Utah tried standing up to the feds and they took all their education money from them. The state caved. It's like feeding a wild animal. Give them access to the garbage and they forget how to forage for themselves.

Idaho could definitely do it.

Hey!
"Of course a libertarian would play the what is"criminal behavior" card and "by what right does one person or group of people have determining what is right and wrong for anyone else and should be considered a crime."
not necessarily! I, for example, wouldn't do anything of the kind. Criminal behavior is behavior which has been defined by some group that is willing to punish it as criminal. To your second point, there is no such thing as a group decision, unless all members of the group agree, and after that, the definition is the same. A crime is what whoever with the power to punish it, says.
Once you and your family enter a public space, things change. People ARE going to invade "your" space - ever go to the beach, or to a baseball game, or to the mall?
And I am squarely in Robbie's corner here. Is it the law against murder which prevents you from murdering? No, it's your own morality. Does the law prevent other people from murdering each other? No! The one thing which does help to PREVENT crime is armed citizens - criminals themselves say that.
Finally, please look at the structure of laws. They are not designed to _prevent_ certain behaviors, they are written to _punish_ those behaviors when they happen. That's why the Supreme Court has found that, when you call 911, the police do not have to come. If we want to prevent crime, we are on our own.
[If this post looks wierd, it's because it's pushed soso far over to the right that I can't read what I've written!]

hmmm. You're starting to tread on muddy ground, here - the right-wing Libertarians, the left-wing Libertarians, the small-l Libertarians, the right-to-life Libertarians.....
But in general, the different between Libertarians and both Conservatives and Liberals is the absolute prohibition by Libertarians against the initiation of force by anyone, for any reason. So, both Liberals and Conservatives tend to think that, when appropriate, it is acceptable for force people to do what is "right" or to obey a law.
I used to describe Libertarians as being Conservative on fiscal issues and Liberal on social issues, but I don't think that's as true now as it was; the line between Conservative and Liberals is getting blurrier.
I'm interested that you use "reckless" to describe Libertarianism. How so? and what is a Constitutional Conservative? interesting....

Death for driving too fast? Would the car be programmed to initiate the punishment of it's driver being a lead foot. "You have broken the law, driver. The speed limit is 55 and you are going 56. Death to you!" BOOOOM!!!
Death for causing discomfort to someone else... wtf??
Robbie.... have you lost your mind? Maybe you should add... Talk nonsense... you die!

Poor choice of words on my part, I shouldn't have said that law restricts behavior as much as it influences behavior based on consequences to the individual for transgression.

How do you teach morality to a people who think its an abstract idea, a myth, and an antediluvian concept? The only thing left with an amoral people is to create more an more precise laws, which is the plan of the left and the tool used to deconstruct individualism and individual responsibility, and to topple a once free nation.

As long as your nose doesn't leave your house/yard when your spaced on booze or drugs or got some wild hair to vent I am all good with that.

I'd compromise and say we strip away all laws but one - death. You drive drunk or stoned and kill someone you die. You assault someone or take their life for any unjustified reason, you die. Don't pay your bills, you die. Drive too fast, you die. Trespass, you die. Lie in a way which causes harm/discomfort to someone else, you die. Anything that violates the sovereignty limited to the end of my nose is ground for death.

Absurd, no? We need laws to restrict behavior in a society. The only question is how many laws. This is what the left has been working on for decades. Creating gray in every conceivable situation removes right and wrong and creates moral relativism. Moral relativism requires many very specific laws and arbitration to navigate them.

Nope nope nope and nope. If they had the balls to do it they would have. You understand the uproar it would cause in the media, especially in that state. They would risk recall, etc

Being Republican isn't enough. It takes a Galt style libertarian Republican

I took the Nolan Test and another similar one whose name escapes me. On both I'm deeply in the Libertarian area. These are both wrong. I know myself well enough to understand that I am a Conservative and why I cannot call myself anything else. Thats said, I do not see Conservatism, the Constitutional flavor, as that much different than Objectivism and less reckless than its cousin Libertarianism.

I'll buy it when it comes out on DVD. Meanwhile, I'm going to read the book again to get the taste of the movie out of my mouth.

No they wouldn't have done so already, they're scared to death. Doing this would take balls. Name one Governor with the balls, PLUS a state legislature with the balls and an overwhelming majority. Doesn't exist.

True, laws and punishment cannot replace self-control and self-restraint to prevent crime. But laws and punishment are the only tools a society has to direct the conduct of the masses to discourage criminal behavior. Of course a libertarian would play the what is"criminal behavior" card and "by what right does one person or group of people have determining what is right and wrong for anyone else and should be considered a crime." This is a major issue with libertarianism to me.

The US was founded for a moral people, a people who would police their own behavior which takes away the necessity for laws and punishment. Moral relativism has all but erased "self-policing" today.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.

George Washington, General of the Revolutionary Army, president of the Constitutional Convention, First President of the United States of America, Father of our nation, " Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."

Benjamin Franklin, Signer of the Declaration of Independence "[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

I love it! I don't have any friends either. There are a few people that tolerate me but they keep a wary eye out for the crazy old coot. I don't argue with them nor do I try to persuade them to my point of view. Yet, when they ask for my opinion, they are offended by how "heartless" I am. Most of all they resent the fact that I am happy with my own life and beliefs. Having been an only child I learned long ago to entertain myself and rely on my own opinions. Even my wife of 51 years gets angry that I am just as satisfied being alone as with being with others and that I have a position that I consider to be correct on most everything and it rarely co-insides with "conventional wisdom".

Before donating look to see if the library has any of Rand's novels on the shelf. Not just in the catalog, but right there on the shelf. It wouldn't do for your excellent donation to the library to be stolen by a self-appointed censor.

If the library has no Rand books, consider holding your own private screenings of the videos instead. Invite your friends. The price of admission? Each guest must bring ANOTHER friend. Guests who lack friends should bring popcorn instead.

I agree with Snezzy, but buy Khalling's Pendulum of Justice. The story does not continue but the message does. And its a terrifically good read.

"So long as they don't affect me, I let them do what they will."

Unfortunately thats the rub with me. There are far too many gray-morality anything goes people who would easily allow their pleasure to take a life or main someone. In a society some constraints must be set to prevent those folks from invading my space and that of my family, even when in public.

I'd give it a go. I've tried others and usually turn up a staunch conservative.