During his CPAC Speech, Ron Paul stated a basic Libertarian idea: "Government should never be able to do anything you can't do."(ie: If I can't steal a car, or punch you in the face... the Government shouldn't either.) Well that statement boggled the child-like minds of Liberal journalists. They just can't fathom the concept. To them, the all-powerful Government is magic. It might be wrong for a group of individuals to do a given thing, but if they form a Government and touch some magic rings together, with their powers combined, human morality no longer applies.
Let's break it down for the Liberals and prove that Libertarian principle:
For a moment, imagine there were no Government (Don't worry we're not advocating anarchy. This is just a thought experiment, try to keep up.) If there were no Government and you wanted to steal someone's car, it would still be unethical by any standard of basic human morality. Of course you could simply take it by force, but the act itself would still be unethical, immoral, and wrong.
What could you possibly do to make that unethical act an ethical one?
Maybe Majority Rule is the answer. Say you asked everyone in the local area if they thought it was okay for you to steal some guy's car, and everyone (but him) agreed you should. Would that make it ethical? Can you simply vote the unethical ethical? If so, there's no such thing as wrong… Just unpopular. (Murder and rape would only be "bad" because of other people's opinions of them.)
Ok, how about this... What if you and a bunch of people got all dressed up, built a big marble building in the middle of town, got some nice ass paper, and wrote down: "It's okay for us to take that car against his will." That would have to make it ethical... right? People voted for you, and you've got a huge shiny building. Clearly, wrong can be turned to right, bad to good, and immoral to moral only with the proper combination of popularity, paperwork, and architecture.
Remember, the Government's your employee... it's your agent (not agent like 007, agent like: "One you authorize to act on your behalf.") By definition you can only delegate to an agent authority you already have. You can empower someone else to: Go to your house, get the case of beer in your fridge, and bring it back here. But not to: Go to some stranger's house, get the beer out of the stranger's fridge, and bring it back here. I can't ethically steal your car, therefore I can't delegate to the Government the authority to ethically steal your car. Hence the principal: "Government should never be able to do anything you can't do."
That's what it all comes down to. At the bottom of every political argument is a disagreement on fundamental ethical principals. That's where the split takes place, and that's why Liberals are such fucking pieces of shit. When you're arguing with those douchebags, keep that in mind. Make them admit their core premises, and they're fucking exposed for what they are: People who, one way or another, think it's ethical for you to steal that guy's car (or that the Government's magic.)