Posted on 04/07/2010 5:26:04 AM PDT by listenhillary
I used to be a Kennedy-style "liberal." Then I wised up. Now I'm a libertarian.
But what does that mean?
When I asked people on the street, half had no clue.
We know that conservatives want government to conserve traditional values. They say they're for limited government, but they're pro-drug war, pro-immigration restriction and anti-abortion, and they often support "nation-building."
And so-called liberals? They tend to be anti-gun and pro-choice on abortion. They favor big, powerful government -- they say -- to make life kinder for people.
By contrast, libertarians want government to leave people alone -- in both the economic and personal spheres. Leave us free to pursue our hopes and dreams, as long as we don't hurt anybody else.
Ironically, that used to be called "liberal," which has the same root as "liberty." Several hundred years ago, liberalism was a reaction against the stifling rules imposed by aristocracy and established religion.
I wish I could call myself "liberal" now. But the word has been turned on its head. It now means health police, high taxes, speech codes and so forth.
So I can't call myself a "liberal." I'm stuck with "libertarian." If you have a better word, please let me know.
When I first explained libertarianism to my wife, she said: "That's cruel! What about the poor and the weak? Let them starve?"
I recently asked some prominent libertarians that question, including Jeffrey Miron, who teaches economics at Harvard.
"It might in some cases be a little cruel," Miron said. "But it means you're not taking from people who've worked hard to earn their income (in order) to give it to people who have not worked hard."
But isn't it wrong for people to suffer in a rich country?
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
You dont think we have laws on the delivery of fast food? If so go to your local health department. Go to a local fast food joint and talk to the manager about how much he spends to comply with health regulations. Those regulations are to reduce the harm caused by tainted food and bad preparation methods that have killed many people. Or do you want to relax the regulations on your local restaurants?
We HAVE the process and means for someone to obtain drugs. Marijuana, sure, cocaine, no problem, mind altering drugs that too..... the process is to go see your doctor, get a prescription, to a pharmacy and pay for the drug.
And then every remark you make after that describes how the government's WoD has failed miserably! You are describing the status quo.
In much the same way as the anti-gun crusaders have spat on the second amendment, the drug warriors (regrettably with the support of “conservatives” on the USSC) have spat on the fourth and fifth.
Most of that is booze which is already legal.
According to MADD drunk driving account for 32% of highway fatalities.
Clearly 2/3 of highway fatalities are caused by sober drivers and there is where your real risks lie.
This is called "rent seeking".
It is the process whereby a business group (physicians, pharmaceutical companies, drug companies) acquire an exclusive right to provide a good or service, and to have the government enforce that right so as to guarantee their business models.
I'm against rent seeking.
“There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers.”
Quote by: Ayn Rand
(1905-1982) Author
Source: “Atlas Shrugged”, Part II, Chapter 3
“I agree except for two points: You cannot have open immigration until you end the welfare state and people engaged in abortion are hurting someone else.
Immigration also has profound “neighbor effects”, so even in the absence of a welfare state reasonable limits on immigration make sense. “
DING DING DING!
You can’t have open borders with a country that has a controlled economy, especially if you offer *any* sort of social services, including public schools. You *can* have open borders with a country that has a free economy.
“As you note, you put no value on drug use, so you would probably have a very low tolerance for ‘increased risk’, while you probably put a high value on driving, so you would have a higher tolerance for ‘increased risk’.”
Your argument is spot on! As a society, we must decide what “increased risk” for any activity is acceptable, but most push their points from “moral” points of view.
The environ-nazis say that driving a water-fueled car is the only “moral” thing to do. Yet, those that work in the oil industry belief that the “moral” thing to do is to let them make a living to support their families! Each has a point of view based on their “morals” and their risk factors.
We must find a happy medium, but it should be a fair discussion, not - drugs are bad, so let’s not allow people to have them. You can die from too much water in-take, should we regulate how much each person is allowed to purchase?
Where do we draw the line? I say, at my front door. Again, what I do in my home is my business! If I make perfect $100 forgeries, and then put them in a picture frame to be hung on my wall, I can still be arrested, even though my prefect forgeries were never intentioned for illegal purposes! To me, this makes absolutely NO since! Of course, if I was making those forgeries with the intent of distributing them into the economy, then I am in fact causing harm OUTSIDE my home! My property is my domain, I rule over ALL on that property - unless my actions hurt or are intended to hurt others!
Incorrect.
Sober: Not intoxicated or affected by the use of drugs
Care to explain that one?
In a nutshell, libertarians believe that they have the right to do what they want as long as it doesn't involve initiating force on another or committing fraud.
Sounds to me like a 'Don't do to others what you don't want them doing to you' philosophy with the government restricting itself to essential common needs as per the Constitution.
But it isn't meant to be a substitute for a theological philosophy or theological morality.
So does anything taken to extreme. Should we really outlaw certain foods because some people cannot control their intake?
I’m referring to things you can grow yourself. And like all drugs, including Alcohol, it can be taxed and regulated. In fact, instead of costing us money it could actually make us money, like the liquor taxes do.
I didn’t say anarchist. I said libertarian.
These ARE NOT "libertarian rules", John. THERE ARE NO "Liberatarian Rules". They are components of constitutions (ESPECIALLY OURS) that are rights of individuals (endowed by their creator)...fortunate enough to be born in certain countries...whose founders codified such rights into the rule of law.
I've always enjoyed your work, but WAKE UP STOSSEL!
Incorrect morally.
Care to explain that one?
In a nutshell, libertarians believe that they have the right to do what they want as long as it doesn’t involve initiating force on another or committing fraud.
_____________________________________________
Read the Bible.
Nice! LOL
Addiction isn't just about taking something to the extreme. It's about one's own willpower being severely damaged, to the point that one's priorities are seriously screwed up. That's in addition to the direct effects of the drugs themselves.
Drugs are addictive to far more people than food is. Also, food is a necessity. Not so with drugs.
Yes, serious overeating can affect others too, but not in the same ways. People don't become violent or psychotic from overeating.
The Constitution limits government, not citizens.
Look at the 9th and 10th Amendments. They tell you that there are plenty of unnumerated rights that are not listed in the Constitution and they are no less important than the enumerated, listed rights.
“You dont think we have laws on the delivery of fast food?” Once again, apples and oranges! Trust me, I know all about regulations, I am a Regional Safety Manager - I know OSHA forwards and backwards - hell they regulate how you can take a dump at a work site!
But, we have not OUTLAWED fast food from existence for doing their obvious damage to our society! Which we have done to drugs. Completely ignoring their “personal” benefits. Again, before I get ripped for making that statement, understand that there are those that get their happiness from beer and those that get their happiness from church and those that get their happiness from drugs - we can agree that each have their good properties when used for their intended purposes - and bad properties when used to excess!
If you think I am for the unabashed selling of illicit drugs to kindergartners, then you have not been reading my posts.
So, you are okay with regulating items (drugs, fast food, alcohol, etc...) - well so too am I! We are in complete agreement on this subject!
But, your argument that there are legal ways to receive these illicit drugs is again a complete apples and oranges situation. I do not have to get a prescription for a fifth of whiskey. Nor do I drop off my want for MGD 64 at my local Kroger’s Pharmacy. So, why should I have to do so with a recreational drugs?
Doctors prescribe drugs to “treat” an ailment. I have been referencing personal, recreational drug use (like beer). So, do you also advocate a doctors writ to get a cheeseburger? They can be harmful!
More on The Law...here...
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
(for information on our law...read our constitution...our case law...to see how far the collective/gang/government has encroached on fundamental individual rights)
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.