What is a Libertarian?

2/16/2010 | me

[ggrrrrr23456]

So, what exactly 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.

I would appreciate your input.

[Dead Corpse]

I don’t agree with them taxing as they do. But again, your comparing apples to oranges. Your now giving them another source of revenue to tax from by doing this and driving up the costs. You are defeating your own purpose weather you realize it or not.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Assume a street price of $300 an ounce for dope. Now consider that an ounce of tobacco is about one pack. Even at today's tax levels, there is still no comparison.

Pump 33 rounds into a guy and he still keeps coming .. tell me about it would you?

This tells me two things: 1. The cop is using a 9mm. 2. He doesn't know how to shoot.

I carry a 10mm. My Dad preferred the .357. We are both of the opinion that two to center mass and one to the head will drop ANYTHING out there that you don't need wild game hunting permit to shoot. you put a 10" permanent wound channel through someone's brain housing group and I don't care how much PCP they are on. Again, don't be a puss.

You are just on a rant, and this has NOTHING to do with the subject matter. Your trying to suck me into some gun control issue and I am a very hard core RKBA person.

No. You aren't. Or you'd understand the point I was making. Sometimes life is dangerous. Giving the criminals more profit motive while making it harder for the rest of us only makes life easier for criminals. Do both things. Allow more people to arm up, take the profit out of the illicit drug trade. It'll gut the Underworlds stranglehold on a Trillion dollar underground economy.

You are missing the fact that everyone CAN NOT do this.

Yes. They can. I'm teaching my 6 year old the basics. My Mom needs knee and hip replacements but can still hit doubles on trap. Don't project your shortcomings on to others.

WAY over simplifying things to prove your point that just doesn’t hold up to the cold hard realities of life and how things actually go down.

Using your hysteria doesn't work either. I've got history on my side. You've got your fear. You lose...

[Notary Sojac]

If that means that I have to give up some of my liberty, I will be willing to do it.

If you could make that decision only for yourself, I would be fine with that. But you do not get to make that decision for me.

[Notary Sojac]

I am a living witness that the numbers are far greater than you are posting.

In the last thirty years, we've amped up the War On Drugs by adding asset forfeiture, no-knock raids, mandatory sentencing, people peeing in cups all over the country.

Exactly how much of the "drug problem" do you think all of that has solved??

[Munz]

Your asking me to give you numbers on something that is indeterminable.
I however don’t think that allowing these people to go unchecked is the answer either.

[Munz]

>You don’t have a clue what you are talking about. Assume a street price of $300 an ounce for dope. Now consider that an ounce of tobacco is about one pack. Even at today’s tax levels, there is still no comparison.<

I DON’T? Your in lala land pal.
You are talking about something different again. Spin away.
your talking about a legal substance, cigarettes - taxable.
VS an illicit substance at it’s current street value. Then you haven;t considered what it would be if it was allowed to go to a legal substance, but taxable.

>I carry a 10mm. My Dad preferred the .357. We are both of the opinion that two to center mass and one to the head will drop ANYTHING out there that you don’t need wild game hunting permit to shoot. you put a 10” permanent wound channel through someone’s brain housing group and I don’t care how much PCP they are on. Again, don’t be a puss.<

Well, your opinions are wrong. The .357 moves so fast that unless it hits bone it passes through soft tissue.
The 10 is better, much like the .45 i carry. But still there is NO way that you can say two rounds will stop anyone. Again your ignorance shows. I told you to look up ambulation after death, but your about as thick as can be. Again, no experience, but you know it all.

Your like some kid who says, “why didn’t the cop shoot him in the leg instead of the chest”
Imagine that, guys who train train and train, involved in incidents all the time (usually under 6 feet distance) and they MISS!
Why? Bad shots, no good on a range where there is no pressure. But %^i7 happens when real bullets fly and your brain stops. Maybe yours did already, cause you ain’t getting any of this.

>Do both things. Allow more people to arm up, take the profit out of the illicit drug trade. It’ll gut the Underworlds stranglehold on a Trillion dollar underground economy.<

I am very happy when people that are responsible have permits. I have no problem with that and think that it lowers crime rates generally. On the other hand people who rant off about pumping more rounds and not acting like a puss, make it bad for the rest of us.

