Posted on 02/27/2005 2:55:24 PM PST by 82Marine89
It is no distinction at all.
Armaments are not produced by Mom and Pop firms. They are produced by firms so hooked into the military-industrial complexes of their country that they might as well be state run. If an enormous amount of your business is done with the government you get this revolving door where the politicians and generals you dealt with become your future execs. And do you think they are allowed to fail ? Do you think the government would sit back and watch its defense contractors go out of business ? There are consolidations and bailouts to make sure they are viable and the capacity to produce advanced aircraft is not compromised. The rivalry between Boeing and the AirBus involves the governments of America and the EU. Big defense contractors really aren't "private industry". McDonald Douglas has more in common with Dassault or BAE or the Sukhoi Design Bureau than it does with WalMart.
And the 'initiative' of a mercenary if primarily focused on saving his butt, not getting the mission accomplished.
Good read, thanks for posting it.
Q: What do you call "Three Big Disagreements With Libertarians"
A: A good start.
Nicely stated.
Logically? You're not appealing to logic. You're simply repeating legalization talking points and appealing to emotion.
If all drugs were legal, I could paint a similar scenario. Legalization (with its corresponding advertising) will not drive up desirability? A legal climate for drugs will not bring out America's entrepreneurship in creating new recreational drugs? Oh, and what's so wrong with locking up "non-violent offenders"? What, we should release robbers, burglars, tax cheats, white collar criminals, child pornographers, etc. because their crimes were not violent?
And drug legalization will somehow eliminate the non-violent offenders? I say crimes would increase. I say crimes like theft and prostitution would increase as greater numbers of drug customers attempt to find the money for their next fix. And no, legalization will not reduce prices -- look around in today's world for examples of that.
Government, with their repressive taxation, will drive drugs back underground as they're doing today with cigarette taxes. Plus, the "underground" will now export our legal drugs to countries where those drugs remain illegal, and will sell domestically to teens.
If you do not legalize every drug, including prescription drugs, and make them available over-the-counter, the "underground" will continue to sell those that remain illegal.
Less that 1% of the U.S. population believes, as you do, in the legalization of all drugs. Your fantasy Libertarian world does not, and can never, exist.
BA-loney. Your own supporting statement says people spent more, not drank more.
Prior to Prohibition, about half the states made alcohol illegal. Alcohol consumption dropped, and dropped dramatically. As soon as Prohibition went into effect, alcohol consumption rose, but to levels lower than pre-Prohibition.
Per Capita Consumption of Alcoholic Beverages (Gallons of Pure Alcohol) 1910-1929.
With the drug alcohol, we did this via the 21st amendment -- Section 2 took the regulatory power away from the federal government and returned that power solely to the states.
Do you agree this would be the way to return the drug regulatory power back to the states?
Currently, we have about 2 million people in prison. 400,000 of them are there for drugs, and 99.9% of them are there for dealing or trafficking. The prison industry will survive.
Now, those 400,000 are ready, willing, and able to sell any drug that is not made legal under your Libertarian fantasy scheme. They also will not hesitate to sell drugs to those underage or export our legal drugs to other countries.
"We hold that all individuals have the right to excersise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose."
Bump.
It might come to that but I would prefer not. I think the way that would have the most chance of succeeding would be for Congress to simply vote that it was none of the federal government's business unless it happened on federal property.
They could do that. But, unlike alcohol, I doubt that every state would want to legalize drugs. And that would cause a major problem with the adjacent states.
That is why I thought it best that all states vote on this issue in the form of a constitutional amendment.
That is the point. They will not have to if they do not want to. There are places that are still dry. I live next to one of them. You can not buy alcohol, you can not consume it in a public place. You may consume it in your house and yard only.
They have voted on this repeatedly and every time they have voted to stay dry by a landslide.
In my county, buy what you want, when you want and drink where you want so long as you are not drunk and disorderly. It does not cause problems because you move a few miles east or west and you can have whatever fits your taste.
That is what getting the federal government out of it will do. Not every state will legalize that's ok. Some will legalize some but not others. That is ok too.
One size fits all does not work. We have proven that. So let us try letting the states tailor it to fit the needs and wishes of their citizens.
If we try it the other way it will not work. To many people do not want all drugs legalized.
And to force them would be just as much a trampling of the rights of the states as what we have now.
Well, that takes 99% of the wind out of the sails of the people who say we should legalize to get rid of the gangs, lower the prison population, save money, get rid of the DEA, yada, yada.
If, as you say, not every state would legalize, where's the benefits? Where's the savings? My guess is we'd have to spend more defending the borders of all the "non-legal" states.
BTW, if medical costs rise in the states that legalize, do I have to continue to send them my federal tax dollars to subsidize their medical care?
