Finally something we can agree on but if there are certain things we can all agree on are immoral, we haven't covered them in this exchange. Please recall that I never said Prager wanted gambling to be illegal. I said I could find no evidence that he was in support of legalized gambling. To suggest that I follow libertarian philosophy or any other political code of belief blindly is imprudently presumptuous. You have never inquired about what I specifically agree and disagree with.
The only consistency is your inconsistency. I have responded directly to many of your points. Since my answers are not the ones you prefer, you brush them off. You say you do not throw the word moral around and then, in the same sentence you admit using it "very generally". If you consider a certain form of behavior such as gambling immoral then it is your right not to gamble. You do not have a right to prohibit others from gambling. Once again, I do not agree with the LP on every issue.
1. I agree that the definition of morality is a very ambiguous and always disputable one. What I said in that last comment is that there are certain things we all can agree are immoral (whether we want to make them illegal is an entirely different issue).
2. I don't consider gambling immoral, and I don't want it to be illegal. Neither does Dennis Prager. We've gone back and forth for ages now but you refuse to acknowledge that fact.
Could not resist one more response. While I do not follow any political philosophy or religious dogma blindly, I have never been confused about what it means to be a libertarian. You throw the word moral around as if there is a textbook standard that serves as a immovable benchmark for what is right and what is wrong.
1. You do follow a political philosophy blindly - libertarianism.
2. I don't throw the word 'moral' around. I have used it very generally. However, for example, if a man gambles and goes on to lose most of his money and his family hence comes close to starvation, then I do consider that immoral.
Libertarians believe that personal liberty is coupled with individual responsibility. So long as someone does not deprive another of life, liberty or property, a persons pursuit of happiness is by way of their own moral compass.
Morality by way of mass enforcement does not equate with freedom and is definitely not the responsibility of government. Nor should morality be imposed upon citizens the by way of State sponsored or a state influenced religious system of beliefs. Moral moderates and zealots alike are certainly entitled to exercise their free speech rights. They do not have the right to impose their definitions of morality on everyone else through legislation.
Once again, we both know and agree about what libertarianism is, and stating its definition does not enlighten the discussion. You have responded to none of my points.
I support Prager's right to believe or not to believe in anything he desires. However, if promoting a personal notion of what is "good" requires restricting another citizen's right to life, liberty, property or their pursuit of happiness, this form of doing "good" is counterintuitive. Prager has been quoted as insisting that happiness is a "right". When anyone believes that their definition of what is good and what is moral be the final word they have crossed the line into fanaticism.
What an absolute bunch of crock by Prager, who is known for being a moral zealot. Conservatives are just as closed minded as liberals. Just bring up the notion of personal freedoms such as legalized recreational drug use, gambling and prostitution and see how these accepting conservatives react. The democrats and republicans are two sides of the same coin.
It is certainly possible for good people to disagree with anyone. You should then define what defines a "good" person. Good people can be unprincipled, hypocritical, disingenuous, unreasonable, self-righteous and self-promoting. The biggest mistake that many good people make is believing they are doing good when they are actually doing bad. We have seen that good people are only human and in some of the worst of ways. Mankind has an infinite capacity for self-deception.
You've called him a "moral zealot" and "closed minded", which presumably are not good traits?
He is in favor of legalized gambling and I think prostitution too. As for recreational drug use, I don't think he's particularly opposed to legalizing it. I think it should be legal and that criminalizing it leads to a lot of damage.
However, even as a libertarian, I do struggle with the the drug issue, because you can lose your freedom to addiction. I think that's the argument Prager would make too.
I have found nothing on Prager supporting legalized gambling or prostitution. He has, in fact listed prostitution as a bad personal choice for men. I too, am a constitutionalist libertarian who does not condone drug use but who believes no government has the right to own a person's life. One cannot lose their freedom to an activity they solely choose to engage in. They can only be responsible or irresponsible for their actions.
"But excitement is not happiness. In fact, it is the ultimate drug. It is excitement that people seek when engaging in any destructive addictive behaviors. Excitement is a major part of what people seek in doing drugs, in having sex with multiple partners, in gambling (from slot machines to risky stock purchases)...."
He was ardent however, in defending the liberty hating, neo-con, Bill Bennett who wagged a moralist finger but was himself, addicted to gambling.
That doesn't mean he wants gambling to be illegal. You think that being libertarian means being free of morality. It doesn't. Doing heroin and having sex with multiple prostitutes and gambling 50% of your income are all terrible ideas. Whether or not they should be banned by the government (which I oppose) is an entirely different question.
