Right? Not Stossel

Vancouver 24 Hours ^ | June 2, 2006 | Irwin Loy

[Lorianne]

John Stossel thinks sweatshops are good for workers, while minimum wages hurt the poor.

Controversial? Sure. Just don't call him a Conservative.

"I'm a Libertarian," according to Stossel, the TV network consumer reporter turned staunch free-market defender. "I hold beliefs Conservatives abhor."

Speaking at a luncheon hosted by the conservative Fraser Institute think tank yesterday, Stossel made it clear his politics don't quite fall within the traditional left or right wing spectrum.

He takes no issue with gay marriage, for example, while he says sending troops to Iraq "wasn't a good idea." At the same time, lefties likely won't love his views on global warming - "Those environmental guys," Stossel said, "seem to be acting more like psychics than following the science."

But Stossel's contentious governments-are-bad preaching also extends to drug laws, which he says are causing harm.

[BlazingArizona]

If you look at the Libertarian platform, there is little to separate them from liberals

The big difference is that libertarians don't believe in using the government to enforce moral systems. Rather, ideas about morality should slug it out in the open market just like ideas about business.

This is also what separates libertarians from fundamentalists.

[Beagle8U]

"On the flip side, people who like to get fried probably won't go to work fried because they value their jobs and don't want to get fired. This is pretty much self-regulating."

Thats the problem, it isn't self regulating, and many do go out and get high at lunch time. It cost lots of money to haul them to a clinic for a whiz quiz and if its union they just refuse testing.

Even with testing it only shows traces are present, not amount or when it was ingested.

[balls]

It's evident from your comments that you do not know much about Libertarianism. Start by understanding that they are are usually avowed Constitutionalists!

[Beagle8U]

"The big difference is that libertarians don't believe in using the government to enforce moral systems. Rather, ideas about morality should slug it out in the open market just like ideas about business."

Crime and murder are moral laws too. Do you think gov. should have any regulation on those?

[BlazingArizona]

Queer marriage will give you both of those, regardless of how you feel about it morally.

It's probably true that welfare and subsidized health care are behind the current liberal enthusiasm for gay marriage. What libertarians want to do, however, is change our legal system to get government totally out of the marriage business. If marriage had no effect on inheritance, tax rates, welfare eligibility, or child custody, there would be no incentive for any pressure group to finagle the system for its own advantage. Marriage would be "owned" by churches, not by governments.

[Mannaggia l'America]

Someone who is coming to work fried will probably not be fired for being fried--Most likely that person will get fired for lack of performance on the job.

Let's say drugs are legalized.

Joe Schmoe can now get all the (drug of choice) he wants and can afford - and that will be lots more because I was told in a previous post that ending the WOD will remove the profit from selling drugs, so they will be cheaper.

So now Joe Schmoe can be even more self-destructive and get fried, and as you said above, will likely get fired from his job because of poor performance. But that's his problem, not ours.

But now Joe Schmoe has no job. But he's addicted to (drug of choice). So where does Joe get money to feed his addiction?

Can we say "crime"? (Oh wait, ending the WOD ended crime...)

Or does the government now have a "drug stamp" program, like food stamps. (That wouldn't be very libertarian...)

[Constantine XIII]

LOL :)

[rottndog]

You can say the exact same thing about alcohol.

[Beagle8U]

"What libertarians want to do, however, is change our legal system to get government totally out of the marriage business. If marriage had no effect on inheritance, tax rates, welfare eligibility, or child custody, there would be no incentive for any pressure group to finagle the system for its own advantage. Marriage would be "owned" by churches, not by governments."

I see, so everyone buy their own insurance, even wives and children would need to buy a separate health ins. policy.

That would work great./sarc.

[Wormwood]

"I'm a Libertarian," according to Stossel, the TV network consumer reporter turned staunch free-market defender. "I hold beliefs Conservatives abhor."

Wow...me too. Guess I'm a liberatarian.

But that "L" will remain lower-case until the Libertarian Party undergoes a major overhaul.

[cowtowney]

That doesn't leave much time for dilly-dallying

[Beagle8U]

"But that "L" will remain lower-case until the Libertarian Party undergoes a major overhaul."

Does the small " l " party have a platform that anyone can look up to see what it is that they all believe in ?

[rottndog]

Ending the WOD will not remove the profit from drugs; Only removing demand can do that, and as we have seen, this is not possible. Ending the WOD will remove the criminal element and the criminality from the supply side--this will drive down the costs, and hence the price of the drugs. If drugs cost less and can be bought legally, end users are much less likely to engage in criminal activity to acquire them. This is simple supply and demand economics.

But don't take my word for it. This has been tried before. It's in the history books, and it's part of the U.S. Constitution. Prohibition didn't and can't work for alcohol, prohibition isn't and can't work for drugs.

As far as Joe Schmoe goes, if he commits crimes, throw his A$$ in jail.

[Mushinronshasan]

Someone who is coming to work fried will probably not be fired for being fried--Most likely that person will get fired for lack of performance on the job.

Let's say drugs (bottles of wine) are legalized.

Joe Schmoe can now get all the (drug of choice) (alchohol) he wants and can afford - and that will be lots more (liquor store) because I was told in a previous post that ending the WOD will remove the profit from selling drugs (black market profit removed), so they will be cheaper.

So now Joe Schmoe can be even more self-destructive and get fried (totally drunk), and as you said above, will likely get fired from his job because of poor performance. But that's his problem, not ours.

But now Joe Schmoe has no job. But he's addicted to (drug of choice) (alchohol). So where does Joe get money to feed his addiction?

Can we say "crime"? (Oh wait, ending the WOD (repeal of prohibition) ended crime...)

Or does the government now have a "drug stamp" program, like food stamps. (That wouldn't be very libertarian...)

**********************
We've been though this before.

[patton]

which part did you disagree with?

[cowtowney]

None of those mentioned.
He said homosexuals can not change. I think some can and some can not.

[My Favorite Headache]

LOL...He said there is nothing wrong with incest on Scarborough Country the other night...swear to God.

[Wormwood]

Does the small " l " party have a platform that anyone can look up to see what it is that they all believe in ?

I don't believe in platforms and parties. Not any more.

I follow only reason.

[calex59]

Don't be dense. Private companies will sell them the same as they sell them now, except people who are addicted could buy them. Cocaine used to be legal, as was heroin, opium and other drugs. There were no gangs selling drugs then because they couldn't make money at it. When I said take the profits out of drugs, you must have known(please tell me you did)I meant take the profits out of it for drug dealers. Buying it legally would be cheaper so why would they buy it on the street?

Not only that, the drugs they bought would be safe, not cut with something like drano, which happens now.

It is hard to put aside old brainwashings but in this case we would be better off if at least MJ and cocaine were legalized.

BTW I do not do, nor have I ever done, drugs. The occasional beer is my only drug.

[patton]

ah. now I get it.