Libertarian (Pro) vs Conservativism (Con)
Debate Rounds (3)
There is a point that conservatives veer off the path, whereas libertarians continue on with the same principles. I will now talk about how conservative ideals differ greatly from libertarian once they start wandering off the path of our shared principles mentioned earlier. Conservatives begin to selectively adhering to specific certain parts of the Constitution, while ignoring or twisting it to their beliefs. They support a drug war which has been going on since Nixon was president, and has cost billions of dollars each year. The war on drugs violates individual rights, states rights, it's unconstitutional. They are against free trade, specifically with China. They believe in military interventionism to further our "imperialistic interests" in other sovereign nations that do not pose a threat to our national security, but our unwanted presence only serves to put our soldier's lives in danger (over 66,000 injured or dead in Iraq and Afghanistan) as well as stir up hostility toward the USA with the radicals in the area, tarnishing our worldwide reputation by making unilateral decisions to go to war, an excess of $6 trillion debt is everything we have to show for our military campaigns overseas.
All of these, require a big government to sustain. So conservatives, like liberals, don't really want to shrink gov'ts size like libertarians. Our belief in economic and individual liberty disappears when conservatives talk about immigration.
The conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power, as long as they are used for what HE regards as the right thing. They are less concerned with HOW the gov't wields its power and more concerned with WHO's wielding it.
Libertarian's are NOT anarchists, we believe gov'ts primary job is to protect its citizens, not run their lives. We believe that instead of imposing liberty with force, liberty can be spread through trade. Conservatives want to legislate virtues and morality through law, libertarians believe the gov't is not an appropriate place to do this, rather they should be promoted at home within family. Gov't legislating virtues and morality can set a dangerous precedent by hand-picking virtues chosen at the whim of the ruling party rather than rely on the self-evident truths in the Constitution. Virtue is a highly arbitrary concept and will always be subjective, plus conservatives will only allow the possibility that ONLY their virtues be adopted as opposed to being free to adopt your own.
Now, I agree with as much as minimum interference within our economy as it can be a waste of money and even hurt businesses.
Pertaining to individual rights, yes, every person should have their rights to a certain extent. Topics such as abortion, which
is murder in commonsense.
In reply to your comments on drugs, we need to remember that drugs such as marijuana and others only ruin lives. It decreases
the efficiency to one's life, and only does that. Once you get yourself into marijuana, you are on a fast decline within your
life and there's no way to get out of it without heavy rehabilitation. Grades in schools will take a detrimental effect, and
so does your profile. It's not where it's like cigarettes, it's a lot worse. Again, drugs will only ruin the lives of others
tremendously. You may have stated that the government are not our parents, but drugs have absolutely no promoting effects
to one's life, just ruining and trashing lives. It gives the person no moral and no meaning in life anymore, to the point
where there is no meaning for him or her to live. So by criminalizing drugs, we're protecting lives from ruin, many lives.
I agree with you how America should reduce their status of imperialism, a bit. However, our corporations investing in foreign
resources shall be protected by the American army. These corporations make up our GDP and we can not risk having terrorists or
foreign threats mess with our American companies.
Morals and virtues are very important to society. It's what keeps a society from falling and corrupting itself. Every great
civilization has declined through loss in moral within their society. That includes Rome and the Greeks. The cause
for the loss of moral was the government. Historically speaking, the western Roman empire declined in moral because their
government, began to be led by barbaric kings during the near of their downfall. The eastern Roman empire, was very high
in moral due to Christianity. I'm not saying we should force countries or the U.S. to adopt a state religion, it's just
that religion promotes high moral. Back to the point, the eastern Roman empire was very high in moral taught and "enforced
by their government" which led them to flourish for centuries, even for over a millennium. However, the government does
not need to be oppressive in the ways they enforce, they do not have to, pertaining to the enforcing of morals.
But whenever we ask the gov't to step in and monitor or regulate something, they can only do that through force, that is incarceration and a record of that incarceration that will follow you everywhere. So what we have here is a situation where someone can ruin their lives by abusing the actual drug, but now they can be booked as a felon, with mandatory minimum sentences, and a felony on their record...so even if tey do clean up their act, they won't be able to get a job, pass a background check for their apartment, serve in the military or any situation that calls for a background check. This will further drive them to abuse again, being that the felony on his record is preventing him from getting his life back on track. He will be sharing a cell with violent criminals, and the worst people you can imagine, not to mention the money it costs the state to book and house these guys.
Let's be serious, the law is not what is holding anyone back from dong drugs, neither I and I assume you wouldn't either rush out to do cocaine the second it becomes legal. People who abuse drugs care little about the draconian laws that accompany them...their brains aren't working correctly, so there isn't a deterrent factor that the law creates. If drugs were legal, they would have to clean up their lives through dedication and rehabilitation. At this point their lives are already ruined, and they are seeking help to get their lives back on track, which is very possible...because he isn't carrying around a felony and horrible memories and injuries from his time locked up with rapists, murderers and pedophiles. So when the gov't makes drugs illegal, they make it almost impossible for ex-users to get their life back on track, and the STILL have to go to rehab for help to boot. At least where he isn't arrested as a felon, he has hope through rehab to correct his life. Again I am not championing someone's right to do drugs, NO ONE should be doing drugs, I think when drugs are illegal, they can destroy their live 10 fold then if they weren't illegal.
Morals are very important for a society to thrive, I agree. But whose morals? The capricious morals of those who are in charge at that moment in time. No one is going to agree on a universal set of virtues and morals. If that were possible, I would have no problem making incentives to act morally upright. To some it's just treating others with respect and for others it goes all the way down to believing homosexuals are evil sinners. Some think drinking is immoral, what about gambling? There is a whole spectrum on the morals and virtues area where we can draw the line as to what's acceptable and what isn't. That's why I say Libertarians don't attempt to guess and draw that line on the spectrum anywhere. Instead their parents, teachers, churches and the nuclear family should be responsible for rearing. Again how does gov't implement consequences when its "morals and virtues" aren't followed? Incarceration, arresting, booking, trying and housing you on the taxpayer's dime. Gov't is an inappropriate venue for spreading morals (especially with the rampant sexual scandals among our Congress)
As you were saying that criminalizing drugs would only make it harder for someone to put their life back on track, I still do not see why illegalizing drugs would make someone's life harder to get back on track again. Please put more explanation to this if you can. Now if the government was to legalize drugs into our society, obviously, drug consumption would increase tremendously. So by preventing drugs consumption, we are making drugs illegal, thus continuing the war on drugs for a good cause.
Sckooma forfeited this round.
That legalizing drugs would increase drug consumption, and therefore, have more people to only ruin their lives and affect others. That moral is crucial to society as I proved that with history. Not only did I have to prove that, but history proved it too. Conservatism do like the idea of legal contracts to be enforced and that the nation should have a strong military defense. Defense spending especially in the United States has many contracts with businesses and the private sector, and by reducing the defense spending, increasing unemployment tremendously. Libertarianism tend to focus more on what they want, as Conservatism focus on the outcome at the same time, trying to preserve an amount of freedom to a certain extent because unlimited freedom is basically anarchy. Almost all Conservatives agree with Republicans about economic freedom. It's what made even the United States prosper and advance with innovation. Libertarianism may look good at first, but going into detail, Conservatism is the best way to approach things.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.