Posted on 09/19/2013 9:45:28 AM PDT by shego
I’m one of the few conservatives, and former drunk, who believes drugs should be legalized. First of all, it would remove the criminal element. Second, the taxes collected would be enormous. And if anyone wanted to go to intense treatment for drug addiction let the drug companies pay for it.
Also, government contractors could grow pot on national park land instead of drug cartels.
Sadly you just do not understand or refuse to see the difference between the little “l” libertarian and the Libertarian party. You are going too turn a lot of allies into enemies until you realize there is a difference a big difference. Also some social issues (homo agenda) are worthy of fighting the good fight others (WOD) not so much.
It would not get rid of the criminal element.
Taxes would go to programs to give drugs to poor people.
So you think government should grow pot. Is that conservative or libertarian or just insane?
I am with you on the drug thing, certainly for pot at least.
We could put poor people to work harvesting the crop. In fact if they wanted we could pay them by giving them part of the harvest. Win win.
I’m not socially liberal. I’m for separation of school and State. I’m against taking from the productive to support the non working. I’m against regulations that hamper the birth of commercial enterprises and interfere with property rights. I do not believe in the perfectability of man in this life, especially through the force of government. I do not believe the government is responsible for ensuring your safety or health. It is not the duty of the government to keep you sober, employed, housed, fed, protected, unoffended, clean, warm, cool, entertained, nor to provide farm clubs for college sports. It is not the government’s concern of my mode of travel, what I drive, how fast I drive it and what equipment is on said conveyance. The government is not to provide me with health insurance, nor should it concern itself with what or when I choose to drink, eat, smoke, chew, dip, rub on my skin or whether I wear a helmet.
Nope. Socialists are the people who regulate and do all of that. Are you a socialist?
Because there is none.
Your desire to not fully embrace libertarianism personally does not change what it is, and how it is used against conservatism.
There is a reason that pro-choice, pro-homosexual, non social conservative rinos are becoming "more libertarian"
I’m going to bed. It’s been fun. See you all later.
I will be out of here soon too. I did try. Oh well.
The libertarian position is for all drugs to be legalized, and all drugs and drug cocktails and combinations that scientists or labs can come up with, and that they be freely and openly advertised and marketed.
That will create masses of new democrat voters to vote for more social programs and welfare.
“lol, too funny, this place was a Bush love fest, a day in the life with thousands of comments. Your memory is very selective.”
Yep. Bush was wildly popular here. War on Terror, great. Faith based initiatives, great. Big government expansion, great. After all he had an R after his name and he pissed the liberals off.
I want government out of my life as much as possible and I tend to doubt morality laws are going to accomplish that.
“My specific question is, where is the War on Drugs enumerated in the Constitution as a power of the Federal government?”
The Constitution specifically directs the federal government to provide for the common defense.
Drug cartels are not in the business of empowering Americans and keeping them safe. Furthermore, they are highly organized and well funded. Via the common-defense language throughout the Constitution, the federal government provides for our common defense against the cartels.
when did I propose any of that?
Libertarians hate me because I come right out and say it Do you think legalized 12 year old drug addicted prostitutes is sign of liberty?
Because I think it would be a sign of a failing civilization.
especially elemetary school kids working in the brothels too, right?
win win?
Back when we were a constitutional republic congress had to amend the Constitution (18th) to control a consumable substance (alcohol). Now that we have dictators for rulers they just declare that consumption of something they do not like will land you in prison. Ain’t progress great. /s
I am pretty sure there are child labor laws that would prevent that. Now if you want to talk about an adult female making money in a brothel, fine we can talk. I will point out that there is no federal law against that and only a few counties in Nevada permit it so I don’t see any problems.
libertarians probably oppose child labor laws too
libertarians do not recognize child or adult
The libertarian or "classical liberal" perspective is that individual well-being, prosperity, and social harmony are fostered by "as much liberty as possible" and "as little government as necessary."
In the late 1800's we learned that child labor laws were necessary to protect children. So I am cool with (non farm) child labor laws.
I will assume when you say libertarians you mean members of the LP. Hmmmm, I thought only MANBLA (spit) or other such perverts saw no difference between a child and an adult. I'm not an expert by any means on the LP but that is surprising.
“Like protecting marriage, keeping homosexuals out of the military, fighting abortion, restricting immigration and traditional American conservatism and culture?
The anti-conservative vitriol is starting to flow”
My marriage is doing very well. I don’t need the Federal Government to define anything for me. Anything government protects it also controls. The government should stay out of the marriage and religion business.
Government should protect our borders.
I’m anti government oppression. You seem ok with oppression as long as the oppressed are people you disagree with.
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.