It gutting the stranglehold of the underworld, will only turn it into the strangle hold of the government. DON’T YOU GET IT????

The prices will be higher, just like health care. You actually think that the government won’t get their cut, see a cash cow and make it even more expensive? They will tax it beyond what street dealers are making. Then the underworld will go into a price war with the government and then these people will still be stealing, robbing and killing for their drug money.

>Yes. They can. I’m teaching my 6 year old the basics. My Mom needs knee and hip replacements but can still hit doubles on trap. Don’t project your shortcomings on to others.<

You are a nim rod. You give a gun to a 6 year old? And you wonder why people complain about irresponsible gun owners.
Don’t tell me about short comings pal, your again talking about stuff you have no clue.

You can’t force people to have a gun any more than you can say that people shouldn’t carry guns. Although in your case, I am reserving judgment.

>Using your hysteria doesn’t work either. I’ve got history on my side. You’ve got your fear. You lose...<

Hysteria? history?
Your in a dream land without any experience,your demanding people be armed, forget their right to make a choice.
You are as bad as the rest, they chose not to take a life or have a gun so you want them to be taxed?

I been there. Your talking crap like some great gun theologian.
Obama does the same thing, he talks about things like some great know it all, but never did any of it. Thats the same thing your doing.

Go ahead i’ll give you the last word, but Im done replying. I refuse to be insulted by you with some pie in the sky do it my way or tax you, let me have drugs and everyone else too, i’ll double tap anyone in my way ... your a real live cowboy.

Don’t forget to wear a diaper daily just in case any of your theory has to be tested. I suspect you’ll end up like most of the people who talk the talk but never had to walk the walk.

[Dead Corpse]

Then you haven;t considered what it would be if it was allowed to go to a legal substance, but taxable.

Because comparing it to a currently legal and similar product isn't equitable? Now I know you aren't even bothering to argue logically.

The .357 moves so fast that unless it hits bone it passes through soft tissue.

BS. From a ballistics standpoint, the .357 and 10mm are nearly identical with the 10mm having a bit more expansion due to heavier/bigger bullets. HP rounds for both, be it XTP's or Golddots, expand reliably at standard 20-25' engagement distances with softbody targets. 2-3" for max expansion with 12-16" of penetration. Both impart better than 80% of their energy into the body cavity in the forms of hydrostatic shock, tissue tearing, and cell membrane rupture. The tests are out there, the data is there. Don't be any more moronic than you need to be.

Again, no experience, but you know it all.

Have you been following me around the last 20-25 years? If not. Shut your hole about the "lack of experience" crap.

Imagine that, guys who train train and train, involved in incidents all the time (usually under 6 feet distance) and they MISS!

Most cops hit the range once a year for qual unless Training tells them otherwise. I've seen your "train and train" types at the range putting bullets into the ceiling. Pull my other leg. The one with bells on it.

I am very happy when people that are responsible have permits.

So you are ok with having to ask Government permission to exercise a Right. As I said, you are no RKBA hardliner or you wouldn't be making such a blatantly idiotic statement.

They will tax it beyond what street dealers are making.

Again, you show your complete ignorance of even the basics of economics. My efforts to educate you on this are futile apparently. Try reading a book some time. You know, those paper things with all the words written in them? Might do you some good.

You give a gun to a 6 year old?

Yes. My daughter can hit a tin can at 50 yrds with my old Montgomery Wards branded Mossberg .22. She only shoots it under my close supervision and it stays locked in my gun safe between range trips. How else are you supposed to train kids to be responsible? Don't you teach your kids about fire, sharp knives, and crossing the street? Your pathetic bleating is more reminiscent of the Brady Bunch's hysteria than any real firearms advocate.

You can’t force people to have a gun any more than you can say that people shouldn’t carry guns

No. I wouldn't advocate that either. I would however charge them extra on their taxes for their increased need of police protection.

Go ahead i’ll give you the last word, but Im done replying. I refuse to be insulted by you with some pie in the sky do it my way or tax you, let me have drugs and everyone else too, i’ll double tap anyone in my way ... your a real live cowboy.

