Mark Levin full interview on Hannity

Yep. Just as I suspected. You are talking about pie in the sky by and by which have no grounding in reality, and you are not willing to listen. You are not reading a thing I say, and you have no idea what you are talking about.

Go ahead man, do what you want. We still live in a free society, kinda. When you meet people like me on the street, show them a little grace and a bit of an open ear, would yah? You might learn something.

Quote: “1. You care more about drugs then you care about people”

What you really mean is that I care more about being free… than I care about enslaving myself to others.

To which I say: Yes, that is true. I am proud of it.

Quote: “2. You believe justice and law is a god-like “force” with good intentions that somehow would protect us by intuition and good intentions”

I believe that they are inherently good and absolutely necessary concepts for the operation of human society and the protection of individual rights, but I fully acknowledge that the concepts can be misused (as can all concepts) for evil. However, these concepts, when rightly used, are indispensible to Mankind, if we are to advance and live free from those who initiate force/fraud against us.

Quote: “3. You believe people, and corporations always work for the betterment of all, instead of themselves. I’m surprised at you. This is the foundation of capitalism, and you missed this? hmm”

No, I believe that the vast majority of people work for selfish reasons, such is the basis of the profit motive and the pursuit of happiness. However, when people work for selfish reasons, the unintended side-effect is that everyone else benefits from their work, even though it wasn’t their motive. One caveat to remember is that “greed has fed more people than charity ever could”.

Quote: “4. You believe Conservatives compromise….. Hah…. Guys, you saw him, right? That is the first time I’ve been accused of compromising, lols”

Fundamentally, your most egregious compromise is in regards to individual rights (and hence capitalism), since you refuse to accept that individual rights means the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational human being, to support, further, fulfil and enjoy one’s own life.

If you took individual rights to its logical conclusion, then you’d see all of the countless compromises you have made with tyranny, and you’d see that drugs (including a plethora of other things) should be legalized because man has a right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

Quote: “you must not discount the needs of the little and the few. That is the cost of living in a society of strong individuals; with your family (if you have one – no offense meant), and with everyone as a whole. Like it or not, being bound to everyone or someone is a fact of life, even if you care nothing for them as individuals”

My oh my, you are quite the collectivist. There is little sense of individualism and respect for individual rights in what you just said. Forget individual sovereignty, forget individual freedom, forget individual rights – TimA believes exactly what Barack Obama believes: That you are your brother’s keeper; that you are his SLAVE, simply because you exist; that you exist to serve your fellow man.

You are NO Conservative. You’re a RINO at best.

Quote: “Both people, and physics, are governed by a simple rule of chaos. Things never get better on their own. People and the world degrade over time, naturally. This is something that the founding fathers labored over, and it is something we should labor over. This is why we were originally designed as a Republic, to protect us from ourselves”

False, people and the world improve over time. Our standard of living and quality of life far exceeds that of our ancestors who once lived in caves.

Furthermore, we weren’t made a Republic “to protect us from ourselves” – We were made a Republic to protect us from government. The whole constitution was made to chain government down as hard as it could; not to chain down individuals like some dictatorship would do.

Quote: “First of all, freedom is not doing whatever you feel like doing. Freedom is having the opportunity to better yourself; and Law and Order is there to make sure we do that without harming others. Individual rights comes after this in importance”

No, individual rights are there right at the beginning, since man is endowed with them from the start. Laws are instituted to protect individual rights, and it does that through retaliating against those who initiate force/fraud.

To say that law and order comes first with the responsibility to “make sure we don’t harm others”, then it could be massively expanded to include things which go well beyond protecting individual rights, since if law and order comes before individual rights, then it’s not bound by them. Individual rights are there to LIMIT law to make sure it does one thing and one thing only: To protect individual rights.

Simply put: If laws are there to “make sure we don’t harm others”, then you get crap which violates individual rights, such as the EPA, CFPB, FDIC, FDA, etc. Individual rights comes before law, for good reason.

Quote: “Being rational has nothing to do with this, because then you must ask, ‘who controls what is rational’? ‘Who controls what is meant by “individual rights”‘? Ourselves, of course”

It has everything to do with it, because rationality is what separates us from animals. If we had no rationality then individual rights could not exist for us because nobody would be rational enough to discover them in the first place.

Nobody controls individual rights: They are the objective freedoms of action that man is endowed with by his nature as a rational being.

