The Instigator
the_last_Patriot
Pro (for)
Winning
39 Points
The Contender
jbruner
Con (against)
Losing
30 Points

Is the Liberal Party truly Anti-American?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/11/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,827 times Debate No: 230
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (23)

 

the_last_Patriot

Pro

Beginning in the 17th century, the term liberalism came to be synonymous with freedom, and reason, as enlightenment writers such as John Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, and Voltaire, wrote about the Natural Rights of mankind and the just functions of Government. In modern times, liberalism could not be further from its original meaning. America was founded on the principle that Government exists only to protect the Natural rights of it citizens, and to that end, its power came from the consent of those it governed. This is an extension of what Thomas Hobbes called the Social Contract theory. The American citizens gave up certain rights and ceded power to a Government which was supposed to protect those rights, and nothing more. This is the American definition of freedom. The current meaning of liberalism is quite different. A liberal, by his own definition is someone who favors progress, who favors a fair playing field for all and swears by the efficiency of government over the Private sector. In practice, a liberal is one who supports large amounts of spending to fund government programs to "help" its citizens on the road to a successful life. And in truth, a liberal is a person who scoffs at the merit of individual responsibility and potential. This country was founded upon the principles of hard work and individual governance. Yet the liberal politician would have one believe that it is the Government, and not oneself who knows how best to run ones own life. If the Founders of the American Republic believed this to be true, they would have never broken away from the English government in the first place. Such a large amount of faith in the efficiently and righteousness of government is completely contradictory to the original founding principles of our Government. For this reason, it is clearly evident that the American Liberal party is opposed to the original freedom promised to us by our founding fathers, and by logical extension, Un-American.
jbruner

Con

I'll start with where I agree with my opponent so we can establish some common ground.

"Government exists to protect the rights of its citizens, and comes from the consent of the governed."

"The American citizen gives up certain rights, as per social contract theory, to a government which exists solely to protect those rights"

I agree that the proper position of the United States federal government as per both its history and my political ideology is to protect the rights of citizens and restrain itself beyond that.

1. My opponent says liberals do not swear by the efficiency of government over the private sector; This is incorrect, they only feel that the excesses of the private sector must sometimes be checked by government. This regulation, a liberal idea, is necessary to preserve the rights we hold so dear. Without regulation, large corporations would gain monopoly power and restrict the liberties of the individual. For example, if there was only one possible employer in an area, that employer could restrict the liberty of all its workers, forcing them to work 100 hours a week for minimal pay, or forcing them to stay on without breaks, or forcing them to shop only at the company store. Government must regulate powerful corporations to prevent them from damaging individuals in the pursuit of profit. This disgust at the excesses of unrestricted capitalism is not a new idea, and was accepted by many of the advocates for American-style liberty my opponent cites in their argument. Thomas Jefferson hated the factory system, and said it needed to be controlled not by a powerful owner but by democracy of the workers, a liberal perspective. Thomas Jefferson, the perennial American icon of liberty, taking a position my opponent considers "liberal" entirely disproves his argument stating that this liberal point of view is Un-American. Further, the specific philosopher Voltaire that he cites was equally appalled by the excesses of the factory system in France and suggested "liberal" communes and republics to restrict its abuses. Another example of someone he uses being "liberal" can be seen when examining Montesquieu, who specifically said that branches of government should come together to regulate economic activity for the public good, an extremely "liberal" perspective. We thus see that ideas considered "liberal" nowadays were seen as correct by American advocates of liberty, some of whom he even cites directly. Your argument falls when you realize that what you call modern-day perversions of the original Liberalism were in fact, part of the original Liberalism itself!

2. You state that it is liberals who want to run the lives of others. I agree that controlling the lives of others is against the spirit of America, and this is why it is liberals who are against this position at every turn. Legalizing drugs is a "liberal" position which means less government involvement. The conservative alternative is direct government involvement to prohibit drug use. The Liberal position on this issue is clearly more in line with the principles you discuss. Further, an attempt i.e. Iraq to impose our form of goverance on another nation is similarly antithetical to this idea of not governing the lives of others. The attempt to invade Iraq was opposed by Liberals on those grounds and continues to be opposed by Liberals. Similar issues such as gay marriage, contraception, and abortion involve conservatives trying to restrict the lives of other people with Liberals being the ones to prefer open choice.
Modern-day liberals clearly prefer to allow people to have control over their own lives.