I just have to ask, is English your second language? Your elocution leaves as much to be desired as does your grasp of Constitutional basics, logic, firearms knowledge, economics, and basic human psychology. If nothing else, please learn the difference between "you are"/"your"/"you're". It's really not that hard.

Buy a clue Newbie.

[Mozilla]

A libertine is one devoid of any restraints, especially one who ignores or even spurns accepted morals and forms of behavior sanctioned by the larger society. The philosophy gained new-found adherents in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries, particularly in France and Britain. Notable among these were John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester, and the Marquis de Sade. “Libertine”, like many words, is an evolving one, defined today as “a dissolute person; usually a person who is morally unrestrained”

Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the 19th century in England, Western Europe, and the Americas. It is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly, and free markets.

Classical liberalism places a particular emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, with private property rights being seen as essential to individual liberty. This forms the philosophical basis for laissez-faire public policy. The ideology of the original classical liberals argued against direct democracy “for there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will always respect the rights of property or maintain rule of law.”

Friedrich Hayek identified two different traditions within classical liberalism: the “British tradition” and the “French tradition”. Hayek saw the British philosophers David Hume, Adam Smith, Adam Ferguson, Josiah Tucker, Edmund Burke and William Paley as representative of a tradition that articulated beliefs in empiricism, the common law, and in traditions and institutions which had spontaneously evolved but were imperfectly understood.

Libertarians see themselves as sharing many philosophical, political, and economic undertones with classical liberalism, such as the ideas of laissez-faire government, free markets, and individual freedom.

Classical liberalism was revived in the 20th century by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick, Loren Lomasky, and Jan Narveson.

Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo.

It seems to be clear that Libertarianism developed from Classical Liberalism. Its modern form developed in the United States, where it drew on rights theory, free-market economics, the romantic individualist ideas set out in works such as those of Ayn Rand, for instance, and the American tradition of non-interventionism in foreign policy.

A division eventually developed between those Libertarians who wanted to get rid of the state or government altogether and those who were uneasy about the state, but thought that it should be severely limited. The former group are called the Anarco-Capitalist Libertarians, while the latter group are called either just Libertarians.

Anarcho-capitalism is an individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services are provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through compulsory taxation.

Murray Rothbard and other natural rights theorists hold strongly to the central non-aggression axiom, while other free-market anarchists such as David D. Friedman utilize consequentialist theories such as utilitarianism

Libertarianism links Adam Smith’s ideas about markets and coordination and John Locke’s ideas about human rights. In a market setting, individual interaction is consensual, voluntary, and motivated by gain. For this to take place, the participants need a moral and legal framework and this is provided by Locke’s ideas about moral rights. Voluntary transactions in markets and elsewhere are to be contrasted with coercion, which Libertarians associate with the state. Generally speaking, Libertarians prefer that the private sector develop codes of conduct and regulations regarding the marketplace of goods and ideas.

[freedumb2003]

>>80% seems VERY high to me, more like the users are the ones who are doing it.
You may have a different view than me of the gang to gang violence. But in many areas of the country, they have their turf, they don’t have many turf wars, they are looking to do business for the most part.<<

It is so difficult to get good figures — Goggle/bing/etc. have so many articles that it is impossible to distill down to any useful numbers.

I am form L.A. and that is a number the (Police spokespeople, council members, etc.) seem to like to throw around. It probably should be challenged.

But there is clearly a lot of violence associated with the sale and distribution of drugs — and it is probable that would reduce.

[randomhero97]

This tells me two things: 1. The cop is using a 9mm.

DC, I like ya bro, but don't get carried away here. The right 9mm rounds will do the job just as much as .45ACP, .40, or .357. Shot placement is king.

[Munz]

>Buy a clue Newbie.<

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 stand being wrong, which you clearly are. But again, you have no experience and must resort to insults. Your points are not even close to the topic we started on and all you did was brandish violence as your answers.

In your opinion everyone should be allowed to do whatever they please, a lawless society where the weak can be preyed upon. But you .. the “dead corpse” (is that the coolest nic you could come up with jr.?) are gonna take care of it all on your own. If someone messes with you .. double tap to the chest then one to the head. Hell from your 6 year old daughter to your hip replaced mother can join in the free fire zone.

