I doubt that libertarians would ever accept paying for drugs for addicts no more than they accept the current socialistic welfare system. To them, individual freedom means you pay your own way and do not rely on govt for food and shelter nor drugs. IOWs individual freedom requires you to be responsible for your own dang self. And that includes a drug habit, be it prescription or illicit.
Contrary to popular misconceptions, I am not convinced that libertarians are for illicit drugs, seems to me they are just not against them. Moreover, they are not against them because they believe in individual responsibility and individual freedom. And that means the liberty to do drugs if that is what one wants to do. Still, this does not make them "dopers" as some like to refer to them.
Surely there are some "dopers" in their midst just as there are in all political parties. Sadly, it's mostly only the libertarians who are speaking out against this failed war on drugs, and the enormous cost to taxpayers, as well as our individual freedoms that have been sacrificed in this effort. This 92 year old lady is a prime example of the failure and the horrors associated with it. There are thousands more such stories like this one.
The next time anyone refers to the libertarians as a bunch of "dopers," consider this, just because some gays in the GOP have been exposed, do you think we should all now be referring to the GOP as the "Gay Ole Party?" I don't think so. Nor do I believe it correct to refer to libertarians as "dopers" when they are merely arguing for individual freedom and the responsibilities that come with it.
PS So you know, George Soros is a democrat, not a libertarian.
The next time anyone refers to the libertarians as a bunch of "dopers," consider this, just because some gays in the GOP have been exposed, do you think we should all now be referring to the GOP as the "Gay Ole Party?" I don't think so. Nor do I believe it correct to refer to libertarians as "dopers" when they are merely arguing for individual freedom and the responsibilities that come with it.
Thank you so much.
I doubt that libertarians would ever accept paying for drugs for addicts no more than they accept the current socialistic welfare system.
I think you're right. What you witnessed is a drive-by non sequitur. Often used when one's argument is too weak to stand on it's own merits. They resort to irrationality as their argument.
I never did understand how that would survive in the long run. I don't think it can. See tag line.