What is a Libertarian?

I have a friend who calls himself a Libertarian. I've known him for about a year. We both have similar interests, share the same political views (generally), and have respect for a benevolent and gracious higher power.

Lately, my friend has been sending out articles written by "Libertarians" and those associated with the Campaign for Liberty. Most of these articles are highly critical of the war on terror, ridicule the efforts of the Bush administration to combat the terror threat, and seize on any opportunity to highlight misguided efforts at Guantanamo, Afghanistan, or Iraq.

I get the impression that my friend believes the government, in its pursuit of terrorists, is seriously endangering the rights of free, law-abiding citizens like you and I. While I can understand the concern, especially in light of the Obama administration's alarming statements regarding military veterans and so-called right-wing extremists (aka Teapartiers), I am searching for the right response that addresses the terror issue without negating the importance of the preservation of individual liberty.

First THANK YOU for no personal attacks.

>Violent drug crime comes from the unregulated business environment of drug production/sales. Since it is illegal, there is no court that any drug producer/seller can go to if wronged by another party. So the only form of recourse is violence when one is shafted.<

Yes this does happen. But as i said before, not as frequently as users will break laws and hurt people to get money to pay for their drugs, illicit or non.
Check with any stored that have been ripped off that sell everything including cigarettes, see what gets stolen most of. I bet you will find it is the cigarettes.

>Secondly, by the fact that drugs are illegal, there is an added cost to the sale price to cover the costs of smuggling and illicit distribution. Which means that the price of drugs can reach levels that some no longer can afford. So some will turn to crime to get the money to continue buying the drugs. Eliminate the extra costs stemming from the illegality, and the price drops. Which then enables many who had to resort to crime to not have the need, as what money they have is enough to support their habit.<

That *may* happen in the short term. What people do not realize is that
#1 Other governments are already making money from this through illegal means. Pay offs etc. It is in their interest to keep drug trades going.
#2 80% of all drugs brought in are passed through. If police get 20% of it coming in then they are doing great compared to the national average.
#3 the drugs brought in are cut and stepped on so much that the product gets stretched far beyond what any one would be able to if there were regulations.
#4 if legalized, that amount of stepping would not occur, prices would go up for the same amounts by as much as 20X because in some cases that is how many times it is being stepped on. Of course in the case of something like crack
I assume that it would become even worse.

(now depending on weather we are talking baout [pot or heroine - things can change)

But in the short term prices may drop, but eventually with addictions rising, taxes would as well. Until you would see prices far surpass what they are today.

Believe it or not, drugs are relatively cheap on the streets. Especially the more dangerous ones. Because the addiction factor is high, once they have a client, they have them for life. They can make money slow but steady and lots of it.

being regulated, which it would be - it will be taxed beyond belief. It will only lead to more crimes being committed to buy more product.

The government continually enforces morality. It cannot make people moral, but it can punish immorality, for instance you cannot sell your body for sex, and you cannot inject illegal drugs into yourself. These are just a few of numerous moral enforcements. Most police departments have a Vice Squad that is specifically involved in enforcement of morality. How do you separate religion from morality? In my state you have laws against gambling, and you have many dry counties. I live in a city that is not allowed to sell alcohol on Sunday. These laws are rooted in the religious beliefs of the majority of voters that elect representatives to the legislature. Their religious beliefs inform their morality. Their morality determines how they vote.

Our government is based upon the political concept of the social contract. Citizens willingly give up some of their rights for the good of society. Whether or not subsequent generations have the opportunity to make this contract, they are nonetheless bound to them. Benjamin Franklin, as were all the Founding Fathers, supported this political concept. The buying and selling of drugs in not an essential liberty. Just as stopping for a stop sign is not giving up an essential liberty. There is a difference between anarchy and Libertarianism. Even a Libertarian understands the importance of the social contract.

Being regulated, which it would be - it will be taxed beyond belief. It will only lead to more crimes being committed to buy more product.

For the first point, that really just sounds like the tobacco industry's business model. So if it's good enough for us to allow it for tobacco, why are we being so sanctimonious about it for other recreational drugs?