But screw the people who can’t defend themselves thats their problem, cause you and yours can take good care of yourselves. Tax the people who don’t care about wanting to own a gun, or are actually afraid because people are irresponsible with weapons. LIKE YOU, putting a gun in the hands of a six year old.
God forbid they don’t exercise their rights, then I guess they just have coming what they do. Even though the vast majority of people would not use a gun to defend themselves to begin with.

Have I been following you around, do I really need to, you have revealed so much about yourself it is plainly obvious.
Like I said, buy a diaper, wear it, cause if you get into the situations you proclaim your gonna handle, one of two things is gonna happen.

Your gonna over react and kill someone unjustifiably and end up in jail. So the diaper may make it a bit harder for your cell mate. Or more likely, you’ll just fill it when your seriously challenged by someone you think you can take down, but you find that they have taken a couple rounds, because they don;t stop when on some drugs, that you couldn’t place right, because of your shock or inexperience etc etc etc. and they shove the gun in your dirty diaper.

Maybe your father practices once a year. But most of us were required to go for 4 live fires and 2 FATS simulators yearly at minimum. Rain or shine, snow or heat, 8 hours each time. Yes, we even stayed in the dark. That does not include all the time we went to the range just be cause it was enjoyable.

Yet even with a good amount of range training, under pressure, I have seen guys drop 6 rounds in a tree instead of a bad guy. See all kinds of things happen in REAL life.
Unlike in books which you apparently got all your skills and knowledge from.

I’ll take this private if you really want to go at it. But I won’t continue in a public forum.

[Munz]

>It is so difficult to get good figures — Goggle/bing/etc. have so many articles that it is impossible to distill down to any useful numbers.<

true, but the department of justice does put out what numbers are “reported” it is a start though the departments tend to play with the numbers before submitting.
As I said I was just talking from what I have seen. Not numbers because they do get played with.

>I am form L.A. and that is a number the (Police spokespeople, council members, etc.) seem to like to throw around. It probably should be challenged.<

It all depends on their tracking systems. How the call comes in, how it gets logged by the officer, dispositions and then How they end up reporting it to the DOJ. They are ultimately the clearing house. So I really have no idea how you would challenge it. Unless you had a civilian panel go in and through everything.

>But there is clearly a lot of violence associated with the sale and distribution of drugs — and it is probable that would reduce.<

I do agree with the fact there is a lot of crime associated with it. But all I was trying to point out was that the users are frequently so hooked that they are the ones who commit the crimes against civilians who are not involved with the drugs.

We have Columbians, Jamaicans, Bloods and bikers here running the gambit. From heroine, to meth, cocaine, crack, ecstasy, weed etc etc etc.
By far the people who use the stuff are causing bigger problems trying to get money to support their habits.

Sure things get violent between the rivals for business. But they tend to take care of it between themselves and don’t involve the public. They don’t want to draw our attention. There are a lot of rips and stuff, but it takes place in an apartment, somebody goes for a ride and it is done. Half of the incidents I bet we don’t even know about.

What we do see a lot of is elderly people having their homes broken into, they get abused and robbed. Etc.
These are REAL victims of this.

I just can’t see how that number would drop if you have an even more free flow of the drugs by legalizing them. if I am making my point clear.

[KC Burke]

Nice summary and can apply to plain conservatism as well as libertarian conservatism.

As you quote Hayek's fourth chapter of The Constitution of Liberty in analyzing the two enlightenment strands (English/Scottish vs. French) it is important to point out that as you mention, the former was based upon a empiricist imprecise slowly evolving system of 'what worked, and what didn't.' Hayek notes the French system was formed in imitation of the Liberty they saw in the British system and in attempting to formalize it they chose a rationalistic and metaphysical solution.

My big problem with much of the libertarian answers for today is that they continually use a rationalistic solution -- the French answer -- for most of the questions facing us. They ignore or dismiss the settled empirical solutions adopted over time.

