Posted on 02/27/2005 2:55:24 PM PST by 82Marine89
Apparently you weren't around while Reagan's very public feud with PATCO was going on. He very explicitly called for privatization of everything having to do with aviation. As for the rest, my response said "that is exactly the kind of thing..." meaning his public pronouncements were more or less specific on those issues, on multiple occasions.
I don't know how the CP organizations are across the country, but my brief encounter with the one here in NC was not positive. There was a great deal of in-fighting and grappling for ideological control. If I want to deal with that, I can stick with the GOP. Additionally, while I am also a religious conservative, the direction of the CP seems to me to be alarmingly headed toward theocracy. There were members (or prospective members) who insisted that the strictures of the first amendment needed to be relaxed.
PING!
Now you are getting the picture. It is not within the federal governments constitutional mandate. If it was then there would not have been a need for a constitutional amendment to have prohibition.
Many powers were left to the states, that is the way it should be. Local control. I really doubt many it any states would legalize meth the same way not many states legalize 190 proof. I think most would legalize marijuana.
As a libertarian who has volunteered--and voted--fer local Libertarian candidates in the past, I can say these three issues are exactly the ones that I have a disagreement about. Here's my philosophy on each...
Abortion...the Right of a woman to do with one's body as she pleases is at the basis of libertarianism...fer instance, if my young daughter was raped and impregnated, I would want to preserve the right to abort the pregnancy. Every woman should have this right, imho. However, at some point during the pregnancy, the unborn child has rights that must be protected as well. If a fetus is viable and can live outside the womb, imho, there is no way we should allow the unborn child to be exterminated. In my view, States should decide at what point in the pregnancy the Rights of the fetus supercede those of the mother's right to terminate her pregnancy.
Foreign Policy...while I'm all for avoiding foreign entanglements, I believe the Libertarian Party's position is IGNORANT of the fact that our borders are no longer safe from random attacks by the forces of Oppression and Tyranny, and sometimes the prudent thing is to take the fight to our enemies. Harry Browne's rantings of a few years ago on this issue were enough to turn me off of the Libertarian Party to this day.
Immigration...the Libertarian Party's open borders policy is simply ludicrous...how the heck can America hope to accomplish a libertarian future if we are continually taking on the burden of every would-be immigrant who prefers to take advantage of the bounty that Americans have earned? To think we could absorb everyone who wants to become Americans is just plain silly!!
FReegards...MUD
Well, since you pinged me...
RE: viability, here's how I view it.
A fetus is "viable" from conception as long as the growth process is not unnaturally stopped. That fetus is viable as long as the food, blood, oxygen, warmth and other life sustaining needs stay in place.
Take away your food, blood, oxygen, warmth and other needs...you're not very "viable" either.
That's just my 2 cents.
Like I said, the whole argument comes down to how States define "viable"...yer argument is a perfectly defensible one, and perhaps Virginia would see it exactly that way. But this whole "Roe vs. Wade" debacle is an embarrasment to our judicial system...MUD
There is a party that is for limited, Constitutional government without the problems of Libertarianism as this article citez -- and the article leaves out the drug issue altogether, a big deterrent for libertarian-inclined conservatives who might be thinking of joining the LP.
That party is the Constitution Party.
I agree with the LP that "We welcome all refugees to our country" but5 there is a difference, as the article points out, between refugees and immigrants who come for economic reasons. If we need to take in non-natives, I suggest that we take in more political asylum applicants (even 90+ percent of those who apply from China are rejected) and toughen up on immigration.
We may need to rewrite the rules for legal immigration, but what we need most is to do all that can be done to stop illegal immigration and to remove illegal immigrants from this country.
Drugs are (somewhat unlike alcohol) a kind of self-increasing demand. You need more and more and more to get the high. So even if they are legalized, you'll still have an ever-increasing demand, and as long as demand increases, supply will increase also. Besides, once government legalizes drugs, they will be seen as just another opportunity to create a tax. (Notice that just about the only thing they don't tax is abortion -- if you did, there might be fewer of them.) So the price will keep going up, too. Now, if the demand is increasing and the price is being kept high, the crime that is associated with the habit will continue or increase. Libertarians say we should punish the associated crime, not the drug use, and they do have a point. But if we know that drugs breed crime, then isn't the policy of keeping them illegal a crime-prevention measure? But I do agree that some people's civil rights have been trampled on in the War on Drugs. There must be a better way...
I'm surprised to here this. Sounds like they are on the move. Serious internal competition alway accompanies strong long term growth, except of course where entire caucuses walk or win absolute control. Growing pains always accompany growth. I wonder if a constitutional movement is being born out of the Constitution Party.
I thought you oppose government-funded health care and would consider drug legalization after we got rid of it. Here you are claiming that addition treatment is money well spent. What gives?
This is also true of alcohol.
So even if they are legalized, you'll still have an ever-increasing demand,
No, a dynamic equilibrium will be reached as high-tolerance users quit (or die) and new users start.
once government legalizes drugs, they will be seen as just another opportunity to create a tax. [...] So the price will keep going up, too. [...] the crime that is associated with the habit will continue or increase.
So don't overtax them; it's a choice, not an inevitability.
The regulation of drugs is within their Commerce Clause power.
"If it was then there would not have been a need for a constitutional amendment to have prohibition."
An amendment was desired. But it was not required.
"I really doubt many it any states would legalize meth ... I think most would legalize marijuana.
If that's the case, the gangs will not go away. Neither will the DEA. The prisons will remain full. Addicts will continue to prostitute and steal to get their fix. The courts will remain full.
So where's the savings? Where's the benefits? Why should the U.S. make this change? Why should the people vote for it?
"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 the programs on drug education, anti-drug advertising, overseas drug interdiction and border patrol are money well spent, even if some drugs were made legal."
Laziness, that's all. But thanks so much for bringing that to my attention.
"As for the rest, my response said "that is exactly the kind of thing..." meaning his public pronouncements were more or less specific on those issues, on multiple occasions."
Well, I was around during the PATCO feud and I do not recall RR saying a word about privitizing all public roads and the national highway system.
No it is not.
An amendment was desired. But it was not required.
Yes it was.
If that's the case, the gangs will not go away. Neither will the DEA. The prisons will remain full. Addicts will continue to prostitute and steal to get their fix. The courts will remain full.
If you are saying that it will not bring utopia then I agree. But that was never the motive in the first place.
So where's the savings?
The saving would be in not having long drawn out court battles about whether a state can legalize drugs for one thing.
Where's the benefits?
Returning something to local control is always a benefit.
Why should the U.S. make this change?
Because the one size fits all that we have now is not working.
Why should the people vote for it?
They have. Two states voted to legalize marijuana. They are being told that they may not.
Well The Wall Street Journal is in their corner (such a policy would make labor really cheap.
Do you have just one court case that supports your statement? If not, then please phrase this as an opinion, not a statement of fact.
"Yes it was."
Again, do you have anything at all to support this statement? If not, then please phrase this as an opinion, not a statement of fact.
"If you are saying that it will not bring utopia then I agree. But that was never the motive in the first place."
Well, in post #135, you felt we could get rid of the DEA. Legalizing only marijuana will not eliminate the need for the DEA. Actually, nothing would change for the better. I see no benefit in casting my vote for this scheme.
"Two states voted to legalize marijuana. They are being told that they may not."
Yep. That pesky U.S. Constitution that you want to adhere to when it benefits your cause and ignore when it doesn't.
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
You notice that it does not say with in the states.
Do you have any evidence to support your position?
Legalizing only marijuana will not eliminate the need for the DEA.
Who said it would? Returning the rights to the states would elimate the DEA.
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.