3. My opponent may say that conservatives allow economic choice, whereas liberals do not. In reality, however, a Liberal social policy allows much more economic choice for the majority of a nation's citizens. Without economic resources such as liberal job training or liberal public education, one does not have freedom to act as they choose; they are instead shoehorned into a low-paying job with no way out. The cost of living is already higher than what this person is making, and so without liberal education subsidies there is no way for this person to "move up" the economic ladder. Without modern-day Liberalism, the economically disadvantaged have no freedom of choice regarding their lives, and in order to live their lives freely instead of as how their employer dictates, they require the Liberal policies which my opponent says are Un-American. Further, until liberal policies were implemented in the United States to increase the power of labor unions, the economically disadvantaged contained all but an elite and privileged few. My opponent clearly disproves his own argument here, seeing as these "liberal" policies promote freedom for the vast majority of the population. He calls my policies "running people's lives" , but in my system, people are free to chose their own line of work and method of supporting themselves, whereas in his system, only a few powerful individuals have the freedom of economic choice. If policies promoting freedom from other's running one's lives are American, than Liberal economic policies allowing for the education of and benefits to the average working man of America are American, and policies favoring the continuation of a corporate elite at the expense of the freedom and livelihood of others are Un-American.

In sum, Modern-Day Liberalism supports the freedom and empowerment of the Americans, and is directly in-line with the beliefs of the Founding Fathers.
Debate Round No. 1
the_last_Patriot

Pro

My opponent suggests a few things here that are simply untrue.

1st: If what my opponent says is true, and Liberals do, indeed think that Government is not more efficient than the Private sector, why then do they currently support a health care system which includes massive government regulation in favor of free market forces? It would appear that suddenly, regardless of my opponents assumptions of the liberal economic view, that their actions and the programs they support are more suggestive of their actual views, assuming the selection of the programs they support is a function of actually belief and not an attempt to get votes of disgruntled Americans paying high insurance costs or worse, having no insurance at all.

2nd. The Government has had less to do with preserving worker rights in this country than the Labor unions have. Unions are private associations of workers with a common trade; they are not created by the government. Unions represent worker initiative not government initiative. Democratic support of unions was a way to get the votes of a large collective to support their party. A typical liberal response: give large groups of people what they want and they will vote to keep us in power. Bribery I hope is certainly not an accepted American value.

3rd His suggestion of monopolies of labor is inconsistent with reality, once again a typical liberal mistake of logic. He suggests that it is possible for an employer to hold a labor monopoly of an entire area, when free market forces in this country suggest otherwise. While an employer or large corporation in reality may hold a large portion of market share in a certain industry, there are always other industries in areas where work is sought. The monopoly of labor that large corporations can have over certain industries was combated by citizen initiative through labor unions of those respective industries, once again not through government action. Thomas Jefferson's argument, which my opponent cites was not in support of Government intervention, it was in support of citizen initiative a democracy of "Workers" not of Government regulation. While Montesquieu may have supported this idea, that enlightenment idea did not carry over into the founding era of American Government. Making Montesquieu argument largely irrelevant to the Americanism of modern liberalism (Montesquieu the Liberal European supported Government intervention Jefferson the American Liberal supported Citizen Initiative)

4th So long as were talking about the dichotomy of European Liberalism Vs. American Liberalism and its relation to my argument, consider that I used the writers I cited to define the European understanding of liberalism as it related to the American understanding; through the medium of natural rights. Perhaps this was not clarified. The enlightenment writers did not directly help form America because most of them were long deceased. Their Ideas were borrowed by American liberals and some were left behind, for good reason. The accepted ideas became the American traditions, not all of the ideas carried over. I was referring to the ideas that carried over, the ideas of liberty. Economic liberal ideas stayed in Europe where they belong. Secondly, Thomas Jefferson's idea of America was that she would grow to be a largely Agrarian society, the Economic interpretations of American liberalism did not come until later, through the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court.

In what was considered an Economic golden age for American Law, the Supreme Court time and again through the opinions of persons such as Chief Justice Roger Taney, ruled in favor of Economic growth and against monopolies as beneficial to the rights of the individual and the community, a concept known as instrumentalism. Taney, a Democrat (conservative in his day) fought against monopolies which the Whigs (liberals) seemed to support due to what they called "investor rights" In one particular case the Charles River Bridge vs. Warren bridge, the Conservative Taney ruled in favor of Warren bridge's right to build an toll free bridge next to an adjacent Charles river bridge which charged tolls. This broke up the Monopoly which the Charles River bridge company had in favor of the benefit the community stood to receive through an alternate route. Although the Charles River Bridge company sued for damages from the lost money, the Conservative justice Taney ruled against them in favor of the economic advantage of the community. Conservatives are the true trust busters.

