Morning Line – February 25, 2009
February 25, 2009 by Cato
Filed under Delaware, Delaware Politics, Maryland, Maryland Politics, National Politics, Virginia, Virginia Politics
Delaware -
Firm with ties to Joe Biden’s family showing signs of trouble.
Cape District voters reject shift of funds.
Wilmington Charter President not going quietly.
Does this explain a lot about our friends at DelawareLiberal (and leftists in general)?
Maryland -
Why is parental consent needed for a tattoo, but not for a kid to get an abortion?
Propaganda at its finest. It’s NEVER the fault of the left.
from SbyNEWS – a little over the top, but true.
Virginia -
Virginia House and Senate duke out differences.
Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine fights any offshore drilling off Virginia coast. Let’s see what he says when gas is back over $4.00 per gallon.
Bearing Drift talks with Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) on the non-State of the Union.
Norfolk civil servants face furloughs. Don’t worry, the Feds are coming. Hope and change baby.
Enviros fight planting of sterile Asian oysters. Further evidence that solving a problem is not one of their primary concerns.
Kaine opposes cap on out-of-state students.
GREAT post at TwoConservatives about the RIGHT way to fight illegal immigration.
No (Blue) Virginia, it doesn’t begin with energy. It begins with you guys nationalizing everything.
National -
Prof. Richard Vatz’s take on the non-State of the Uniion speech.
Why is it wrong for Earth, Wind & Fire to play for clients of Northern Trust, but OK for them to play for a bunch of politicians?
Large turnout expected for CPAC.
The latest battle to socialize medicine has just begun.
Delaware Libertarian on borrowing our way to prosperity.
Re: the link to DE Liberal. What does posting the video mean exactly. That they support legalized pot?
“I’m in favor of legalizing drugs. According to my values system, if people want to kill themselves, they have every right to do so. Most of the harm that comes from drugs is because they are illegal.”
-Milton Friedman
My apologies as well. I have never visited before so I am unaware of the style, slant, inside jokes, etc.
What about the ‘concept’ could any logically person disagree with? (Admittedly, I am not exactly certain what you mean by ‘the concept’.) My rationale makes perfect sense and is 100% legit (if I may say so myself). Only when one interjects their own morality on others does the concept breakdown. Once you begin to legislate private activities that infringe on no one else’s liberty you are one very shaky intellectual ground. Any perceived negative consequences, say on the health of the person or the morality of the person, etc. is irrelevant. Moreover, any theoretical wider impact (i.e., the gateway drug boogeyman) is conjecture at best or again moralizing at worst.
I realize this is not a new argument, but the fact that you aren’t persuaded is interesting to me. Do you dismiss it out of hand or moral/religious grounds? How do you differentiate between marijuana and the legal substances (alcohol and tobacco)? Perhaps you don’t.
Anyway, have a nice day. DG
Thanks for the response. I got it. Fair enough. With all respect I think it is a bit presumptuous of you to claim that the “vast majority” believe either in original sin or inherent human evil. It is a nice way of implicitly injecting religion into the mix though. Maybe it is indeed true statistically – I haven’t the slightest idea. But I don’t see why that should dictate policy even if it were true.
I believe in neither. Evolved culture and rational thought keeps society together, to whatever extent it actually is together. Your belief (faith) in original sin and/or innate depravity is just fine, for you. Why the other infidels and I need to live by your definition in beyond me, even if we are in the minority.
First, it was a joke. I apologize if you didn’t get it. Second, just because Friedman won a Nobel AND I agree with him on many things doesn’t mean that I think he’s right about drug legalization.
This is one of the reasons that I’m not a libertarian. I know most (if not all) of the arguments for legalization. I just don’t agree with the concept.
Thanks for the comment. Take care.
You are absolutely correct that the pro-legalization arguments are compelling. However, one of the differences between a modern conservative and a libertarian is an issue like this. Conservatives believe that government should regulate certain behaviors. The vast majority of us either believe in original sin or a non-theist version of it. We are all depraved, by nature. A sense of right and wrong, along with the threat of punishment for violating certain rules of a civil society are what keep the majority of citizens on the straight and narrow.
You may be surprised to know that while I oppose the legalization of pot, heroin, etc. I also vehemently oppose the federalization of these crimes. Ditto with Oregon’s euthanasia statute. Ditto with gay marriage (the Defense of Marriage act). Same with abortion. I honestly believe that our constitution means something.
While I am an evangelical Christian, I don’t want to live in a theocracy. If I did, Iran would always be an option.
I know that didn’t fully answer your question, but that was all the time I had.
I really like this thread.
I don’t think I’m presumptuous at all. Remember my distinctions.
You appear to be of a more libertarian bent. Nothing wrong with that. While libertarians (small and large L) have a lot in common with conservatives (in general), there are still a few core differences. Remember, FA Hayek was adamant that he was not a conservative. If you define conservative in the same way that Tories do, I wouldn’t consider myself a conservative either. I believe in a relatively unique brand of American conservatism that has far more in common with Burkean whiggery than tory conservatism. We believe in constitutionally limited government (federalism), regulated free markets, deliberative change, etc.
In these times, punchlines (or sound bites) seem to be necessary to get most points across. One that I use is that American conservatives are more like the NFIB than the US Chamber.
Back to religion. In all of my reading and experience I have found fairly few conservatives who are atheists. However, those that are still believe in a non-theistic form of original sin. They recognize that man is essentially depraved. Given the opportunity and a dearth of consequences, he has no compunction in taking advantage of his fellow. This is one of the reasons (probably the key reason) we believe in limited government, not a lack of governance. A true libertarian prefers less governance (BUT rightly demands the rule of law). Modern liberals prefer government limited only by the whims of the moment. They are more about what feels right than what is right.
Anyway, I hope you get my drift. I’ve really enjoyed the discussion.