Libertarian details all the differences between he and his opponent. Acid, Abortion & Euthanasia.

Daryl Root in District 4 is campaigning on facebook with his platform to draw differences between he and his opponent, Senator John Wiik:

So, his platform is Acid, Abortion, and Euthanasia?  I think that might be a hard sell in District 4.

14 thoughts on “Libertarian details all the differences between he and his opponent. Acid, Abortion & Euthanasia.”

  1. Daryl, correct me if I’m wrong, but last election cycle when you ran against me didn’t you also advocate for prostitution? Have you decided to drop that from your platform this time around?

  2. Daryl believes that freedom should be the first and only issue of his campaign.
    Fred Deutsch is all for restricting the individual freedoms of his constituents.
    Deutsch is the big government candidate that South Dakota has far too many of.

  3. Why wouldn’t he be? He’s got a bunch of sins covered, why not that one?
    Maybe his FB page should be “Root 4 Sin 4 District 4 Senate.”

  4. If you have a problem with these issues, don’t pursue them. What other people do with their lives isn’t the concern of the government. I may not agree with all of Daryl’s positions, but he takes the side of personal freedom

    I understand everyone here hates us Libertarians for some reason, but hopefully you all understand that we want to protect all your choices and beliefs, whether we agree or not.

    We can debate “morals” all day, but the government is the last body that should be able to try to be a moral authority considering the thousands of lives they’ve ruined over the years.

    1. I personally don’t “hate” Libertarians. I personally believe if you want to smoke dope, go ahead. If you want to spread your legs or cheeks for money, who cares? If you want to exercise all of those harmful activities, why should I care? The problem with those ideas is they are harmful to the individual and can be to others. When that dope smoker’s mommy dies and has to live on his own and cannot afford to pay for anything because he cannot hold down a job and goes to the government to get help and the government says okidoki, that is where I have a problem. If everyone who exercises his rights to do harmful things to his body was not allowed to take advantage of government, I would say fine. But we are a compassionate people and take care of such individuals. So until we can be assured the taxpayer does not have to pay for such behavior, then yes, I believe there needs to be restrictions.

      1. I get what you are saying, but understand that we Libertarians are right there with you on that.

        You want to make those choices,great! But the government is not the safety net for bad choices.

        1. I did say that, but as I also mention our society will not force people to take responsibility. BTW, if you saw my political affiliation, you would see I am listed as Libertarian. Only because I see the Democrats driving us towards a cliff at 100 mph and the Republicans a more reasonable 75 mph.

  5. What I stand for, and what I advice, are two different things. I do not pretend to play God and know what is best for every individual. Only the individual can determine that. True freedom includes the freedom to do stupid and/or ill-advised things. I do not recommend being involved in prostitution even if everyone consent. I do not advise drug use for recreation, or any other activity that many find immoral. However, if there is no victim to restore, it is not my moral obligation to play God. (I write this as my last comment has yet to appear. Censorship? )

    1. Who determines who the victim is in your vision of freedom? For example, an individual likes the way Oxy makes them feel so they MAKE THE CHOICE to go about using it for a recreation feel good high. So after time they become addicted to the Oxy (and they will become addicted), their life centers around getting the next high and subsequently their life goes into the toilet. Do they then become the victim? Do they get to bring a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the Oxy because of the incredible addictive properties? Do they get to receive government handouts now because they have now destroyed their life?

    2. The unborn baby is a victim, whether you want to admit that or not.

      Am I not a victim if my tax dollars have to go to pay for a junkie’s rehab?

      There are absolutes, but I don’t see many Libertarians looking to the source thereof.

  6. The core value of libertarianism is “small government,” which is a vague concept meaning pretty much whatever any individual Libertarian wants it to mean. So, anything from keeping the government out of your bedroom to the privatization of almost every function of government from education to the police force can fall under the libertarian agenda.

    So it shouldn’t be a surprise that fiscally conservative Republicans are more likely to vote libertarian than Democrats. However, on social issues ― some of the libertarian policy positions are actually more progressive than a Occupy Wall Street drum circle. Like Mr. Root advocates, the Libertarian stance on social issues include making prostitution and euthanasia legal, and legalizing all drugs.

    Libertarianism comes down to belief that the principles that drive a free market economy can be applied to how humans govern themselves. It’s this idea that an invisible hand that guides the free market will also drive human interaction with social order. This foundation is one that I disagree with, when unchecked ― man motivated by self-gain will not ultimately do the right thing. This is why there are criminals, those who commit crimes even when there is a system that actively tries to prevent it.

    In a libertarian society the question frequently asked is who protects the unprotected, who defends the rights of the defenseless? The answer to this question is why Libertarians have such a hard time winning elections in SD.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.