I would also like to bring light to my opponent's argument that liberals are against government control at every turn. Perhaps he refers to the social aspects of ones life, most of which are relevant to the rights of others, such as abortion, and the legalization of drugs. Never did the liberal party suggest the legalization of drugs without the implementation of taxes. Taxes certainly do not decrease government involvement. Secondly liberal rhetoric designed to win the hearts and minds of the anti-war electorate cited the war as an unjust enterprise forcing our government on other, most prestigious liberals supported it (i.e. Hillary Clinton) the ones who did oppose is, did so based on its high costs, which in translation of their own rhetoric would mean less money for domestic programs. Also, when President Bush proposed a plan that would allow more individual control over social security in the form of private accounts, the liberals issued a resounding NO! While he was delivering his state of the union address!! Clearly neither of these examples translates into less government involvement. Moreover, the conservative basis opposing abortion is based on the rights of unborn babies, the right to life! The right of all citizens to life is clearly expressed in the declaration of independence. Allowing a baby the right to life is NOT a restriction. Furthermore, I have not seen a single Conservative argue against the USE of contraception, only the education thereof., Education which clearly does not infringe upon anyone's rights to use contraception. The only point I must concede with my opponent is Gay Marriage, this is a slightly shaky ground for the conservatives. The right to marry is a fundamental right of citizens; however the definition thereof as a union ordained by god in the anticipation of creating a family is the conservative definition of Marriage allowing marriage of two homosexuals in a church violates the right of that church not to recognize that marriage. Opposition against government issued civil unions is, in my opinion an unjust infringement upon civil rights.

Finally, in reference to my opponent's position that people would be helpless without Government funding of their education I offer the following story. My own mother was not born into money; she was born underprivileged and in some times did not have running water and electricity. She is now a psychologist with two master's degrees. She didn't take a single penny from the government for aid. The secret? Hard work and private loans. She worked 3 and 4 jobs at any given time with no help from the government and is now more successful than many people who accepted government help. So it seems that it is possible to overcome where liberals call "Social isolation" without the help of the government. Furthermore I am missing the part where that federal funding of education decreases the dependence of individuals on government.

To recapitulate my argument in shorthand: My opponent has yet to offer once single point which demonstrates the two qualifying factors, which I believe define American principles.

Government programs which decrease citizen dependence on Government (if that is even possible) and modern liberal ideas directly concordant with the Original AMERICAN views of liberty and individual government. Thank you for reading.
jbruner

Con

I will rebut my opponent number-by-number.
1. I do insist liberals do not think government is more efficient than the private sector. My opponent states that liberals favor "massive regulation" of Health Care instead of free-market forces. I disagree. Liberals merely wish to provide everyone access to health care. They do not necessarily want to regulate the system in any specific way. This liberal provision of health care is consistent with the original American liberalism; The right to LIFE is the most important precursor right to all other rights, and liberals are merely trying to give it to as many people as possible. Further, regulation is not always antithetical to the principles of the Founding Fathers, as I have already proven and my opponent does not contest. I reiterate that overtly powerful corporations can exploit the disadvantaged in society in the abscence of regulation, which my opponent does not contest.
2. My opponent argues that Labor Unions are the entity supporting worker's rights in this country. Firstly, Labor Unions were not powerful until they were protected by Liberal government power. This is why labor unions were brutally crushed by employers during conservative administrations in the 1880s. Until the admittedly liberal Teddy Roosevelt intervened to prevent employers from crushing Labor Unions, workers were still destitute. All the freedom resultant from labor unions can thus be traced back to liberal protection of those organizations. Secondly, if Liberals give labor unions what they want, then aren't liberals the ones supporting worker's rights in this country? I think my opponent's definition of bribery is silly as everyone voting elects a candidate who is consistent with what they want out of government. Any group voting for any candidate is "bribery" under his definition, not at all exclusive to liberals. My opponent does not dispute that worker's rights and economic choice are the important rights we should consider in the economic sphere and he does not disprove my points in this area.