My guess is we'd have to spend more defending the borders of all the "non-legal" states.
We don't with alcohol. It would get rid of the DEA. Now if only we could get rid of the ATF as well.
If, as you say, not every state would legalize, where's the benefits?
Do you need financial incentives to get rid of a bad law? Having the federal government involved is just bad law. A comparison could be made to Roe v. Wade which is also bad law. That power was never given to the federal government. Never mind if you agree or disagree with abortion a bad law is a bad law.
BTW, if medical costs rise in the states that legalize, do I have to continue to send them my federal tax dollars to subsidize their medical care?
Like you do for alcoholic treatment? That should also be a state issue and it is. Several states have reformed their Medicaid program because of cost.
So, how pray tell can the gov't tell us that consumption went down, while 'speakeasy', 'Bootleggers', 'Smugglers' and home stills prospered? The gov't only had data on taxes. By extrapolating the income from tax revenues associated with various alcoholic drinks, one can compute the average consumption rate. When prohibition went into effect; liquor sales plummeted (go figure!). It did NOT go to zero, as alcohol was made available for hospitals for sterilization (and it was closely monitored there).
People began making 'Washtub' Gin, Corn Whiskey and home made Beer (which is all very easy). How do you measure this?
People spent more, and those who could drink, drank more. We also had an entire change in the drinking styles. Whiskey, Gin, Vodka used to be the drinks associated with the low-life drunks. Wine, Conac and distilled liquors were popular, with Beer running pretty much number one. When the bootleggers found that they could either smuggle a case of beer in, and get 4 people drunk; or smuggle a case of whiskey in and get 40 people drunk.
This created more potent spirits that didn't exist previously (Everclear) and created a market for a group of drinks considered very 'Low Class'.
Today, we have new 'designer' drugs coming out, that are more powerful and more addictive than their predessors. Pot today is much more powerful than the stuff we had availalble (and I ignored) while in High School. This is because one of the side effects of Prohibition is to make the product more concentrated so profit goes up, and transportation problems go down.
"Ummm, hate to burst your bubble, but that is exactly the kind of thing Ronald Reagan proposed while getting re-elected in a landslide.
Exactly when did RR call for the elimination of "all agencies concerned with transportation -- including the Department of Transportation, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, the Coast Guard, and the Federal Maritime Commission -- and the transfer of their legitimate functions to competitive private firms."
When exactly did RR: "call for the privatization of airports, air traffic control systems, public roads and the national highway system."
Because we treat it with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge attitude. A "dry" county or city doesn't offer alcohol for sale -- but they look the other way if a citizen purchases it elsewhere and brings it in.
I seriously doubt the same attitude would be held towards those who bring in heroin or methamphetamine from another state.
But prior to Prohibition, interstate transportation of alcohol from "wet" states into "dry" states WAS a problem. So much so, Congress passed the Webb-Kenyon Act in 1913, a long-sought federal statute against transporting liquor into states that wished to block its entry.
"It would get rid of the DEA."
The DEA costs $11 billion per year out of a $2.3 trillion budget. Half of that money is spent on drug education, anti-drug advertising and treatment. The other half is spent on overseas drug interdiction and border patrol. Seems to me like money well spent, even if some drugs were made legal. In your example, if the states do not legalize heroin or cocaine, who's going to stop those drugs at the border if not the DEA? How would that work?
"Do you need financial incentives to get rid of a bad law?"
A bad law? You said the states could prohibit drugs if they wished. It's "bad law" if the feds do it, but "good law" if the states do it?
"Like you do for alcoholic treatment? That should also be a state issue and it is."
Here's my point. I do not want my federal tax dollars supporting the health care costs of a state that CHOOSES to legalize drugs. Let that state pay for the increased health care costs associated with additional accidents, violence, murders, addiction, care of drug babies, drug treatment, methadone clinics, free needles, etc.
And I want that part of the same legislation that legalizes drugs.
It would be appreciated if you could add just a brief explanation of what kind of meeting it was.
Was their a speaker and a listening audience, with of with out a question and answer period afterward? Was it more like a business meeting, with voting going on through out the meeting? Was it an issues discussion meeting, with or with out voting? Was it a local, county or state meeting? Was it a convention with debating and voting? Was the public (non libertarians) invited? Were non members welcome to fully participate, or was that reserved to members only. Was it any kind of central or executive committee meeting.
Without describing the kind of meeting, the information you give can not be adequately assessed, and says nothing about the LP.
Thankyou in advance with sharing any additional observations.
It seems to me that quite a few of the "libertarian" conservatives here at FreeRepublic, would be better suited in the Constitution Party, which seems to be more in line with their beliefs.
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.