You asked for Pager's own words and I supplied them to you. Now a direct quote from Prager is not good enough or you want to spin what he said. You do this because it is obvious that Dennis is "your guy". Prager is free to think, behave and speak whatever his preference du jour may be. The bottom line is this: I know libertarians. Libertarians are friends of mine. Dennis Prager is no libertarian.
Referring to Prager, you said: "Just bring up the notion of personal freedoms such as legalized recreational drug use, gambling and prostitution and see how these accepting conservatives react".
I asked you to provide evidence that he wants gambling to be illegal, and you cited a quote of Prager's in which he calls gambling "destructive behavior". That does not mean, however, that he wants gambling to be illegal (as you alleged). In fact he wants it to be legal.
When Prager says something overwhelmingly self-righteous like: "But excitement is not happiness. In fact, it is the ultimate drug.", that should be enough to be considered a litmus test to prove his arrogance. I'll grant you the last word as it is time to move on to more important issues.
I don't know what's self-righteous or arrogant about that quote. He is making a distinction: excitement and drugs give you short-term thrills, but not long-term happiness.
You're a confused libertarian who thinks that anyone who makes moral judgments is tyrannical. The whole point of libertarianism is that individuals should make moral judgments so that government need not interfere in private decisions.
@upandopen lol I know I'm late to the party but I find the arguement betweem you two interesting. I was having a debate of sorts myself with Jeffersonianideal a week ago on a Freedom Watch upload.
Finally something we can agree on but if there are certain things we can all agree on are immoral, we haven't covered them in this exchange. Please recall that I never said Prager wanted gambling to be illegal. I said I could find no evidence that he was in support of legalized gambling. To suggest that I follow libertarian philosophy or any other political code of belief blindly is imprudently presumptuous. You have never inquired about what I specifically agree and disagree with.
jeffersonianideal 2 years ago
The only consistency is your inconsistency. I have responded directly to many of your points. Since my answers are not the ones you prefer, you brush them off. You say you do not throw the word moral around and then, in the same sentence you admit using it "very generally". If you consider a certain form of behavior such as gambling immoral then it is your right not to gamble. You do not have a right to prohibit others from gambling. Once again, I do not agree with the LP on every issue.
jeffersonianideal 2 years ago
1. I agree that the definition of morality is a very ambiguous and always disputable one. What I said in that last comment is that there are certain things we all can agree are immoral (whether we want to make them illegal is an entirely different issue).
2. I don't consider gambling immoral, and I don't want it to be illegal. Neither does Dennis Prager. We've gone back and forth for ages now but you refuse to acknowledge that fact.
3. The LP wants gambling to be legal, as you do.
upandopen 2 years ago
Part 1:
Could not resist one more response. While I do not follow any political philosophy or religious dogma blindly, I have never been confused about what it means to be a libertarian. You throw the word moral around as if there is a textbook standard that serves as a immovable benchmark for what is right and what is wrong.
jeffersonianideal 2 years ago
1. You do follow a political philosophy blindly - libertarianism.
2. I don't throw the word 'moral' around. I have used it very generally. However, for example, if a man gambles and goes on to lose most of his money and his family hence comes close to starvation, then I do consider that immoral.
upandopen 2 years ago
Part 2:
Libertarians believe that personal liberty is coupled with individual responsibility. So long as someone does not deprive another of life, liberty or property, a persons pursuit of happiness is by way of their own moral compass.
jeffersonianideal 2 years ago
I am a libertarian, so I know the definition. We agree on the definition, so I don't see the relevance of stating it.
upandopen 2 years ago
Part 3:
Morality by way of mass enforcement does not equate with freedom and is definitely not the responsibility of government. Nor should morality be imposed upon citizens the by way of State sponsored or a state influenced religious system of beliefs. Moral moderates and zealots alike are certainly entitled to exercise their free speech rights. They do not have the right to impose their definitions of morality on everyone else through legislation.
jeffersonianideal 2 years ago
Once again, we both know and agree about what libertarianism is, and stating its definition does not enlighten the discussion. You have responded to none of my points.
upandopen 2 years ago
I support Prager's right to believe or not to believe in anything he desires. However, if promoting a personal notion of what is "good" requires restricting another citizen's right to life, liberty, property or their pursuit of happiness, this form of doing "good" is counterintuitive. Prager has been quoted as insisting that happiness is a "right". When anyone believes that their definition of what is good and what is moral be the final word they have crossed the line into fanaticism.
