Posted on 02/25/2013 3:04:49 PM PST by Shout Bits
Last week, conservative Ann Coulter took a swipe at libertarians, calling them "pussies" for their stance on marijuana. Coulter's best qualities are her bluntness (get it?) and her willingness to fight. In her "pussies" comments, she argued that, since the US is a socialist welfare state, people's choices regarding their lifestyles are her business – hence MJ should be illegal. Coulter has a point; socialism turns strangers into family. However, her conclusion that statism and central control are warranted is an abandonment of principle.
Libertarians come in several flavors, and nearly equally from left and right backgrounds. The actual Libertarian Party is dominated by barely reformed hippies and ideologues, who put drug policy front and center. Most libertarians, however, do not belong to the LP. While libertarians like GOP Sen. Rand Paul do not support the war on drugs, that issue is just an example in the spectrum of Constitutional abuses and overreaches by today's government. Perhaps coincidentally, the Tea Party has embraced much of the constitutional libertarian platform of confining government to its enumerated powers.
When conservatives complain about the cost of providing services to immigrants and their children, libertarians blame welfare, not immigration. When conservatives like Coulter complain about the harm drugs do (never mind tobacco and booze), libertarians blame socialized medicine, not drugs. Perhaps Coulter is being pragmatic by acknowledging the US socialist family, but she is conceding this generation's key battle and even the soul of the US by doing so.
Socialists refer to their subjects as family much as dictators refer to their subjects as their children. Under collectivism, the consequences of an individual's bad choices (e.g. smoking, or drinking, or irresponsible debt) are borne by everyone. This creates what economists call a moral hazard. By mitigating the negative consequences of bad behavior, the deterrent is minimized. Why not borrow too much when the government will always bail me out? Why not smoke crack when food, shelter, and health care are available no matter how worthless drugs make me? Of course the government might outlaw crack, but the criminal deterrent has proven to be less effective than the personal ruin deterrent. The best policy regarding vices is for people to live with their decisions' consequences, but socialism is a family where consequences are limited.
Coulter is a big sister who thinks MJ should be illegal so she does not have to pay for whatever negative consequences its users might incur. However, the socialist family is not one which libertarians wish to join. Banning drugs is ineffective at best, and the consequence of proscription might actually be more drug use based on decades' long trends. Libertarians are not in favor of MJ, they are opposed to substituting personal responsibility for the socialist family. Liberals just like MJ for policy reasons. While MJ is a popular example and a clear policy argument, the issue is only an example of why the government should not be the master of a socialist family.
Still, Coulter has a point. The US is a socialist welfare state, and she is forced to be responsible for the bad choices of others. She is not wrong to expect good behavior from her wards. Perhaps Coulter has illuminated the key difference between conservatives and libertarians – Coulter is willing to be a member of today's deeply flawed US socialist family, while libertarians are still willing to fight. As such a famous fighter, Ms. Coulter should try harder and expect a little more.
Shout Bits can be found on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ShoutBits
The above is not correct. Social drinking is thousands of years old.
Was alcohol illegal for those thousands of years? If not, your reply does not contradict my statement.
The above comment ["When alcohol was illegal..."] communicated that during prohibition the primary intent of a speakeasy was to get drunk, not just to have a social drink.
That was precisely my meaning, to which your statement, "Social drinking is thousands of years old," was and remains nonresponsive. Is it your position that people exposed themselves to possible arrest, and to the drunkards with which speakeasies were well supplied, just to have a social drink?
Sorry, jsntn, my years of counseling say that no one wants inactive pot and they always smoke for the high.
Straw man - I neither said nor implied otherwise.
And why were you interested in making the point about getting "high" during Prohibition? Because the parallel would have been "marijuana is illegal, therefore, it could be used more benignly if it weren't for its illegality."
"More benignly" does not imply "inactive" - that was your straw man. The point remains that a difference in typical patterns of use (which change with circumstances) is not a difference in the substances. Also note that if pot is always used to achieve some degree of mental alteration, while alcohol is occasionally used purely for flavor or social convention (although anyone who has a drink to "unwind" or "relax" is indeed seeking a degree of mental alteration), that has no bearing on your original point about "increasing my peril of being hit by a dangerously intoxicated driver."
That, I believe, is the point of "Who says a joint is the minimum dosage of marijuana."
No, the point was that you said your criterion for "viewing alcohol and marijuana the same" was "If there were a joint that could be smoked that did not get the person high, and they could then drive unimpaired" - which is an invalid criterion because users can and not infrequently do consume much less than a joint - in fact, only a single lungful - which quite plausibly may have no effect on ability to drive safely.
legalization without controls
Who supports that? Given that Colorado's and Washington's legalizations incorporated controls, there seems to be no reason to expect legalization without controls.
