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 ...
Yes you are. As am I allowed to not like people who would use government force to impose their religion of any flavor in efforts to make people think like them and obey their religious edicts.
As I am allowed to not like persons using government force to control what I eat, drink and medicate myself with.
The state could confiscate your house. Without having to convict you of anything.
It astounds me that anyone calling himself a "conservative" could be anything but outraged about that.
I don’t disagree. But it’s very obvious the feds have swollen WAY beyond what the Founders had in mind.
Not being personally affected by the drug laws, it’s difficult for me to work up a great deal of indignation over them. I agree they’re unconstitutional, but then so is at least 2/3 of what the feds do.
Some are. Some aren't. I'm fairly libertarian myself, but I don't believe you can have a country if borders are meaningless.
Do you live in a fairly rural, unpopulated area? I'm on the edge of West Hollywood, bordering Beverly Hills. I don't know if it would work for me.
“Because of this, the feds have not attempted to ‘crack down’”
But, they could and may very well attempt to do so with the patient we currently have running the institution. If not on drugs, then what’s next? My problem is more with the total disregard of the 9th and 10th Amendments than with the drugs themselves!
Again, I understand where they WANT almighty control, I just think they are WAY out of bounds and no one is calling them on it. If this were a tennis match, the ball has stopped bouncing on their side of the net and is now merely rolling on the ground, and yet they are allowed to smack it back across the net!
Again, local control, growth and manufacturing of SOME drugs for recreational use should be allowed without regard to the Federal government and should be sold in a legally controlled method of distribution. My argument has been and will always be that the feds need to be removed from our local issues - including drug use, growth/manufacturing and distribution! Our current war on drugs has NOT benefited anyone other than the Feds and prison related companies (manufacturers, privately owned prisons, etc...)!
I say regulate it, control it, TAX it and use it for the good of society. Now, will there be some nerdowells that abuse the privilege? Probably, just as we have with guns, alcohol, cars and so many other useful items in society. You cannot regulate out ALL the inherent dangers in life - it cannot be done!
More importantly, it should be up to the people of the city, county, region and/or state to make the decision of whether or not the “risk” or “morals” of the issue out weigh the “benefits” to their residents! Just like dry-county laws in Texas!
The Libertarians position is on all drugs, all advertising of drugs, and all marketing of drugs, including any new drugs that people can invent once it all becomes legal (that includes speed, crack, heroin), let's not pretend it is about pot.
The Libertarian position on drugs, current and future, is to stay out of it entirely, do whatever you want.
I'm not sure whay you say that. The enforcement of contract law is one of the few legitimate functions of government. Look around the world, and you will find that where you do not have enforcable contract law, you have misery, because much evil stems from this.
People with a brain cell won’t abuse drugs and they won’t take a new drug without a private, accredited organization reviewing the medication for side effects.
If you would like to set your life goal of reducing drug use, sell your stuff and set up a foundation to educate kids before they start. We’ve tried using government force now for 80 years. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
I look on it the same way as giving everyone a hand gun. A majority of the sane people will survive. Evolution in action. If there are no social service organizations to suck off of while a person is destroying their lives with drugs, we may be rid of them sooner.
Our current government has insulated people from the consequences of their actions. Getting pregnant before getting married, using drugs, using alcohol. We’re rewarding stupidity. I don’t have a problem with the churches rewarding stupidity or a private charity, but I sure as hell don’t like my government doing it with my tax dollars.
I saw some fat people at a tea party once, so all tea party members must be fat. Right?
Welfare has nothing to do with it, if you announce to the hundreds of millions of the world’s peasants, that they can struggle here in America amongst the wonderful infrastructure, healthy environment, stable government, and plentiful food, then they will abandon their mud huts, dirt floors, diseased cities, and war torn nations, and move here, and not because they will be given welfare that their own country never gave them either.
If you are barely existing and live in Mexico, or El Salvador, or Nicaragua, or Africa, or Asia, and someone can convince you that you really can move to Los Angeles, or Boston, or Dallas, legally and without any immigration hassles or legalities, then literally hundreds of millions would do it.
In theory, no. But this has not been tested by a legal case.
“Not being personally affected by the drug laws, it’s difficult for me to work up a great deal of indignation over them. I agree they’re unconstitutional, but then so is at least 2/3 of what the feds do.”
Granted! But, they ALL upset me to the point of indignation.