3. His criticism of labor monopoly does not invalidate my argument. First, he provides no evidence that labor monopolies have not occurred in American history, instead vaguely saying "the evidence says otherwise" when in fact, labor monopolies have occurred in areas of the country. Many towns in the Pacific Northwest were owned entirely, all establishments included, by the Union Pacific railroad. If the federal government had not taken a liberal action and taxed railroads who did this predatory practice at an increased rate, one could expect to see monopoly towns today such as IBM-ville or Coca-Cola-ton. Even today, areas with labor monopolies exist such as Celebration, Florida, where all employment is at the behest of the Walt Disney Corporation. Secondly, it is not necessary for one corporation to hold a monopoly to force workers into a bad position. Multiple employers can agree collectively to pay workers an equal starvation wage in a form of labor cartel. This is consistent with logic and economic theory as the lower wages for workers benefit all employers involved. Thus, my example of corporate power displacing workers is indeed right. I reiterate that workers stuck in a bad position (which my opponent does not say is impossible) require liberal social policies to achieve their rights. He does not dispute the existence of these rights nor the situation of laborers in a labor monopoly. Therefore, liberal labor regulations are necessary for American rights and freedoms.

His answers to the arguments regarding Jefferson and Montesquieu are extremely weak, but he does not address Voltaire at all! He makes no point whatsoever to rebut Voltaire's suggestion of communes and regulated republics as the true vehicles of the Englightenment, supported by many of the Founding Fathers who were Anti-Federalists. This alone should win me the debate as he does not even contest that one of his precious philosophers supports my position rather than his.

Jefferson did indeed believe in Citizen Initiatives and the democracy of the workers, but this is a liberal viewpoint. He beleived in liberal public education to educate the workers, and then believed they should be allowed to vote to govern. He offers no reason why we shouldn't implement regulation when the citizens itself find it to be beneficial. He doesn't understand that Jefferson's democracy of workers would indeed result in regulation if the workers voted it in, as the apparently do seeing as they support Labor Unions that are proponents of regulation. His extreme adherence to free-market principles in fact flies in the face of American democracy seeing as Jefferson and the Founding Fathers believed in the common people being able to vote to elect a body empowered to regulate commerce. If the free market operating unchecked was American, there would not be an interstate commerce clause in the Constitution!

His argument against Montesquieu is entirely nonsensical. He arbitrarily decides which ideas were included in American Democracy and what existed in the founding era of American government. If he specifically cites Montesquieu as one of the thinkers most influential in American ideals on his terms, than I should be able to support my position by finding liberal ideas from Montesquieu, as he concedes I have.

4. The reference to Roger Taney is interesting, but nevertheless is useless to his argument seeing as Taney's ruling did not disrupt trusts substantially throughout America. The problem of trust continued until the true liberal trust busters, Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft, took strong action. My opponent cites one small bridge, but the expansive monopolies of Standard Oil and US Steel were not stopped by the free market; they were empowered at the expense of both workers and consumers.

I still contend that liberals are against government control. First, the legalization of drugs does not affect others when people use them in their private homes any more than the use of alcohol. My opponent says by legalizing something with taxation I am increasing government involvement, but it is completely illogical to say that allowing someone to do something, but taxing it, allows less than simply banning it. My opponent disputes that the liberal opposition to the war is based on American principles of not forcing our government on another, but he does not dispute that it is valid via those principles. This means whether or not one likes Hillary Clinton, at the end of the day opposition to the war is the true "American" position. Bush's plan to allow private social security accounts would decrease liberty for the least well off seeing as they might not have money for the bare necessities in old age. Instead of allowing gambling and some making fortunes while others lose retirement funds, the liberal plan ensures everyone has what they need to retire, preserving more life and liberty in old age. My opponent cites abortion as affecting another human being but he does not prove that a fetus is a human being. Whether or not the fetus is a human being yet is a matter of opinion, but what is not a matter of opinion is whether the woman holding the fetus is a human being who deserves to have control of her own body. Thus the liberal pro-choice position allows more rights than my opponent.

My opponent is characteristic of his position when he mischaracterizes the liberal position on Gay Marriage as forcing churches to recognize the marriage. Liberals only force the government to recognize all marriages equally, and allow equal access to Justices of the Peace. The liberal allows everyone the liberty to be married to the person they love, whereas the conservative position does not.

Finally, my opponent cites his mother as an argument against the necessity of government services. I doubt she received no liberal public education for K-12.
Debate Round No. 2
the_last_Patriot

Pro

My opponent has, yet again, suggested some facts which are completely incorrect and also misunderstood a few of my arguments. I will correct and clarify each area with its responding quote and then make my final closing argument.
1. The right to LIFE is the most important precursor right to all other rights, and liberals are trying to give it to as many people as possible.