Russel Kirk in the Errors of Ideology says:

The word ideology was coined in Napoleonic times. Destutt de Tracy, the author of Les éléments d’idéologie (five volumes, 1801-15), was an abstract intellectual of the sort since grown familiar on the Left Bank of the Seine, the haunt of all budding ideologues, among them in recent decades the famous liberator of Democratic Kampuchea, Pol Pot. Tracy and his disciples intended a widespread reform of education, to be founded upon an alleged science of ideas; they drew heavily upon the psychology of Condillac and more remotely upon that of John Locke.

Rejecting religion and metaphysics, these original ideologues believed that they could discover a system of natural laws—which system, if conformed to, could become the foundation of universal harmony and contentment. Doctrines of selfinterest, economic productivity, and personal liberty were bound up with these notions. Late-born children of the dying Enlightenment, the Ideologues assumed that systematized knowledge derived from sensation could perfect society through ethical and educational methods and by well-organized political direction.

Napoleon dismissed the Ideologues with the remark that the world is governed not by abstract ideas, but by imagination.

John Adams called this new-fangled ideology “the science of idiocy.” Nevertheless, during the nineteenth century ideologues sprang up as if someone, like Jason, had sown dragons’ teeth that turned into armed men. These ideologues generally have been enemies to religion, tradition, custom, convention, prescription, and old constitutions.

The concept of ideology was altered considerably in the middle of the nineteenth century, by Karl Marx and his school. Ideas, Marx argued, are nothing better than expressions of class interests, as related to economic production.

Ideology, the alleged science of ideas, thus becomes a systematic apology for the claims of a class—nothing more.

Or, to put this argument in Marx’s own blunt and malicious terms, what has been called political philosophy is merely a mask for the economic self-seeking of oppressors—so the Marxists declared. Ruling ideas and norms constitute a delusive mask upon the face of the dominant class, shown to the exploited “as a standard of conduct, partly to varnish, partly to provide moral support for, domination.” So Marx wrote to Engels.

Yet the exploited too, Marx says, develop systems of ideas to advance their revolutionary designs. So what we call Marxism is an ideology intended to achieve revolution, the triumph of the proletariat, and eventually communism. To the consistent Marxist, ideas have no value in themselves: they, like all art, are worthwhile only as a means to achieve equality of condition and economic satisfaction. While deriding the ideologies of all other persuasions, the Marxist builds with patient cunning his own ideology. Although it has been the most powerful of ideologies, Marxism—very recently diminished in strength—has competitors: various forms of nationalism, negritude, feminism, fascism (a quasi-ideology never fully fleshed out in Italy), nazism (an ideology in embryo, Hannah Arendt wrote), syndicalism, anarchism, social democracy, and Lord knows what all. Doubtless yet more forms of ideology will be concocted during the twenty-first century.

Kenneth Minogue, in his recent book Alien Powers: the Pure Theory of Ideology, uses the word “to denote any doctrine which presents the hidden and saving truth about the world in the form of social analysis. It is a feature of all such doctrines to incorporate a general theory of the mistakes of everybody else.”

That “hidden and saving truth” is a fraud—a complex of contrived falsifying “myths”, disguised as history, about the society we have inherited.

Raymond Aron, in The Opium of the Intellectuals, analyzes the three myths that have seduced Parisian intellectuals: the myths of the Left, of the Revolution, of the Proletariat.

To summarize the analysis of ideology undertaken by such scholars as Minogue, Aron, J. L. Talmon, Thomas Molnar, Lewis Feuer, and Hans Barth, this word ideology, since the Second World War, usually has signified a dogmatic political theory which is an endeavor to substitute secular goals and doctrines for religious goals and doctrines; and which promises to overthrow present dominations so that the oppressed may be liberated. Ideology’s promises are what Talmon calls “political messianism”. The ideologue promises salvation in this world, hotly declaring that there exists no other realm of being. Eric Voegelin, Gerhart Niemeyer, and other writers have emphasized that ideologues “immanentize the symbols of transcendence”—that is, corrupt the vision of salvation through grace in death into false promises of complete happiness in this mundane realm.

