Libertarian Harry Browne on George Bush

Two weeks ago, I suggested that George Bush's presidency had turned out to be amazingly similar to what we had feared from Al Gore. The only major difference is that there's very little conservative opposition to Bush's expansion of government, while we could have expected fierce opposition to Gore.

The article provoked some angry reactions from people who said that only a fool could fail to notice all the good deeds George Bush has done.

Not wanting to be a fool, I've compiled a list of the good things conservatives believe George Bush has achieved so far. Let's look at them:

He opposed the Kyoto agreement on global warming, while Al Gore supported it. But since the Senate had already rejected the treaty, it doesn't matter what the president thinks about it.

He's said he wants to cancel the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty so the U.S. can build a missile defense. All well and good. But he hasn't done anything to get America out of the treaty or to protect us from missile attack, beyond what Bill Clinton had already done. So far, it's just talk.

He hasn't signed a bill imposing new gun restrictions. But, then, Congress hasn't passed such a bill, so we don't know what he'll do when the test comes. But he's already proposed closing "loopholes" in the unconstitutional gun laws already on the books. And given the way he's embraced foreign aid, campaign-finance reform, federal health care and practically everything else, why should we assume he won't sign the next gun-control bill? (He signed many such bills in Texas.)

Bush and Gore make opposing public statements on abortion. But just as Bill Clinton did nothing to promote abortion, so George Bush has done nothing to reduce abortions.

On Social Security, Bush has talked about wanting to let you invest a teensy bit of what now goes down the Social Security drain. But he has sent no specific proposal to Congress. Even if Congress would turn it down, shouldn't Bush at least make the Democrats publicly oppose your right to invest your own earnings?

Al Gore probably wouldn't have pushed through a tax cut as Bush did. In my view, a tax cut without a spending cut means only that the monstrous burden of big government is being rearranged – not reduced. But since others may see the issue differently, this matter is at least debatable. However, even here Bush discarded some of the provisions he had labeled essential – such as tax relief for corporations.

Perhaps Al Gore wouldn't have handled the terrorist situation as Bush has. But we don't know what Gore would have done. Prior to Sept. 11, we didn't know how Bush would have handled such a crisis. In fact, he's already reversed some of his earlier promises – such as not imposing pro-American governments on foreign countries.

In sum, George Bush seems very good on things that don't count – gun bills he hasn't had to veto, environmental treaties that won't be enacted anyway, talking about the ABM treaty or reforming Social Security while doing nothing about them.

But where something has actually happened – foreign aid, farm subsidies, education, health care, campaign-finance reform, corporate welfare, and much more – he's expanding government at a blinding pace, just as Al Gore probably would have done.

And I doubt that Gore would have signed a punitive tariff on foreign steel – which could trigger a terrible trade war and injure the economy.

No, I'm carping at the conservatives who would have been screaming bloody murder if Al Gore were president and had done exactly what George Bush has done.

Conservatives don't oppose Bush because he's a Republican. For most Democrats and Republicans, it's all just a game – "beat the other team, whatever it takes."

If all you want is a president who will say what you want to hear, George Bush is your man. But if you want a president who actually does something to make your life better and reduce the government to its constitutional limits, you're no better off with Bush than with Gore.

They tell you that in politics you must compromise. But all the compromises have been in the direction of bigger and more oppressive government. There are never any compromises in our favor – producing smaller reductions than we might want.

If you don't ask for what you want – if you don't demand what you want as the price of your support – you shouldn't be surprised that you never get what you really want.

When are you going to raise your sights – and stop supporting those who are selling out your few remaining liberties?

For success, they must rid themselves of the image of "The Party of Drugs."
That is a little hard for them to do when the WOD is continually brought up solely as a means to demonize them isn't it. Once it is brought up are they or any others who might agree with them supposed to remain silent without defending their position? Is it better to dodge it or deny it than face it openly and honestly.
And in the opposite manner the R & D position for continuing the WOsD should be a means to show just how awful it really is and how wrong it is. Instead refuge is taken under nebulous clouds like "moral relativism", "the good of society", "public control", "general welfare" and a hundred other things that only reflect poorly upon the other parties when shown to be duplicitous or out and out wrong. It's all subjective to each individual "debater" with no objectivity whatsoever other than demonization.
Same as the abortion funding. Sure, funding has been cut for foreign funding for such things, yet it continues unabated here at home under the R & D banners and nothing is done about it by those in elected positions capable of doing so. A blind eye is turned towards it or it is given scant attention only at predetermined intervals, like at election time to gain votes.
So much more...In the end the snake devours its own tail or subjugated America. Take your pick.

A few points here.

First, you are all over the place.

Second, you are proving my point for me. Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, a stance taken in favor of legalization and/or decriminalization leaves the door wide open for you to be attacked. What's the name of this game? Politics.