jeffersonianideal 2 years ago
He doesn't believe happiness is a "right", he believes the pursuit of happiness is a right.
upandopen 2 years ago
That is not what Prager said. Prager specifically said that happiness was a right. Unless it was a type-o.
jeffersonianideal 2 years ago
He's never said that. That's why you don't have a quote.
upandopen 2 years ago
What an absolute bunch of crock by Prager, who is known for being a moral zealot. Conservatives are just as closed minded as liberals. Just bring up the notion of personal freedoms such as legalized recreational drug use, gambling and prostitution and see how these accepting conservatives react. The democrats and republicans are two sides of the same coin.
jeffersonianideal 2 years ago
Isn't it possible for good people to disagree with you?
upandopen 2 years ago
It is certainly possible for good people to disagree with anyone. You should then define what defines a "good" person. Good people can be unprincipled, hypocritical, disingenuous, unreasonable, self-righteous and self-promoting. The biggest mistake that many good people make is believing they are doing good when they are actually doing bad. We have seen that good people are only human and in some of the worst of ways. Mankind has an infinite capacity for self-deception.
jeffersonianideal 2 years ago
You've called him a "moral zealot" and "closed minded", which presumably are not good traits?
He is in favor of legalized gambling and I think prostitution too. As for recreational drug use, I don't think he's particularly opposed to legalizing it. I think it should be legal and that criminalizing it leads to a lot of damage.
However, even as a libertarian, I do struggle with the the drug issue, because you can lose your freedom to addiction. I think that's the argument Prager would make too.
upandopen 2 years ago
I have found nothing on Prager supporting legalized gambling or prostitution. He has, in fact listed prostitution as a bad personal choice for men. I too, am a constitutionalist libertarian who does not condone drug use but who believes no government has the right to own a person's life. One cannot lose their freedom to an activity they solely choose to engage in. They can only be responsible or irresponsible for their actions.
jeffersonianideal 2 years ago
FInd me his opposition to legalized gambling and I'll believe you.
Whenever any public figure is caught with a prostitute, he is one of very few conservatives to defend that.
upandopen 2 years ago
Here you go:
Prager wrote:
"But excitement is not happiness. In fact, it is the ultimate drug. It is excitement that people seek when engaging in any destructive addictive behaviors. Excitement is a major part of what people seek in doing drugs, in having sex with multiple partners, in gambling (from slot machines to risky stock purchases)...."
He was ardent however, in defending the liberty hating, neo-con, Bill Bennett who wagged a moralist finger but was himself, addicted to gambling.
jeffersonianideal 2 years ago
That doesn't mean he wants gambling to be illegal. You think that being libertarian means being free of morality. It doesn't. Doing heroin and having sex with multiple prostitutes and gambling 50% of your income are all terrible ideas. Whether or not they should be banned by the government (which I oppose) is an entirely different question.
upandopen 2 years ago
You asked for Pager's own words and I supplied them to you. Now a direct quote from Prager is not good enough or you want to spin what he said. You do this because it is obvious that Dennis is "your guy". Prager is free to think, behave and speak whatever his preference du jour may be. The bottom line is this: I know libertarians. Libertarians are friends of mine. Dennis Prager is no libertarian.
jeffersonianideal 2 years ago
Referring to Prager, you said: "Just bring up the notion of personal freedoms such as legalized recreational drug use, gambling and prostitution and see how these accepting conservatives react".
I asked you to provide evidence that he wants gambling to be illegal, and you cited a quote of Prager's in which he calls gambling "destructive behavior". That does not mean, however, that he wants gambling to be illegal (as you alleged). In fact he wants it to be legal.
upandopen 2 years ago
When Prager says something overwhelmingly self-righteous like: "But excitement is not happiness. In fact, it is the ultimate drug.", that should be enough to be considered a litmus test to prove his arrogance. I'll grant you the last word as it is time to move on to more important issues.
jeffersonianideal 2 years ago
I don't know what's self-righteous or arrogant about that quote. He is making a distinction: excitement and drugs give you short-term thrills, but not long-term happiness.
You're a confused libertarian who thinks that anyone who makes moral judgments is tyrannical. The whole point of libertarianism is that individuals should make moral judgments so that government need not interfere in private decisions.
upandopen 2 years ago
@upandopen lol I know I'm late to the party but I find the arguement betweem you two interesting. I was having a debate of sorts myself with Jeffersonianideal a week ago on a Freedom Watch upload.
MaurDL 1 year ago