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 ...
Abortion hurts someone. Care to take a guess who? Any real Libertarian objects to abortion on the 'no initiation of force' principle.
Abortion is an unjustified and unjustifiable act of violence committed on a wholly innocent party.
Period.
L
Again you have avoided answering the question. Are you saying that a statutory law by its very nature complies with libertarian philosophy? Speed limit laws contradict your stated libertarian definition of what constitutes speeding.
You're doing your absolute damnedest to promulgate an argument along some pretty flimsy ground, my friend. I salute your doggedness, but might I suggest you also apply some common sense as well? Libertarianism is NOT anarchism. Libertarianism does not yearn for NO law or NO government, but limited law and limited government.
The application of common sense is actually where libertarianism fails as a political system. I have spent the better part of 40 years trying to reconcile libertarianism with politics and governance. Although libertarianism is a philosophy I can embrace, it fails in practical application. Limited government is actually the venue of conservatism absent the infringement of progressivism. I have always encountere the problem that when someone states they are libertarian, when forced to examine the nuances of their accepted political philosophy were in fact conservative.
Somebody really had to work at that. Darwin Award with extra points for effort.
As originally written, it is pretty clear the Constitution would not have allowed federal criminalization of drug use, although it would allow prohibition of interstate traffic in them.
However, states would be perfectly free under the Constitution to impose whatever drug laws they chose, including the death penalty for marijuana possession.
No, I have not, and now I'm beginning to believe you are being purposefully dense.
I have spent the better part of 40 years trying to reconcile libertarianism with politics and governance.
Right.
If you've spent "the better part of 40 years" trying to reconcile this sort of elementary notion in your own head, well, I'll let the others here reading this draw their own rather obvious conclusions about your intellectual capacity, in the realm of politics, from that statement.
So your argument is that since alcohol is legal and can be obtained without a prescription, the same should be for drugs.
What about guns and dynamite or other high explosives or biological weapons? Drugs are dangerous and not just to the person who uses them. Further, we have NOT outlawed drugs. People can and do get drugs. Here in Colorado, you can get marijuana, cocaine (or derivatives) there is a procedure to follow. Doctor, prescription, pharmacy.
You just dont want to be inconvenienced with the process.
I agree, that states have the right to impose laws as they choose, but the problem is that WOD is primarily a FEDERAL position and therefore, most people are arrested and convicted on federal charges (other than those minor possession laws). But even those have federally mandated sentencing requirements - illegal in my opinion.
As I stated before, I work in construction and cannot afford to take Nyquil if I am going to a jobsite - so drug use is not for me. However, if I decide to drink a beer or smoke a joint on Tuesday night after work, then get up and go to work the next day, how does the federal government find the right to call it illegal?
If the feds would stay out of state business, then some states would make illegal drugs available (see California, New York (so they could tax it), Maine, Oregon, etc...)! And if drug use was that important to me, I could move to one of those states - that is MY right.
But right now, the Federal government has outlawed something that they don’t even legally have a right to control - show me where interstate commerce is affected by the personal use of drugs? It is just stupid how many conservatives argue that Obamacare is beyond the scope of the Federal government, but support this which is the exact same usurpation!
I believe .08 is the national standard for impaired driving. Some states have lower standards for sub groups such as minors.
Or would you have been happier if I'd have said, "Clearly 2/3 of highway fatalities are caused by sober drivers with BAC under .08 and there is where your real risks lie."?
On the one hand, you have not answered the question. You stated a philosphy of what amounts to speeding. You did not reconcile this with codifying it into a law. You merely stated that since it is the law it reconciles itself.
On the other hand, I apologize if I have wasted your time. I was genuinely inquiring if there was any information or insight of value you could add. I wasn't trying to force you into an examination of the subject, merely inquiring if there was anything of value you wished to share. Gems of wisdom are often found in unlikely places.
The mark just won’t stay put.
Thus being stuck in that position, ... not being able to get welfare if they have a job, own a home, and also think they must have lots of children with no Dads in the house in order to receive child support. That is their goal. We see the results. The black family has been desecrated. It disintegrated ... With no dads in the home it is almost impossible for young mothers to check bad behavior in their sons.
