[fporretto]

This is (hopefully) the last segment in this series of essays. It occurred to me while composing a column for the Palace Of Reason that FDR's "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself," while stirring, left out quite a bit of the equation. Impenetrable confidence is just as much of a danger as impenetrable fear. In particular, it keeps you from exchanging ideas usefully with others -- a malady from which the American body politic suffers ever more as time passes.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason: http://palaceofreason.com

[fporretto]

Ping!

All my best,
Fran

[Wurlitzer]

If only all such dialog could be so civil we, myself included, might learn more than we thought possible.

[FreeTally]

In either of the above cases, could we but take away the fear factor, there would be essentially no argument remaining.

In deed!

[WyldKard]

Very wise words.

Unfortunately, while I think that there are libertarians/strict Constitutionalists who are willing to compromise on the War on Drugs issue, the so-called Conservatives who support it tooth and nail do so with a religious zeal that prevent such rational and logical debate. They become "ideologically frozen". There are maybe two people on this entire board I've seen who can make a good debate for using caution in approaching any plan to decrim or legalize. The rest are all too happy to resort to strawman arguments, dodging the debate, trying to change the issue, out and out character assassination and personal attacks in order to cling to their favorite issue.

For instance, recently, I had someone from here hand me the URL to an article he told me proved that Prohibition lowered the death rate from alcohol abuse. When I pointed out to him how he read the article wrong, and that it actually said, in no uncertain terms, that Prohibition caused MORE alcohol related deaths and jacked the homicide rate up to levels that weren't seen again until 1975, he suddenly couldn't be bothered to discuss the issue like a rational adult anymore, and resorted to "Drugs are wrong and immoral, and so is anyone who supports them! You are wrong and I am right!" type tactics.

Ironically, the simple minded Socialists who insist on calling themselves Conservatives don't seem to realize that you can support the Constitution without supporting the activity that it covers. I don't like the KKK, or their hate speech, but I will fight to protect their Constitutional rights. People don't have to take drugs, or approve of drug use to see that the WoD is socialist, unConstitutional, corrupt beyond all imagination in it's current form, and needs to be changed/ended.

And it seems a good number of the most vocal pro-WOD's are self-admitted former hardcore drug addicts who have decided to blame the objects instead of their own personal failings. And unfortunately, I don't think you can really expect to ever reason with people like that...

[Grit]

Very wise commentary indeed. It is greatly appreciated (and rare).

[HumanaeVitae]

Libertarians hold liberty as an end in itself.

Conservatives start with social order, and then look to history to note that liberty is indespensible to maintaining order. First order, then liberty to sustain order. Thus, pure liberty is not necessary (or even possible, really); only enough liberty necessary to maintain order.

[madfly]

ping

[DaveCooper]

Excellent post.

Please put me on your ping list, if possible.

[Ohioan]

As a Conservative with strong libertarian sentiments--where it comes to people living their own lives, the way they choose to live them--I never cease to be bothered by those among us who choose to stress a dichotomy, where frankly there really is not one.

While those who like to neatly categorize shades of opinion can point to issues of disagreement among us--whether on an axis of Conservative vs. Libertarian--or Northern vs. Southern--or religious vs. political motivation--from many perspectives; the emphasis on those divisions serves only the quest to neatly categorize our shades of opinion. The same effort would be better spent attacking those with whom we all disagree; those on the Left who have been sytematically undermining America throughout all of our lives.

The idea of a monolithic thought system is offensive to both Conservatives and Libertarians; but somehow, many need to pursue aspects of it, all the same. But the Left, motivated by hatred, can still pull together all those on its side who are in agreement on any subject, to further the attack on those values, which the great bulk of Conservatives and Libertarians are disposed to preserve. It is not that they stop hating one another on the Left; it is just that their greater hatred for our heritage always seems to bring out unity among them, when they need it to continue their advance.

Why can't we who are more intelligent and better balanced than they--motivated by love not hate--pull together as well when it is in our obvious interest to do so?

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[Mark Bahner]

"Such confidence must include sufficient humility to allow for respect for the other side's fears -- for an unshakable confidence in one's own rightness is nearly always misplaced. There is little to learn from those who agree with you, whereas much may be learned from those who disagree."

To discuss one side's "fears" versus the other side's, is only relevant if The Law is not involved. I don't care how "afraid" conservatives are of *federal* legalization of all drugs. That's a matter of The Law...the Constitution. *Federal* criminalization of *any* drug is unconstitutional, and I don't give a d@mn about conservatives "fears" on the issue.

The only way I would be willing to compromise on *federal* legalization of all drugs, would be if a conservative could make the case that the Constitution permits federal criminalization of drugs. No conservative can make such a case, in my opinion, because it's open-and-shut. There is simply no doubt, in my mind, that federal criminalization of the possession or within-state sale of ANY drug is unconstitutional.

So, conservatives, don't talk to me about your "fears" regarding complete elimination of all federal laws on all drugs. I'm too cold-blooded to care about your "fears" on that issue. ;-) Talk to me about The Law (the Constitution). If you admit that federal laws criminalizing drugs are unconstitutional, then your "fears" mean nothing to me. If you think that federal laws criminalizing drugs *are* constitutional, you'd better start explaining.

Mark Bahner (Libertarian)

[PGalt]

Good post/comments bump.

[Pietro]

A thoughtful post.

"In either of the above cases, could we but take away the fear factor, there would be essentially no argument remaining."

The problem here is that the fears are real. Poverty and privation are real things, just as dope filled societies have also existed (and they are not happy places).

If libertarians want to be taken seriously they need to provide pragmatic solutions and not pie in the sky, utopian wet dreams.

For example, eliminating all social welfare would make far more people self-reliant, it would also certainly recreate the human tragedies described so well by Dickens and other 19th cen. writers. Are we prepared for street urchins in rags and old people cast aside like refuge? Perhaps a return to debtors prison?

Likewise w/ your WOD example. Should we willingly accept the return of opium dens and all of the miseries associated w/ that natural consequence to drug legalization?

Frankly, I find the inevitable consequences of the above sited examples unacceptable in our society.

If that makes me a socialist to some then so be it. But it is the conservatives, and by extension, the GOP that have taken the real fight to the American people. And in the real world idealism is simply not practical.

Reasonable and pragmatic solutions are welcomed. Moronic Randian rants are worthless.

And to those who would say it's the idealists that change the world I would add this qualifier; idealists w/ a plan change the world. I challenge the libertarians to present a practical plan for moving this country in the direction of liberty; short of that they have little to add.

[dirtboy]

ping

[wattsmag2]

Schism? When were Conservatives and Libertarians ever on the same page?

[lodwick]

Thank you and bttt