As for the taxes, under this administration or the last, I'd agree with you. That said, taxes are a balancing act, the government has to keep them low enough to prevent smuggling, but high enough to earn some money from the tax. But come to think of it, while I do know of cases where cigarettes are now being smuggled, I don't know of any cases where people are turning to crime to support their nicotine fix.

Shot placement is king.

Agreed. Now, as the OP stated 33 shots fired. This shows two things, as I said. One, not enough bullet. 9mm is known for over penetration at standard engagement distances. Bullet goes in, does not expand, goes right out again. Depends, of course, on load, FMJ vs HP which may be outlawed by Department, clothing of target, etc... I've seen the cadaver data from a couple of different sources. Other ballistic platforms do perform better. 33 shots from any one of these would not have left enough of the perp to have been identified by anything other than dental records.

Two, as you correctly stated, shot placement. A .22LR will kill a bull elephant with proper shot placement. In a stress situation, high precision shots are all "minute of bad guy". A normal 1 MOA shooter under stress will easily become a 5 MOA or worse shooter. Tunnel vision, respiration, heart rate and blood pressure, etc... Been there. Done that. Training can help over come this. Most cops don't get enough. I've seen that first hand.

So what is my point? Use enough gun that even a "combat accurate" shot is going to do damage to your target. You rarely ever get "one shot" stops, so train for three shots. 2 to center mass, 1 to the head. Pop-pop. Pop. Practiced over and over again, you can do this reliably without even thinking about it.

And it works. That's why Combat Focus courses at Valhalla and Front Sights courses are worth the money you pay. Sgt Sugarcookie popping 10-20 shots into a 7yrd target once a year isn't going to produce the next Wyatt Earp or Carlos Hathcock.

Theories don’t stand up to reality in many instances. Especially when it comes to the the unexpected events of crime.

You just couldn't stay away could you newbie. As for theories... Try history. For most of our Countries history, we were a lot more "lawless" than we are now. Need I point out that this untrammeled atmosphere of freedom made us the World superpower that we are today? Despite the last 30-40 years of ever expending government to reverse that trend.

As for your 2-3 paragraphs of Brady Bunch nonsense... Come up with better material.

Unlike in books which you apparently got all your skills and knowledge from.

Again, Junior, unless you've been following me around the last 20-25 years... Keep your teeth together. You are embarrassing yourself.

>For the first point, that really just sounds like the tobacco industry’s business model. So if it’s good enough for us to allow it for tobacco, why are we being so sanctimonious about it for other recreational drugs?<

Maybe we had a miscommunication. When you say recreational drugs, may I assume that you are not talking about meth, crack, heroin etc.

because of we are talking about pot, I have always said in every thread in dealing specifically with pot, that it should probably be allowed.

It is what I would consider hard core drugs that end in severe addiction which my argument still holds against.

Pot, hell, put it in cigarette machines. Tax the hell out of it like they do cigarettes. In many states it is already decriminalized. It has been shown to help with medical treatments and the country was just about founded on hemp.

But the other drugs, would become a bigger problem if they were legalized IMO for the reasons I stated.

As for as people committing crimes to support their nicotine fix, check with the last stop and rob or convenience store, pharmacy, grocery store that had been burglarized. Any place that sells cigarettes. Ask them what was taken, the first words out of their mouths will be cigarettes.

To support their cravings, maybe somewhat, but more than likely just a money maker for the most part. But the people who steal head for them first, and they take them by the garbage bag. (have I properly illustrated my point?)

>>your arguing economics of no overhead, vs a government taxed, government sponsored (on the other side) drug cartel where everyone is milking people out of their tax money.<<

>Government supported? Now whose putting words in whose mouth?!?<

I didn’t say our government. But you must admit that other governments turn a blind eye to much of the cultivation, shipping and processing of poppies, weed, coca because they are enjoying kick backs, and power and some money in their economy.

Then there is the issue that if governments regulated it’s sale, which they would have to if legalized. Imagine the sheer bureaucracy of it all? You know that they can not spend less money than private enterprise. This would be no different.

It would be a multi-billion dollar cash cow for them, and they would have their greedy little fingers all over it.

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.