Fine, then use the liquor analogy then. In one State, Utah, liquor sales are regulated in a much more stringent manner than in the neighboring State of Nevada. Both States don't seem to have much problem with it.
If Utah wants to prosecute for marijuana use, fine. If Nevada doesn't well that's fine, too. It's a little concept known as "Federalism" and "States Rights". You might want to look into it.
I don't see any articles in Reason written about it.
You need to broaden your sources of information. I promise if you do your level of ignorance will drop dramatically.
which was done in the mid 90s under the GOP House leadership...
That's a hoot. Please name for me one Federal law that was repealed during the "Republican Revolution." Just one will do. While you're at it name for me one Agency, Department, or Bureau which was abolished, defunded, and made no more. Take your time. I'll wait.
Oh, it wasn't the kind of flashy FIX IT NOW! kind of thing demanded by the libertarian crowd, but we do what we can.
Which was of course precisely nothing. Those fools couldn't even get rid of the REA let alone the Department of Education.
is that if you want your libertarian paradise, the way to do it is first to make people responsible for their actions and then give them permission to ruin their lives.
Ah, there is a light on in there. I thought as much.
If you do it the other way around, you will never get people off the dole.
You will if you get rid of the dole. Work or starve. That's the Libertarian philosophy I subscribe to.
I don't think most libertarians are the least bit animated about the welfare state. I think they could care less.
You think wrongly.
Fine, then use the liquor analogy then.
First, I will note that you admit that your first analogy was flawed. Second, I will argue against that one since Utah does not, in fact, ban alcohol by any stretch and it is easier to obtain there than in Pennsylvania.
Making something like marijuana easy to obtain just across the free state border undermines the rights of the state that wants to ban the product and its effects. In order to give that state the rights to which their citizens are entitled, the state border would have to be monitored. If the state does it, then the legalizing state is putting a burden on the state that wants it to be illegal.
You need to broaden your sources of information.
Why? Reason is the most widely circulated journal of libertarian opinion. It answers the question "What are libertarians thinking today?" If I have to dig in other journals, it means that I'm looking for fringe opinions.
Please name for me one Federal law that was repealed during the "Republican Revolution." Just one will do.
Just one? "Congress lifted all federal speed limit controls in the November 28, 1995 National Highway Designation Act, fully delegating speed limit authority to the states."
While you're at it [gee, a pot enthusiast assuming everyone else has unlimited time on their hands, who woulda thunk it? --ed] name for me one Agency, Department, or Bureau which was abolished, defunded, and made no more. Take your time. I'll wait.
"Congress passed various deregulation measures in the 1970s and 1980s. In 1995, when most of the ICC's powers had been eliminated, Congress abolished the agency." The ICC is the Interstate Commerce Commission.
Ah, there is a light on in there. I thought as much.
I am sorry. I made unwarranted assumptions about your intellect.
You will if you get rid of the dole. Work or starve. That's the Libertarian philosophy I subscribe to.
I am a professional research mathematician and even I don't have as little contact with the real world as this. Do you think you are really just going to impose this on people in our system? Let alone after people have decided that being hazy, poor and lazy is OK as long as Uncle Sam buys your food and you can scrounge enough for that stuff that gives you the munchies?
Hell, you guys haven't been able to put a dent in the welfare state for 80 years now.
Wait, I'm wrong. You do complain that other people aren't doing enough. I guess that's something. Complaining.