You are quoting the LP’s platform. As my original article did say, the LP is a minority of libertarians and is dominated by barely reformed hippies and weirdoes. The LP does not necessarily speak for most self-identified libertarians.
Most libertarians understand that a nation has some rights to sovereignty. However, because the US only allows a slight fraction of its immigration needs to be done legally, the result is a black market (illegals). If the US had allowed 10x the immigrants since the 1980’s, there would be very few illegals. Instead the value of the 11 million immigrants would be much higher (better educated, speak English, fewer social ills). People should come to the US in very large numbers, but the process can be orderly. Instead, anyone willing to break the law can enter the US, and every 30-40 years they get amnesty. The better solution is to allow 1 million people per year to enter provided they have a HS degree and can speak and read English.
So, you don’t own YOUR body. I clearly stated that YOU should be solely responsible for Your decisions regarding YOUR body not society nor the taxpayer. And who decides who are ‘healthy members of society’, you, a select committee of statists?
Answer: “a select committee of statists”.
Sorry if you don’t like that answer, and I’m sorry you see our courts and our laws as a “a select committee of statists”, but that system - imperfect as is is - has served us well since our Constitution was ratified back in 1788.
There is no difference between libertarians and their party, the party is where the rubber meets the road, it is where fantasy has to be put into political language.
There is no more dishonest, slippery, folks than libertarians, they will say anything to promote their agenda of radical leftism.
Then you are going to love ObamaCare and other ‘court backed laws’ coming down the pipe. Who knows, if I sell out I just might be on one of those ‘select committees’ to determine whether you qualify as a ‘productive society member’ worthy of receiving certain medical procedures seeing as you don’t own your body. As for the Constitution, any similarity between 1788 and today is increasing becoming a mirage.
Then you are going to love a fully implemented ObamaCare and other ‘court backed laws’ coming down the pipe. Who knows, if I sell out I just might be on one of those ‘select committees’ to determine whether you qualify as a ‘productive society member’ worthy of receiving certain medical procedures seeing as you don’t own your body. As for the Constitution, any similarity between 1788 and today is increasingly becoming a mirage.
Dang double post.......
I see the ADC and SSI crowd at the convenience stores almost every day, picking up their lotto tickets, Bud Light and those ever-so-necessary packs of smokes.
Now, if you're in favor of banning those along with pot, I'll admit you are not a hypocrite.
I pay attention to you because I have never come across a poster on Free Republic as categorically retarded in the realm of "political thinking" as you. I can't even criticize your "ability to reason" because you have no ability to reason. Logic and you are complete strangers. Every time you write something here on this board, you weaken the nation, and you do a grave discredit to conservatism everywhere, lest anyone read what you write and think "this . . . this is conservatism."
You seem like a person with nothing but hate in your belly, and hate plus half a brain are an extremely dangerous combination. Two types of people exist in this world: those who believe it is their duty to control others, and those who do not. You are squarely in the former camp. It wouldn't matter if your cause was conservatism, liberalism, communism, thisism, thatism, blah blah blah. Control is all you care about.
But please, do, continue advocating for your . . . cause . . . it's so fun to watch you make a complete ass out of yourself, time and time again.
They never showed the millions of Americans gathered convivially around the dining table or the back porch, enjoying in moderation a mug or two of beer, or a crisp, icy highball.
The tactics are unchanged with respect to marijuana.
and the libertarians never show the 11 year old prostitutes passed out with a needle in their arm, even though its their biggest dream in life.
Shameless.
Don’t forget the ‘bad’ foods, like those high in carbs and such. Dietary related health issues with their public expense dwarf nearly everything else. If society is paying for one’s existence then society has every right to determine how their funds are spent. If not then my body is my own responsibility and EVERYONE else can bugger off....except my wife of course as she just informed me.
HG, you may differ, but in my opinion, some cretins don't deserve the courtesy of a reply.
There are pigs with which I will not wrestle any more......
It's got to be an unreasonable risk though. Or a clear and present danger. Someone doing meth in their basement doesn't cross the line until they step out in public and act disorderly or get in a car. Someone building a dirty bomb in their basement is already over the line. I don't agree with using force until they cross the line.
I think I’m done responding to you because all you’ve done is respond back with a question and vague answer.
Goodbye.
I DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL YOU.
the above statement says it all..
you, sir, are a nanny state totaltarian..
you do not belong on a liberty oriented site..
get thee lost..
Very true, my friend. Oft times, however, I cannot help myself, even though I should do exactly what you recommend.
Untrue - the following statements from my posts are not questions:
'They'd do what they've been doing.'
'Your original statement above seemed to imply that the answer to your most recent question is "Yes."'
YOU'RE the one who has posted nothing but questions in response to my posts.
and vague answer.
I'd be happy to clarify; tell me which answers you found vague.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.