The liberal plan does not promote more life, it promotes longer lines. So long as socialized medicine (if I take its meaning correctly) means free or affordable health care for all,it means that more people will increase the demand for care which could then be obtained with insurance. This will over stress the market and by proxy decrease the quality of care. While you may be able to obtain prescription drugs and doctor visits more easily, major surgeries and follow up visits will be less frequent due to higher demand, meaning more people will die. Instead of arguing ideally on principle, I would suggest my opponent look to reality to support his claims.

2. Further, regulation is not always antithetical to the principles of the Founding Fathers,
I did not suggest that all regulation is antithetical to the principles of the founding fathers; I merely suggest that the founding fathers would err on the side of liberty in every case possible. The American liberal party has historically relied heavily on regulation, even when it sacrifices liberty. Leaning toward regulation in this trade-off is an un-American slant not concordant with the liberty and individual governance the founding fathers promoted.

3. I reiterate that powerful corporations can exploit the disadvantaged in society in the absence of regulation,
He does not dispute the existence of these rights or the situation of laborers in a labor monopoly. Therefore, liberal labor regulations are necessary for American rights and freedoms.
(I will address both)
Can being the operative word here. So long as the liberty of choice the liberal party so fervently relies on does indeed exist, what stops these "exploited" individuals from simply voting with their feet and moving to an area in which businesses to not exploit their workers. I doubt the existence of a national conspiracy which would oppress all workers in the entire country. So long as there are other areas that provide work, and people continue to respond through the action of discontinuing employment, employers will eventually be forced to recognize the wants of the people Government regulations are not necessary for American rights and freedoms. They merely suggest that people are not capable enough to get themselves out of bad, exploitive work relationships.

4. The admittedly liberal Teddy Roosevelt
This one is, I'm sorry just completely incorrect. Teddy Roosevelt, was the leader of the REPUBLICAN party, the GOP, the same party I am a member of. While I recognize that it is not in existence in verbatim of original policies it was CERTAINLY not liberal. My opponent seems to not be able to keep up with the progression of political parties in American History. Jefferson was a Anti-Federalist, his descendants became Jeffersonian Republicans who became Jacksonian Democrats (Like Roger Taney), who later, after the Civil war and the death of the issue of slavery, joined up with conservative factions of the GOP to form the party which eventually included BOTH trust busters my opponent cites in his argument, Roosevelt, and Taft. The conservative wing of the Progressive Republican Party, of which they were both members and leaders, eventually became the Republican Party as we know it today. So one of his biggest supports is suddenly shown as incorrect.
5. His answers to the arguments regarding Jefferson and Montesquieu are weak, but he does not address Voltaire at all!
He arbitrarily decides which ideas were included in American Democracy and what existed in the founding era of American government.
(I will address these together)
I thought I was clear on this already, the mention of the EUROPEAN enlightenment writers served to define the EUROPEAN definition of liberalism. Not all of their ideas carried over to the United States. As is evident through the numerous court cases favoring business over the rights of individuals to sue for damages and suits securing rights for economic growth. Good examples from the Taney court include Bank of Augusta v. Earle in which the Conservative Justice Taney decided that corporations could do business wherever they wanted unless state law prevented it. Natural law is the association we draw from these writers. We looked to our own constitution and to our pro-economy judges to shape the American perception of proper economic policy, not to European writers. The clause included in the constitution giving congress the power to regulate interstate commerce (Article 1 section 8 paragraph 3) was not designed to favor regulation, as anyone who has studied the building of the constitution as I have, would know, it was there because the Federal Government's only just exercise of power was in areas where the states were incompetent. This was to reserve the power to the Federal level and avoid conflict between states trying to regulate each other. Therefore it preserved justice, it did not promote excessive regulation. But according to the liberal party in most cases, the text of the constitution is mainly irrelevant anyway.
6. My opponent cites his mother as an argument against the necessity of government services. I doubt she received no liberal public education for K-12.
I have to call into question my opponents definition of Liberal Public education. While this is a government program, it was one that has been traditionally left largely in the hands of state governments: A conservative idea. Another interesting fact is that the main funding behind the public school system came from big business moguls such as Rockefeller, who as has already been suggested, modern liberals greatly disapprove of. Also, I said my mother never received government aide, not services. My opponent forgot to mention that most modern day liberals also zealously reject the Foreign policy of Teddy Roosevelt and his Imperialist views, but that makes sense because it would destroy his argument. I am going to have to see a more convincing definition of how public education is entirely a liberal function and a good defense against its creation being the result of the private donations of big business and not liberal policies.
7 it is illogical to say that allowing someone to do something, but taxing it, allows less than banning it.
I did not say that it allowed less liberty, I suggested that legalizing drugs and taxing them translates into more government involvement, just to clarify.
8 Instead of allowing gambling and some making fortunes while others lose retirement funds, the liberal plan ensures everyone has what they need to retire,
Anyone that had even a basic understanding of the current social security system knows there is almost no money left in it. Without changes to the system, it will simply cease to exist. Liberals are not finding any better ways to fund it.

