meritocrat

Most conservatives claim that their ideology upholds individual liberty. How exactly does this manifest itself?

I can't really think of any conservative political party anywhere which has sought to further social freedom. If anything, many conservative organisations possess socially authoritarian/conservative wings. Ultimately the only freedoms conservatives care for are economic ones (such as the right to do business, make profits and free markets.)

Loren Pechtel

True conservatives are Libertarians.

Ultron

Technically through less federal laws, and a reigning in of violations of the Constitution. For example we have rights spelled out to us via the Bill of Rights, amendments to the Constitution. Such as the oft-forgotten 10th Amendment which limits powers of the federal govt to those spelled out in the Constitution, or to the states or the people. Such as the only two methods are used to add, subtract or change those powers: future amendments, and a rewriting of the Constitution. Such as the 9th Amendment which states there are still freedoms in this country, even if they aren't specifically protected by the Constitution.

For example, we needed an Amendment, the 18th, to ban alcohol on a federal level. Furthermore it took another, the 21st, to repeal it. How can we do this without such a process against other drugs like cocaine and marijuana? Well, Constitutionally we can't ban it without Amendment. Now Republicans might try to enforce federal bans against these drugs, but true Constitutionalists can't do that without Amendment. I think a lot of people should recognize there is a difference between Conservatives and Republicans.

I'm anti-drug, but I think it's a state's rights issue.

Ultron

Do Libertarians still want to limit what legislation that can be brought about? Such as anti-porn or anti-prostitution laws? Or anti-drug laws, etc? If so, that's a violation of the Constitution as it stands.

emphryio

States rights

States rights are silly. The idea of government is to make laws. States rights just mean weakening the power of the government and weakening it's ability to enforce laws.

For instance, a large corporation can far more easily influence a state, (by say threatening to take it's money and jobs elsewhere), influence it to ignore the pollution they cause, ignore it's anti union practices, get tax breaks, etc.

But to influence the national government would at least take a much more powerful corporation.

So by states rights, we're basically saying, "Lets reduce our governments ability to enforce laws / regulate business."

Great idea. We think government is inefficient or corrupt so we just destroy it and let whoever has the most power / money have a free for all.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Actually, no it isn't. It could quite easily be argued that anti-porn laws are quite contrary to the first ammendment, and that no state had the legitimate power to restric prostitution. After all, why is it necessary and proper to ban selling something that is perfectly legal to give away?

And Loren, I'd agree with you other than it's borderline No True Scotsmen on that. It would be better stated as pure conservatism.

Ultron

States have always had their own govts, even before this country was created. Furthermore they still have their own govts, and their own set of laws. The federal govt only has powers explicitly spelled out in the US Constitution. Powers not spelled out do not exist. Furthermore, the 10th Amendment (which updates the Constitution) backs my claim up, that states have powers where not specifically covered by the federal govt.

If you would like to change this, there are two ways of doing so. Another amendment, or have a Constitutional convention and throw out the current Constitution.

Ultron

Porn isn't speech. It's not protected. You can't walk down main street with child porn for example without being prosecuted. This is a basic 1st Amendment issue.

How do you come to the conclusion states don't have the power to make such laws restricting prostitution?

That's a different arguement than whether or not it can be banned, or whether or not states have the power to make laws outlawing any activity. The only rights states can't take away are those protected by the Bill of Rights. This is a basic 10th Amendment issue.

What states have protections for prostitution in their constitutions?

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

You committed a crime to make those images--i.e., statuatory rape and a few others come to mind. Since the act necessary to create the images, then the images cannot be legal.

Incidentally, "simulated" child porn IS legal in the US--the supreme court has ruled as such.

Your argument is fallacious on those grounds. In pornogoraphy between consenting adults, no crime is broken in making them--thusly they are a form of free speech. If I can allow a man to watch me have sex, how can I NOT allow pictures of the act?
The people have more rights than the bill of rights and the remainder of the constitution explicitly states. Abortion springs to mind. The state does not hold personal rights at all. Basic Ammendment X issue.

If you have the right to have sex with whomever you choose (which the Supreme Court would easily uphold)
and you have the right to sell that which you may freely (legally) give away
(which the Supreme Court can not fail to uphold--it would be nonsense otherwise)
you therefore have the right to prostitute yourself.
They don't need to.

Ultron

No doubt the person who made the image did that. But someone else who has that image didn't commit that crime. All they are doing is holding up porn. What does it matter that it's child porn? Child porn is porn, right? Unless you make the arguement that not ALL porn is protected. Already you open up your arguement to exclude some forms of porn, which is what I want.

BTW news agencies depict severed heads and victims of murders all the time (see Al Jazeera) even though they do not commit the act of murder. Using your flawed logic, the act neccessary to create those images - murder - makes the pictures of such activity illegal. That logic doesn't hold up under the same scrutiny in other circumstances.

Well that falls apart when applied to other illegal acts which are depicted.

But this isn't about simulated child porn. This is about real porn, child or otherwise.

You'd certainly agree with me that at least some porn isn't protected (actually I argue no porn is, but I figure I can get you to partially agree with me, which is better than us totally disagreeing on everything).

Actually it looks like you agree with me that some porn isn't protected. I won't argue against that.

That's your moral standard. That doesn't mean that states can't make laws preventing pictures of such being displayed in public. In fact that is the case now. Or else you'd see open Playboy mags, and worse, displayed in the windows of some places. The fact is that these pornographic pictures can be regulated by any laws, since they are not protected by the 1st Amendment. You say simulated child porn is legal in the US. That doesn't make it a protected right. Neither is regular porn a protected right. It enjoys no protection federally speaking, or at the state level.

True. The 9th Amendment specifically addresses this. But that doesn't mean those rights can't be infringed at all. Remember states can infringe on any right that the US Constitution does not protect, or what the states themselves do not protect.

Actually that's not a 10th Amendment issue. Refer to the 5th and 14th Amendment for that issue.

No supreme court decision has ever upheld that. Certainly you can have sex with some people, but not all people. For example the children we mentioned. So you can't argue that you have the right to have sex with just anyone, as an absolute. Most states for example do not legalize prostitution. The US Congress certainly hasn't passed any laws legalizing prostitution. I think a city in Arizona legalizes prostitution. Or maybe Nevada. Can't remember offhand.

Sure they do, if you wish to not have those rights infringed upon. But since no state has protections for porn, they can all make laws infringing upon your "rights" to display porn.