The Conservative Versus Libertarians: Looking for laws to create shared values

John Stossel and Ann Coulter had a wonderful debate recently in front of a group of college Libertarians in Washington D.C. over the nature of personal liberty.  During the debate Coulter told John and the audience that Libertarians were a bunch of pussies for pandering to liberals with a social message of drug use and gay marriage.  I normally agree with much of what Stossel, Judge Napolitano, and Glenn Beck who are all declared Libertarians state, but in this debate seen below, I am on the side of Ann Coulter 100%.  I personally deplore drug use of any kind, and that includes over-the-counter medicine.  I would never use marijuana as an ingested smoke into my lungs under any circumstance.  I resist even taking aspirin or drinking alcohol.  I think anyone who drinks alcohol to get drunk is an absolute fool.  I have ended long-standing friendships over drug use and even abuse of alcohol, so I have no tolerance for it among the general population.  Even in my teenage years where such behavior was expected, and I lived a life from 16 to 18 years old that would fill encyclopedia volumes with wild adventures, I had a sign in my car that indicated that no smoking was allowed.  And it wasn’t…………for anybody.  I have even thrown people out of my car for lighting up cigarette in the back seat while I was driving.  I have no tolerance for drug or alcohol abuse and I have always been that way.   So like Ann Coulter, my biggest problem with modern Libertarians is their permissiveness of drug use and the name of their movement, which is way too close to the word “liberal.”  So I do not identify myself as a Libertarian.  The barrier for me is their permissiveness of social debaucheries behind a flag of liberty.

The question that arises from Libertarians is how can government control what goes on in the bedroom of citizens, or dictate what an individual puts into their bodies?  For me, government can’t, and shouldn’t be in the business of social behavioral regulation.  That type of thing would normally be regulated to the spiritual pursuits of an individual which would create the goals people strive to live within.  This would work fine if people shared similar values, such as a majority of the population wished to live by Christen values or Buddhist ideas, but in the absence of such social conviction there is a kind of free-for-all mentality that causes some to impose their freedoms on others who don’t share their values.  So a law is necessary under those conditions, and a penalty for that law must be swift so it is respected by the public as a shared value.

For instance, if I’m in line at Kings Island, a popular amusement park in Southern Ohio and there is a guy in front of me smoking a marijuana cigarette, he is making a decision based on his personal liberty to impose upon me the expelled air from his lungs that contain within it chemicals I do not want in my body.  Currently the law protects him from me, because I cannot just go up and knock his face into another dimension as he imposed upon me the marijuana smoke from his lungs.  Because using drugs in public is illegal, the conflict is averted, where it wouldn’t be if marijuana use in public were legalized.  There is nothing more disgusting than such public displays where the careless use of intoxicants can be seen coming out of the mouth of an individual and the only way you can prevent yourself from ingesting it yourself is to hold your breath.  Such a thing is nearly as disgusting as seeing discarded cigarettes on the ground of a parking lot, or walkway that has been saturated with rain and are smashed flat.  When in a public place I am always cautious to avoid stepping on them because I don’t want to drag that trash into my car, or my home as the old cigarette might become lodged into the tread of my shoes to fall out within my property littering it.  I am just as cautious about looking for places in public that people have spit on the ground.  I do not want to step in the spittle of some other person and drag their chemical intoxicants into the carpet of my vehicle on the way home.  The rights of liberty from the person who spit on the sidewalk do not supersede my rights to maintain my property free of their discarded saliva, or cigarettes.

With liberty comes responsibility and if the social trends of the day leaned in the direction of social valor, then I might embrace the Libertarian designation a bit more amiably.  I have no desire to visit the city of Amsterdam because of their loose drug laws, and now that Colorado has passed legislation legalizing pot, I may never visit that state in the years to come.  The very idea of a body of people who collectively wish to participate in detrimental drug use is disgusting, and changes the way I view the entire state.  I find the tendency to use drugs even for bi-polar disorders to be deplorable.  I would like to see the human spirit overcome shortcomings and illnesses in the most self-reliant fashion possible—and I don’t see the Libertarian political movement going in that direction.  Instead, it appears to be a happy middle place between what the Republicans once stood for, and what the hippie liberals promote actively–human weakness.

I hate more laws, and encourage breaking unjust laws as the situations dictate.  The ultimate question is who decides what good and proper social behavior is—is it the Republicans, Democrats, or Libertarians?  The answer is in none of them.  Before the kind of freedom that Libertarians are striving for can ever occur the human race has to have a desire to behave with quality.  They have to want to live quality lives and to respect the quality of other peoples’ lives.  Without a firm definition of quality and what makes one thing better than another one persons freedom becomes another person’s hell.  Without a spiritual bonding agent that is shared between one group of people and another, freedoms will collide and impose on unwarranted victims the pursuits of less stable personalities and their flaws.

