much I've been liking what he's had to say recently, he voted for Chuck Hagel today. Him and three other Republicans I've never heard of. They could have filibustered his nomination into oblivion, but NO!

[sunny beach]

The issue is not whether people are being helped or left to fend for themselves. What matters to libertarians is that the help is voluntary rather than coerced. Charity is certainly permitted, but forced redistribution is not. You are certainly correct about the need for intestinal fortitude since individual action will be neccessary in order to realize your preferences. Rather than complain that "somebody should do something", it would be up to us to take voluntary action.

Exactly. People should be free to buy a meal for someone down on their luck, donate toys to needy families at Christmas, or allow a friend to live in a spare bedroom rent free IF THEY CHOOSE. But its wrong for someone to threaten to stab you if you don't buy them a filet mignon. It's wrong and an insult to Jesus for a family to steal Christmas toys. And it's wrong for the government to use force or threat of force to take your hard earned income to put a roof over somebody else's head.