Ideology, in short, is a political formula that promises mankind an earthly paradise; but in cruel fact what ideology has created is a series of terrestrial hells. I set down below some of the vices of ideology.
1) Ideology is inverted religion, denying the Christian doctrine of salvation through grace in death, and substituting collective salvation here on earth through violent revolution. Ideology inherits the fanaticism that sometimes has afflicted religious faith, and applies that intolerant belief to concerns secular.
2) Ideology makes political compromise impossible: the ideologue will accept no deviation from the Absolute Truth of his secular revelation. This narrow vision brings about civil war, extirpation of “reactionaries”, and the destruction of beneficial functioning social institutions.
3) Ideologues vie one with another in fancied fidelity to their Absolute Truth; and they are quick to denounce deviationists or defectors from their party orthodoxy. Thus fierce factions are raised up among the ideologues themselves, and they war mercilessly and endlessly upon one another, as did Trotskyites and Stalinists.

The evidence of ideological ruin lies all about us. How then can it be that the allurements of ideology retain great power in much of the world?

While conservatives and small "l" libertarians find much to agree on in small government, they often diverge over these rationalistic ideological solutions that use J. S. Mill type "one simple principle" methods to determine complex political questions that can never be settled by ignoring historical foundations.

[Nosterrex]

Since I have no power to create or enforce laws, my opinion counts for little; however, those that do have the power to make and enforce laws make decisions for all of us. If enough people share a certain view, such as the one that I hold, they can elect representatives to the legislature that can create laws that regulate the drug market. That is where we are today. Certain drugs are made illegal by the action of Congress. Whether you or I agree is irrelevant. There is never going to be a time in which certain drugs are going to be legalized.

[gogogodzilla]

Good post. Thanks for writing it.

[gogogodzilla]

I am interested in how you think that violent crime would be reduced by the legalization of drugs. Can you expand on this please?

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.

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.

[gogogodzilla]

Basically, a representative democracy cannot survive without religious, moral people running the show...

...but government cannot be the tool to force religion and morals onto the people. After all, everything the government tries to do gets screwed up, so why give it the chance to screw up our morales and religion?

[gogogodzilla]

I’d prefer abortion to be a local issue, made at the county level, just like alcohol. Some counties are ‘wet’, others ‘dry’.

We should have abortion decided at that level, too.

[gogogodzilla]

If that means that I have to give up some of my liberty, I will be willing to do it.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Benjamin Franklin

[gogogodzilla]

It gutting the stranglehold of the underworld, will only turn it into the strangle hold of the government. DON’T YOU GET IT????

What I don't get is why you think that if drug are legalized, they suddenly are only allowed to be grown/made/sold by the government...

You'd see the cartels simply create a corporation and brand name, then sell the same stuff they already are currently selling, but with a slick, shiny new label on it. That, and because it's sidewalk vendors (pushers) have high overhead costs, you'd see them go out of business when the mass-market outlets like gas-stations, Wal-Mart, liquor stores, etc undercut their prices.

After all, what druggie would pay $300/ounce for pot from the sidewalk pusher if Wal-Mart sold it for $5-10 a pack?

[Munz]

“sidewalk vendors (pushers) have high overhead costs”

I seriously wonder why I even bother posting.
All i get is bashing because i was a cop.
Not to mention crap like this that shows the complete lack of knowledge on subjects while you bash me.

it’s a joke.

Overhead? They work out of condemned buildings, they cut with baking soda. they add PCP to weed because it is cheaper than giving people pure weed.

This is a joke. (not you specifically - but the mind set of people who call themselves libertarians.)
I got one idiot attacking me for god knows what reason, trying to suck me into second amendment arguments when I am a very firm believer in it.

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.

Other people attacked me for cops being arrested and how they are all corrupt. Harassed me over it, then I find out he himself came from one of the most corrupt departments in the USA. No wonder he thinks everyone is like him.
Hell at least I did something about it.

I guess it goes against the basic beliefs to think that laws should be applied to almost anything. So naturally attack the cops, they are the ones who throw up the road blocks and make money right?

People actually think cops make money doing this that they get extra pay for it or something. So many smart people, except when it comes to some stuff. Then you guys get lost somewhere between reality and utopia.