They (welfare recipients) become addicted to the welfare checks, and do nothing to have any pride in accomplishment. There are a few exceptions. Abortion has become a method of birth control. And is hugely expensive, emotionally, economically, mentally, etc.,
We have treatment centers for Codependent people learning to be responsible for their own behavior and the results of poor behavior. Yet we intentionally create it in the name of helping the poor. LOOK we are creating the poor.
America is filled with opportunities for all to earn a descent living.
Are you honestly unfamiliar with the notion of statutory law? If so, were you unable to learn more about it via a search engine like Google?
Try to follow this:
My right to go as fast as I want on the highway extends exactly to the point at which that speed becomes dangerous and reckless to others (i.e., the old saw about the line of demarkation of rights being between one's fist and other's nose). Charged with a mandate from their constituents, a legislature then enacts a statute that clearly defines a speed limit and the penalties for punishing transgressions of the governing statute, and gives to some agent of government the means of enforcing that law.
Thus, a philosophical political principle is viewed under the lens of normal, everyday human intercourse and translated into actual law. And absolutely nothing about what I just conveyed runs afoul of libertarian principles. Despite what you may believe about libertarians, we don't believe in NO law, just limited law. We don't believe in NO government, just limited government.
In all your 40 years of study, this never occurred to you?
“So your argument is that since alcohol is legal and can be obtained without a prescription, the same should be for drugs.”
You know what, I think we both agree more than we disagree. You have no problem with drugs, so long as they are regulated; hey, I agree COMPLETELY! You do not have a problem with drugs, so long as they are manufactured with the safety of their intended use in mind; guess what, I agree COMPLETELY!
But, here is either the “risk” factor or the “moral” factor that some of us were discussing earlier. Apparently, you think that the societal “risk” or “moral” use of all drugs is so harmful that they need to be issued only through a controlled environment such as a doctor’s office. Now, I do not know Colorado law, and maybe you can simply walk in, tell the doc you want cocaine and he writes a prescript. More than likely though, the patient needs to have a medical “need” for the drug; otherwise the doctor can be prosecuted as a “pusher!”
What you fail to realize or acknowledge is that even if you have a medical prescription for that marijuana, you could still be picked up on Federal charges due to the war on drugs! Do you understand that?
I do not have a problem with regulating and setting up a process in which the state or even local law is charged with enforcement. I do not think the federal government has a legal right to declare war on all drugs. Heck, if someone came by my house and threw out a handful of marijuana seeds and they started growing in my front yard, and I didn’t cut my grass for a full month (which during the dry season I sometimes avoid), I could be arrested and charged with a crime! You think this is right? I think this is a waste of time and money!
However, I do not think that the recreational use of SOME drugs (such as beer, whiskey, marijuana, cocaine, etc... - when manufactured in a controlled environment and distributed legally to protect the potential user) should require you to get a prescription for a “ailment” just to satisfy the need for a process!
Agreed.
I have no problem with vast differences between states on issues of vice, etc.
Correct. It's Federal laws proscribing drug sales and possession which are (or at any rate should be) unconstitutional.
The feds scope of control comes from the commerce clause and its power to restrict international trade. In Colorado, we have established a very strong process for tracking the growing and production of marijuana. So while the feds may attempt to arrest someone who has received a medical marijuana prescription, they would have a very difficult time to get around this removal from the commerce clause.
Because of this, the feds have not attempted to “crack down”
In the early 1900's, the prohibition movement made a point of emphasizing the "end-stage drunkard" in its literature and campaigns. They wanted America to see only the hopeless rummy puking in the gutter, and very pointedly did not want to take into consideration the millions of responsible adult Americans who periodically enjoyed a drink in the company of other responsible adults.
Particularly in the case of marijuana at least, the drug warriors of today make the same selective case. Your post appears to be along that line.
Libertarians, I know you’re here, but I don’t like you. I’m allowed to not like you.
If my state were to legalize the cultivation of backyard marijuana for personal use, would there be any Federal law that could intervene?
You sure are. You're even allowed to call us dopers, baby killers, surrender monkeys (none of which are true in my case).
I do think there is one thing you are not allowed to do.
When a power grabbing nanny-statist Republican runs against a power grabbing nanny-statist Democrat, and the final vote tally is
Dem 51%
GOP 48%
Libertarian (or other third party) 3%
you are not allowed to say "It's all the libertarians fault!!"
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.