Quote: “Our founding fathers designed our system to enable us to have the freedom to leave and go as we please, work as we please, improve ourselves as we please; and yet be under an indifferent subjection to a higher, earthy power that keeps us protected from the base and evil urges of ourselves and others”

Not according to you, since you initially declared that individuals are “bound to everyone or someone” … “even if you care nothing for them as individuals”.

That one statement destroys individual rights.

Furthermore, you’re making the worst argument (underlined), often used by conservatives as an attempt to defend capitalism on the ground of man’s depravity. Ayn Rand had the following to say about it:

Quote: This argument runs as follows: since men are weak, fallible, non-omniscient and innately depraved, no man may be entrusted with the responsibility of being a dictator and of ruling everybody else; therefore, a free society is the proper way of life for imperfect creatures. Please grasp fully the implications of this argument: since men are depraved, they are not good enough for a dictatorship; freedom is all that they deserve; if they were perfect, they would be worthy of a totalitarian state.

Dictatorship – this theory asserts – believe it or not, is the result of faith in man and in man’s goodness; if people believed that man is depraved by nature, they would not entrust a dictator with power. This means that a belief in human depravity protects human freedom—that it is wrong to enslave the depraved, but would be right to enslave the virtuous. And more: dictatorships—this theory declares—and all the other disasters of the modern world are man’s punishment for the sin of relying on his intellect and of attempting to improve his life on earth by seeking to devise a perfect political system and to establish a rational society. This means that humility, passivity, lethargic resignation and a belief in Original Sin are the bulwarks of capitalism. One could not go farther than this in historical, political, and psychological ignorance or subversion. This is truly the voice of the Dark Ages rising again—in the midst of our industrial civilization.

The cynical, man-hating advocates of this theory sneer at all ideals, scoff at all human aspirations and deride all attempts to improve men’s existence. “You can’t change human nature,” is their stock answer to the socialists. Thus they concede that socialism is the ideal, but human nature is unworthy of it; after which, they invite men to crusade for capitalism—a crusade one would have to start by spitting in one’s own face. Who will fight and die to defend his status as a miserable sinner? If, as a result of such theories, people become contemptuous of “conservatism,” do not wonder and do not ascribe it to the cleverness of the socialists.

Kordane, I’ve been tossing this discussion over in my head for days now, and I think I can sum a few things up.

America was, as you’ve said in so many words, designed from the beginning to not violate our individual rights, and yet still provide the protection of cohesion. One stick can be broken, but a bundle tied together cannot be broken.

One person, by himself, can accomplish a little. Many people, under one sworn flag, can accomplish MUCH more then the one, are SAFER then the one. This is why nation-raising (or living under regulations of law), as adverse to anarchy, is so attractive.

I said before that ‘perfection would be anarchy’, an anti-government state but with all living to serve each other unselfishly. In this world, war would be nonexistent. This is what socialists and marxists want, a Utopia on this earth. Something that should be possible, if not for the existence of depravity.

Human depravity is the best defense against socialism and far-left utopian ideals, because it explains why man cannot live in peace even in the best conditions. Depravity cannot be understood by every man, however, because it must also bring that man to a realization of personal sin. Because of how personal this is, I must not force this knowledge on anyone without doing something I would regret. Unfortunately, this limits the tools I can use in common discussion, so we are all going to just have to make our own decision of what is believable or not.

To come to a basic understanding of drugs, we must realize they effect and change people; otherwise why else would someone want to take it into their bodies?

This change leads to people behaving in a way they would not normally behave. Maybe the drug effects them in a short-term manner or a long-term. It doesn’t matter as long as we realize drugs do bring a change in people. As far as drugs causing harm on other people, I suppose we can trust that some, or most would take precautions. However, we don’t know that for sure.

We can agree on one thing at this point. Preemptive action by law in regards to drugs is wrong, as it is wrong with anything else that the Law judges. The purpose of Law is to punish, not prevent; though the action of punishing does prevent.

What I still don’t completely understand, personally, is what “preemptive” action means with drugs. Does that include prohibition at the worst? Probably. Does it include acting against drugs at a mere suspicion of wrong? Yes, most definitely. Does “preemptive action” include regulating who gets drugs? I’m not so sure that it does.

All too often, libertarians say that drugs cause ‘victimless crimes’. I would say that those who feel the effects of drugs on others; those who have had friends die from overdoses or traffic accidents would say different. They would most certainly believe a crime had been committed by whomever got their friend hooked on whatever it was that got them killed. Then, the Law must determine guilt in this matter, which is now it’s right to perform.