My opponent has demonstrated a capable function of logic in this argument and has proven to be a truly, worth contender. I thank him very much for accepting my challenge and formulating what I consider in most cases (With the exception of a few inaccuracies), to be good arguments. In closing I would like to say the following: America, as I have demonstrated, was a country founded in the spirit of independence and conservative principles. Although it borrowed ideas from writers who have some commonalities with modern liberals I feel the independent nature of Americans to chart their own course suggests that, not only do we reject infringements on liberty and personal responsibility, we embrace faith in individual governance. Thank you for listening.
jbruner

Con

jbruner forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by kato0291 9 years ago
kato0291
If we are to go on the principle that the government is a contract between those governing and those governed, one can argue that any and all social programs (welfare, social security, health care) are based on the consent of the governed. The people elect representatives, who vote on legislation, that ultimately benefits the people. If one is against any particular legislation, one does not vote for that particular representative.
Posted by PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
It was a great debate. Unfortunately, jbruner defaulted. I do not agree with a lot of what the last patriot proposed, but I must vote for him.
Posted by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
Good debate, Pro gets my vote.
Posted by the_last_Patriot 9 years ago
the_last_Patriot
8 hours left is my opponent going to forfeit? I certainly hope not I was enjoying this debate and I hope he makes his closing argument.
Posted by the_last_Patriot 9 years ago
the_last_Patriot
Believe it or not I am in support of the legalization and taxation of Marijuana. My personal beliefs are in conflict with the use of it, However I recognize that my right to have those beliefs is secured by the government and so should be the rights of someone who disagrees. I personally excersize conservative beliefs, with which I am content, and I beleive the majority of American citizens above the age of 25 do likewise. The legalization of marijuana does not infrige upon my rights, it only increases the rights of those who disagree with me. It also ensures the sale of a safer product and under safer terms instead of in the crime infested streets of urban centers. It can also be argued that of Marijuana, alcohol, and tobacco, Pure Marijuana is the safest of the group. My only argument is that a, it is not only liberals that are for its legalization, but libertarians as well. And that liberal proposals for its legalization center around the revenue that can be made from its taxation, not the expansion of liberty. Thanks for your comment, and thanks for listening.
Posted by lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
I think it'd be interesting for the two of you to read the debate I had about how a "true conservative republican would be in favor of decriminalization/legalization of marijuana" on this website. Yall have hit on it briefly, and I think the debate would appeal to both of you.

While I understand the Last Patriot's opinion of taxation of drugs if made legal allows for more governmental control, my point in my debate was that marijuana would be sold just like liquor is now, in liquor stores. Only it would be "marijuana stores" (hard to envision, but go with me on this hypothetically--)

YES there would be a tax, and the revenue would be incredible. That is government stepping in, I agree. HOWEVER, an owner of a liquor stores makes profit because it is HIS store and he calls the shots (pun intended). This opens up the private market, allowing for individual success regardless of government.

Also, the legalization (this should go without saying) would enable people to smoke marijuana regardless of government's moral opinion. I strongly feel like every individual is entitled to their own moral code, and the government should not enforce it upon anybody. This takes away power from the government, which is in actuality a more "conservative" ideal.
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by aaltobartok 9 years ago
aaltobartok
the_last_PatriotjbrunerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by righty10294 9 years ago
righty10294
the_last_PatriotjbrunerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by dillspacious 9 years ago
dillspacious
the_last_PatriotjbrunerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by jbruner 9 years ago
jbruner
the_last_PatriotjbrunerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by FrontLineConservative 9 years ago
FrontLineConservative
the_last_PatriotjbrunerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kato0291 9 years ago
kato0291
the_last_PatriotjbrunerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
the_last_PatriotjbrunerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Mdal 9 years ago
Mdal
the_last_PatriotjbrunerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Jewhad 9 years ago
Jewhad
the_last_PatriotjbrunerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by lindsay 9 years ago
lindsay
the_last_PatriotjbrunerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03