February 28, 2007
Jacob Sullum asks, which party is better at meddling in your life?
Reason needs your support. Please donate today!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
(310) 367-6109
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
VM|2.28.07 @ 9:17AM|#
Yes
Single Issue Voter|2.28.07 @ 9:31AM|#
Sullum disingenuously answers his own question.
Democrats.
Unless he can show me all those pro- gambling, pornography and drugs Democrats he implies are out there.
|2.28.07 @ 9:41AM|#
SIV,
Seems like there were plenty during the Clinton years.
Isn't it IOTTMCO that both parties are committed to stamping out liberty? I really can't understand those that say "the Republocrats are microscopically less putrid than the Democins we must therefore support their team"
Single Issue Voter|2.28.07 @ 9:46AM|#
I'm not saying "support the team".
Republicans are ideologically and rhetorically much more supportive of Individual Liberty than are Democrats.
I wish that support extended to their actions.
VM|2.28.07 @ 9:56AM|#
You know the nanny state is running amok when even Prince Charles gets in on the act!
|2.28.07 @ 10:20AM|#
Seems like there were plenty during the Clinton years.
Well, sure, they liked porn, drugs, and gambling for themselves, but I didn't see them doing anything to knock down legal barriers for the rest of us.
biologist|2.28.07 @ 10:43AM|#
Jacob, are you channelling Cathy Young?:)
Dan T.|2.28.07 @ 12:20PM|#
Both parties probably are supportive of liberty, it's just that the Republican/conservative version (liberty = the government staying out of your business) is closer to the Libertarian ideal than the Democratic/liberal version (liberty is best achieved through the actions of government).
|2.28.07 @ 12:24PM|#
That one got me! I love it, Dan!
The sentence "liberty is best achieved through the actions of government" is flawed in so many ways, it's tough to know where to begin, so I'm not going to bother. But it did give me a good, hard, laugh, so thanks for that. Coercive force to achieve liberty... wow... too much! Funny how far folks who truly detest liberty will go to make it seem like they're playing for the good guys.
|2.28.07 @ 12:46PM|#
Matthew-He's talking about positive vs. negative liberty. While I personally view talk about positive liberty (at least in the context of politics) to be hogwash, it is a legitimate concept.
|2.28.07 @ 5:29PM|#
6-
I understand what he's talking about, it's just a concept without any value. The bottom line is that coercive force is antithetical to liberty, they're diametrically opposed. Semantic tricks aside, there's not much to discuss there.
Mike Laursen|2.28.07 @ 8:01PM|#
it's just that the Republican/conservative version (liberty = the government staying out of your business) is closer to the Libertarian ideal
Are these, like, Alpha Centaurian Republicans you're referring to? The ones on this planet are very comfortable with sticking their noses into everyone's business.