The argument between Ann and John above is the direction that I see America going.  As for the liberals, the Democrats, the communists and socialists of collectivism, I don’t even recognize them as having a seat at the table of tomorrow.  I see them as having the same kind of living quality as any other animal on Earth.  They live, eat and die in predictable fashions but are governed through their lives by animal instincts, the desire to have sex, consume food, and sleep.  Without a personal commitment to any higher thoughts or causes, they are no different to me than an average household pet—and they will lose their standing all together in the future of America between the pot-headed Libertarians and Republicans like Ann Coulter who are trying to return the party back to the ideas it was founded on.  As for me, no political party represents my thoughts best but the old Anti-Federalist Party of Thomas Jefferson.  All these new political variations are lacking an inherit wisdom that is governed by personal valor.  Without a human desire to be good, all the laws and political posturing of any collective group of individuals is a worthless pursuit that lacks sustainability.  So long as Libertarians embrace drug use of any kind, I will never have an “L” next to my name in any professional or casual reference.  I’ll stay with Independent—which is what the aim of all politics should be.

Rich Hoffman

“If they attack first………..blast em’!”

6 thoughts on “The Conservative Versus Libertarians: Looking for laws to create shared values

  1. Libertarians do not ’embrace’ drug usage. I would identify myself as a libertarian because I believe in personal liberty above all else. The power of the state comes through a force of arms. By making drugs illegal your good conservative intentions have created the very police state that you fight on a daily basis. Morality comes from the individual, not the state. No amount of laws can stop people from acting stupidly. Want to smoke a joint? Have at it, go ahead and ruin yourself, I don’t care, just don’t bloody well do it around me. If King’s Island were to allow people to smoke joints in their park, I would not go there any longer, and nor would half of its yearly visitors. The great thing about the free market system is that you get to vote with your feet, your money and your conscious. All the government is good for is breaking down peoples doors, shooting their dogs and locking people up. The drug laws in this country are so draconian they have created a Nazi style police state, with all the armed cops and prisons to boot. The conservatives of today parallel the fascist Nazis of Hitlers Germany in the same way that the liberals of today parallel the communists of Stalin’s Russia. Ann Coulter calls Libertarians pussies because she is confused on what personal liberty really is. I do not associate myself with pot smokers, and deplore their activities, but I do recognize their right to do so, so long as I don’t have to breath in their smoke. If they want to do it in their own homes so be it. If they want to do it in public, then the private property owners such as Kings Island have a right to boot them out for their actions. Do not muddy up the message of personal liberty from libertarians simply because they do not want the government spying on everyone and kicking down peoples doors because of silly little joints. On the contrary to what Ann said Libertarians are the bravest group out there, they argue with everybody and stand up for personal liberties across the board. If the founding fathers were alive today, they would side with the Libertarians at every turn. If the conservatives of today want to gain momentum and start winning more elections, they’d better make an ally out of the Libertarians, instead of butt heads on silly issues such as drugs. After all, we have a communist in the White House who is looking to take away the few remaining freedoms we have left. Your biggest allies right now are the Libertarians who understand what freedom really is, and from an individual point of view instead of a collective conservative conscious which is in serious need of an upgrade.


  2. Loved this post! Good work Killer!
    What an interesting comment. I had to read it twice to be sure I grasp your reasoning. I wish I had the clip from GB Friday in which he tried to understand Libertarianism, other than that from Penn Gallette, and how he was attacked. Just for trying to understand. I have to take your commentary with a huge grain because of it. I asked a Libertarian at a TP meeting long ago about his stances and he had little tolerance for my curiosity. Seems to be rampant.
    This is a morality issue. Not everything is OK. Muddy waters are done by human fault…not want of liberty. Throw freedom in there and the high and mighty come out of the woodwork. It’s fascinating to watch. God wins this debate, everytime. The change you seek is not obtainable by your standards. We are far more alike than you care to admit. Do not blame us for the reason we aren’t allies. Your door has the “Closed” sign in the window.
    As far as our upgrade? Ditto. If you’re the poster child for libertarianism, I’ll pass. And I thought I was intolerant. Thanks for upgrading me just by your thought process.
    I’ll continue to read your articles. You’re a patriot for the cause and passionate, but I find you a conundrum.

    I’m sure I’ll get an earful. Won’t be the last time.


  3. I expanded my point further in today’s article. You don’t share values and morality through the heavy hand of government coercion and the barrels of their guns. Unless it’s used to protect your personal liberties or personal properties, government ought to have nothing to do with your personal choices, whether they are good or bad. The moral laws to stop alcohol didn’t work during the early 20th century in America, in the same way that moral laws to stop marijuana haven’t worked during the late 20th century.

    The fact is you can either have freedom with personal responsibility, or you can spy on all your citizens and their actions. You can’t have both.

    “You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality” – Ayn Rand.

    You know, we could scrap all federal drug laws, lower crime and still have no drugs on the streets. You can have local ordinances that fine anyone caught doing drugs in public, that way the nasty little buggers will have to stay in their little dingy hollows and keep it to themselves. There’s a simple solution to everything, without resulting to big brother government to take care of unwanted people for you. And that’s not being a pussy for not wanting others forced to obey, that’s thinking outside the box for a solution which can actually work while protecting the individual.


    1. I don’t want more laws, and I don’t want laws that substitute good behavior with fear of punishment. But I do want people to want to do good, and the more I hear from libertarians the more I hear about drugs. It’s been a real turn off.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.