But on a personal note, my brother spent time in prison due to drug use (he did something really stupid while high)! I had a niece that almost ODed on crack! Both of these DID affect me personally; however, those were their choices (however misguided - and against family and friends wishes) and both have since corrected their lifestyles and are prospering due to the lessons learned! So, I have seen the bad effects of drugs, but hey, I have lost more friends to drunk drivers than anything else - and I would NEVER think to ask the government to outlaw beer because a few idiots abused it!
Now, on a much grander scale, two months ago, we had a house two doors down (and across the street) blow up - crack house explosion (luckily there were three Darwin Award nominees inside). It took two fire houses to put out this fire! Then it cost the county $9400.00 to come tear down the house and clean-up (to EPA standards) the fallout! If this was regulated and legal, then there would be many LESS of these type incidents in residential areas! And less of my TAX dollars cleanup after these idiots! And more on the waste of tax dollars, last month, we had a SWAT-styled raid (26 heavily armed DEA, sheriffs and deputies). In this “drug house” just a few streets over from my house (although I live way out in the country) they made six arrests and collected less than two grams of cocaine and two joints - NO MONEY found! How much money was wasted on this “drug house” raid for six arrests (all of which will be dropped, because no one had any in their possession - this was found in the home and the home owner was not present)!!!! Waste of money and time!
While this was happening, there was a robbery at the local gas station and a car was stolen that night from my street - waste of resources, etc... This is why I am so disgusted with this complete waste of tax dollars!!
Making all drugs legal, and allowing Marlboro and Camel to advertise them would create a vast market of varying niches, keeping them illegal limits drug use to the stupid bottom feeders that are weak enough to be criminals and social outcasts.
I accept your premise, but adding welfare to the mix makes it truly unsustainable. In the 1920’s the same conditions prevailed but far few Mexicans came here. Why would they come to a country with a gloomy climate, where they couldn’t speak the language, would be doomed to a socially and economically suborbinate position?
I believe, absent welfare, a peasant in Mexico or China, especially one who cannot speak English, is better off staying home than coming to America.
“...keeping them illegal limits drug use to the stupid bottom feeders that are weak enough to be criminals and social outcasts.”
I guess you haven’t heard that our fearless President was a regular user of drugs!?!?
I can only imagine what all his staff has used, and probably currently is still using (this would explain their policies), since they are not put to the same “scrutiny” as a person running for President! (only a portion of that was sarcasm - I think you know which)
The problem we all have is that pure anarchy does not work. And many libertarian’s view on drugs is pretty much “drug anarchy”. We attempt to strike a balance between pure anarchy and pure socialism and have done so since this country was founded. The problem is it is falling, almost as though off a cliff, into a strong socialistic/fascist system. It is the speed of this change that is causing a ripping apart of our nation.
When I was in high school in the early 70’s, people would hear about a potential “government control” and they would say “people would never stand for that!”. My response was that that is not correct. The correct statement is “This generation will never stand for it.” But the problem we have today is that several generations worth of changes are being foisted on a single generation. There could be blood.
It would be like going back to 1840 and, all at once:
1. abolish slavery.
2. create income tax.
3. Create propery taxes
4. Implement homosexual rights
5. give women the vote.
etc.
Also, not much of what is being proposed today is considered “good”. The last of the good “low hanging fruit” was identified decades ago. Now they are making changes that tend to do more harm than good. Sometimes LOTS more harm.
You want to use government to insulate stupid people from their actions. How is this not a nanny state government?
Rewarding stupidity guarantees more stupidity.
We've always had property taxes. They were the main state/local source of funding since (and before) independence.
That is all false, the 1920s was a period of intense anti immigration awareness.
The laws they passed in the 1920s limited all immigration to 150,000 and most of those had to be from Britain and Northern Europe.
America of the period was (for practical purposes) all white, all English speaking, rural, and uninviting to illegal aliens. As late as the early 1970s the small numbers of illegal aliens lived in the shadows and tried to stay out of the sight of white America.
Those days are gone, now we are already a “multi-cultural, multi-lingual, multi-racial nation”, today Somali Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, Mexican peasants, Asian tribal people, Middle Eastern Muslims from all the Arab nations flood here in vast numbers and never for a moment maintain anything other than open, mainstream, living.
As far as your theory that a Mexican peasant is better off in Mexico, at least 15% of them ( adult labor force) already have come to the United States. Ending the border controls and removing all complications and legalities would lead to the flood of hundreds of millions more newcomers from around the globe.
“The current migration of Mexicans and Central Americans to the United States is one of the largest diasporas in modern history, experts say.
Roughly 10 percent of Mexico’s population of about 107 million is now living in the United States, estimates show. About 15 percent of Mexico’s labor force is working in the United States. One in every 7 Mexican workers migrates to the United States.”
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.