No, but drug cartels with more money and arms than God are.
Freedom of Choice
It always pisses off the libertarians here when I equate Ron Paul and Libertarianism. And that you cannot divorce libertarian principles from Ron Paul. And when you think of Ron Paul - you think of libertarians. And when you think of libertarians - you think of Ron Paul smoking crack with hookers.
And on and on...
It pisses ‘em off. But hey. It’s what I do.
Seek clearly the fact that you posted this makes you a braver man than I!
Libertarians have long been huge fans of heavy drug use going all the way back to the founding of the country. I mean, how else would you come up with a flag with a talking rattlesnake?
Drugs are bad, but the war on drugs has just ended up being a war on liberty for all.
This is where Libertarian’s get it wrong. We don’t just want liberty for liberty’s sake. The LLibertarian view of it has never really existed in functioning society; complete autonomy from authority.
Liberty as our founding fathers defined it was accountability and responsibility; first each individual’s accountability directly to God, then to ourselves. If you are accountable to God and yourself, then the authority others can wield over you is limited.
I guess the author doesn't know that until the beginning of the temperance movement that coincided with the Progressive movement in the early 20th century, there were no restrictions. Today's laws are mostly political protection for special interest groups. Here in TN the liquor lobby far outspends any other on buying political favors. Thats why we still cant buy wine in the grocery store.
The federal government has no business legislating morality. So yes, heroin and hookers should be perfectly acceptable federally. If, on the other hand, your city, or perhaps even your state, want to legislate in that arena, feel free to do so.
However, I agree with Mr. Paul that the apparatus necessary to actually achieve enforcement has many bad effects, and, it is possible that I could be convinced that my prudential judgement is wrong and that the laws should be repealed.
Liberty is not licence.
I have listened to Medved often enough to know he is a socialist that votes Republican. If it neither picks my pocket, or breaks my leg, the govt has no business enforcing laws against it. The reasoning that someone else can do something that costs the society money is true, but that is a problem of too much socialism, not a reason to regulate behavior. We should not be paying for anyones medical, food, housing or treatment as taxpayers. Let people live or die on their own, bury them in Potters field when they pass. I will take care of my own, take care of yours, or have them taken away to be housed and fed by the state directly. THAT I would support. Let’s reopen the nut houses, and the orphanages. You can bet on how many pregnancies by single mothers would drop, if they cannot get govt support for the act.
Vice addiction is the Libertarian default position.
I don’t like Ron Paul, but talk radio is very boring on the subject of drugs etc. They don’t pay attention to the problems with our policies.
All this is fine and swell but the fact remains, the nut known as Ron Paul will never be president.
Three arguments.
1) In our society, any adult can voluntarily have sex with an unlimited number of other adults, legally. Like it or not, as tacky as it is or not, it is how the law is written. Likewise, people can give money to each other for anything or nothing, as long as any applicable taxes are paid on it, as long as the consideration is inherently legal.
But put the two together, and it is “prostitution”. Importantly, there is nothing more than is directly inherent in prostitution than that, despite arguments that unrelated things, like drug abuse, etc. are involved. No, they are not part of the transaction, and nothing directly relates them to it.
2) Right now, government around the world, including our own, are in the midst of a “frenzy of control issues”. They literally want to have a hand in everything and anything we do, in an obsessive-compulsive manner. And this is wrong and evil. It is not their job, but to them it is becoming, or has become, *more* important than their fundamental purpose. Our nation is suffering because they have neglected their job.
Just yesterday, news came out that the Australian government has decided to ban thousands of plants, because they contain trace amounts of illegal to possess chemicals. This includes their national flower. Irrational and bizarre, but this is just one insanity among vast numbers.
This is why drugs, and many other things, should be legal. NOT because there is any legitimate value in the abuse of them, but solely to prevent government involvement in what is NOT a government prerogative. As such, it has wasted hundreds of billions of dollars to do something that should not be done, *by them*.
3) I used to be in favor of America as international policeman. This attitude was based in the fear that small wars can become large ones. But now, with US military forces deployed to over 100 foreign nations, on the most insignificant of pretenses, it has become obvious that we are trying to prevent anyone from fighting anyone, for any reason. This is not a legitimate use of our treasure and blood.
It is time for us to pick and choose our fights. Unless we have a stake in a fight, then we should allow the combatants to use whatever savagery they want against each other. And while we may contribute to war crimes investigations after the fact, intercession on our part is just futile.
If your school age daugther is sick and I say a prayer for her, you may be offened, but neither you or she is harmed in any manner.
If I suggest to that same daughter that she sell her body for money and snort a little coke is it possible she may be harmed by that?
We have an idiot as President now. Why go for another?
My challenge to Medved and others is this: defend the War on Drugs without sounding like a liberal defending the War on Poverty. Good luck with that.