It shocks me to no end how conservatives and libertarians insist on applying the rules of basketball to baseball. It doesn't work. For an upstart political party, leading off with legalization/decriminalization was, and still is, foolish. Now, before you and others start frothing at the mouth, pay close attention at what I'm saying, for you will no doubt demonize me for my words here. Your stance against the WOD is commendable. Let me say that again so that there is no misunderstanding; Your stance against the WOD is commendable.

Got it?

I hope so.

Moving forward, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face by attacking the WOD in the name of legalization/decriminalization. Both Pubs and RATS will decapitate you if you keep at it in its name. It is terribly easy for both Pubs and RATS to scare the hell out of the public concerning drug use. And there's a kernel of truth in their attack, for drugs destroy. My sister is GONE! Heroin and cocaine. She's a shell of her former self. Legalizaton/decriminalization has nothing to do with this, just her use of those drugs. That's the image that will be used against you time and time again if you keep going at it like you are now.

So, what is there to do? You flank the issue. You attack the tentacles of the WOD such as federal snooping into personal bank accounts, the amount of money spent at one time that triggers an investigation, the amount of money carried on the person that feds think is too much, no-knock raids and violations of the IV Amendment, etc. All of these monstrosities are the fruit of the poisoned tree. They can also be attacked sans legalization talk.

That would be a good start. If and when these goals are achieved, you can then make the case for legalization/decriminalization by explaining how the WOD was the culprit in the gross violations of our Constitutional rights, growth of the several States' and federal government, the cost of waging the WOD in terms of money and lives, etc.

It should be a step-by-step process, not one fell swoop. Did socialists invade our Congress in the name of socialism? No. In fact, even the Progressive Caucus shuns the term "socialist," yet what they are really about is socialism. Only Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) goes by the title "socialist." Most here understand that. So, if the goals of an unpopular system can still be achieved under a different name, can the same be done as L[l]ibertarians and the WOD issue?

Think about that.

As a believing Christian, I am rather ambivalent towards drug use. I think marijuana should be legalized right now, and those serving sentences for marijuana use or distrubution should be released now. I have a hard time with the criminalizing of a plant that grows naturally and its natural properties can make you high. That's absurd. That's a totally different issue than processed drugs such as crack. On the other side, I absolutely loathe hard narcs. Having said that (and besides personal autonomy, there's really no upside to drug use), I'm willing to let the use of hard narcs be decided ultimately between the user and Christ. I'll stay out of it, but I will call you a complete moron is you use them. A person can reserve the right to use them, while I reserve the right to call that person an idiot.

Fair enough?

I'm willing to let the use of hard narcs be decided ultimately between the user and Christ. I'll stay out of it, but I will call you a complete moron is you use them. A person can reserve the right to use them, while I reserve the right to call that person an idiot.

If you believe legalization of drugs--from marijuana on up--would have no consequences for anyone but the drug user, YOU are the moron. You will pay and pay through the nose for the bone-brained destructive indulgence of the doper brigade.

I wouldn't CARE if it were only YOU who were paying. Unfortunately, your pro-dope foolishness threatens to stick me with a bigger tax bill as well.

When Jesus Christ said you should be as wise as a serpent, he meant it figureatively. He didn't mean you should strive to have a brain the size of a peanut--let alone that you should glory in it.

Unfortunately, your pro-dope foolishness...

Back up, cuddin'! I am not "pro-dope." I'm not a libertarian, I don't advocate drugs' uses, and I most certainly believe that there is absolutely no "upside" to the use of drugs, even marijuana.

My point is simply this: Tobacco, which grows naturally, is legal; Marijuana, which grows naturally, shouldn't be illegal. In fact, marijuana causes fewer problems than alcohol does. But in the name of being consistent, it's hypocritical for tobacco to be legal while marijuana remains illegal. The differences between these naturally occurring plants and hard narcs is that hard narcs are synthesized, although their ingredients may be from natural sources. Nevertheless, you have to purposefully modify cocaine's ingredients to snort it or smoke it.

I don't advocate the use of ANY mind-altering substance. I strongly submit that the uses of mind-altering substances is the height of both folly and foolishness. So calling me "pro-dope" is a serious error. Drug use, and its legalization, are really an esoteric philosophy in my mine. It falls under the categories of freedom and liberty. It also falls under the tenant that if a person truly owns his or her body, then freedom and liberty dictate that what one does with his or her personally owned body and property can't be infringed upon by law. And just because a bad law can still be constitutional, liberty in destroying oneself is a bad personal policy.

I argue it in theory only. I freely admit that this is a theory of mine. But when it comes down to brass tacks, and if I had my say on whether or not hard narcs should be legal, I would have to vote in the negative. I, too, look at the broad consequences (if you knew where I grew up you'd really understand where I'm coming from) of drug use. It does nothing for society.

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.