Good question. Some local governments try to keep these things under control, either outright through legal bans, or covertly through zoning regulations.
No such thing, constitutionally, as a 'legal ban'. Local/state gov's can regulate, but not prohibit possession of property. 'Covert' efforts prove this point.
Take that power away from them and I think you would see an increase. Even if states and local governments don't use the powers they have, it's still good that they have the possiblility of dealing with situations that are getting out of hand.
Things are 'out of hand' because of the 'war'. Regulate drugs as we regulate booze, and the main problems of black market lawlessness dissappear, as the end of alcohol prohibition once taught us.
Would it be true that in a wide-open libertarian society one could open up a porn store, brothel or head shop anywhere, even next to a school?
No one reasonable is advocating such a "wide-open" society. Libertarians advocate a return to our constitutional principles, as written.
And if one tries to prevent this has one taken a big step away from the maximalist libertarian program? Certainly, prostitution, which is illegal in most states, would increase with legalization and would win greater legitimacy in society if it remained legal.
Has it increased in Nevada? - Nevada probably has less open prostitutuion [streetwalkers] than most states with prohibitory type laws that are ignored.
Court rulings restrict what local governments can do about abortion or pornography, but losing the minimum control that they have probably wouldn't help things any.
Again, no one is advocating that local gov's lose their power to regulate criminal conduct.
Drugs are the toughest question. Some people think that legalization and the resulting decrease in price would dry up the crime and vice and predatory behavior of the illegal drug culture, but it's far from clear that this would happen. There are things to be said on both sides. But if you think of old Chinese opium dens, they really weren't a conducive environment for responsible liberty and self-government. The same was true of the collegiate drug culture of the 1960s and 1970s.
Nor is the present 'WOD' "a conducive environment for responsible liberty and self-government."
Libertarianism rests on an idea of the rational and responsible individual, but one can't assume that all individuals fit this pattern or that libertarian policies would increase the number of such citizens.
Your point is a generalization, true of any political idea based on individual liberty. -- Thus:
'Republicanism rests on an idea of the rational and responsible individual, but one can't assume that all individuals fit this pattern or that republican policies would increase the number of such citizens.'
I mentioned four things: prostitution, pornography, drugs and abortion. You must have drugs on the brain. Clearly most states do ban prostitution. And until recently, many jurisdictions had bans on abortion and pornography. Now they have to make use with zoning and other non-overt means of control. I don't know if you are right about bans on drugs, but clearly states and localities can ban activities or behavior regarded as destructive.
Things are 'out of hand' because of the 'war'. Regulate drugs as we regulate booze, and the main problems of black market lawlessness dissappear, as the end of alcohol prohibition once taught us.
If you look at my post, I suggested that this was a possibility. But one also has to take into account the problems of societies with widespread legal drug use. If you don't, you're only looking at half the picture.
Again, no one is advocating that local gov's lose their power to regulate criminal conduct.
No one? There are some libertarians, anarchists and anarchocapitalists who suggest just that. There was much agitation to legalize "victimless crimes." You may not agree with that, but any full portrayal of libertarianism can't ignore those who think that way.
Your point is a generalization, true of any political idea based on individual liberty. -- Thus: 'Republicanism rests on an idea of the rational and responsible individual, but one can't assume that all individuals fit this pattern or that republican policies would increase the number of such citizens.'
True, but the gap is much greater with libertarianism or anarchism than with other ideologies. No other ideologies rely so much on the existence of rational and responsible individuals. But libertarians don't put more effort -- may even put less effort -- into inculcating reason and morality in society.
It may be that the "war on drugs" has been a failure, and that laws will be loosened to allow some access to drugs. But this will come about in a very controlled atmosphere, that takes all sides of the question into account. It won't -- and shouldn't -- be done in the way the radical libertarians want.
Actually, you are not. Under the earliest years of the federal constitution, almost all of the things which libertarians are constantly complaining about occurred regularly. Abortion was outlawed, states had official religions, drugs were illegal, pornography, prostitution, and even adultery were illegal. In actuality, only the Constitution Party is the real advocate of the constitution. Libertarians just use it as a tool.
Your point is a generalization, true of any political idea based on individual liberty. -- Thus: 'Republicanism rests on an idea of the rational and responsible individual, but one can't assume that all individuals fit this pattern or that republican policies would increase the number of such citizens.'
Not true. The Republican party's principles are to find the right balance of freedom and restraint necessary to preserve society. This point is suffused throughout Lincoln's words and the writings and speeches of Edmund Burk. The Democratic party, likewise, has a different ideology not based on the principles you said, as do the Greens, Socialists, Communists, etc.
BTW, Thomas Paine was no libertarian. He was a leftist who supported the totalitarian French revolution. He advocated a Socialist Security-type system and also wanted universal health care, not a good role model.