[Dane]

I think that you failed to answer the question from dwcusmc: Does the legislature (state or Federal) have complete authority to set the rules for society, presumably in compliance with the will of the majority, or is it limited by some prior rules (the constitution) that are there to protect the minority from abuse and tyranny of the majority?

Uh dude reply #91 says it all and that I would fight in the arena of ideas(i.e through th electoral process) against dcwusmc's and your idea of freedom(i.e drugs and child porn are no big problem).

BTW, why do you strident Libertarians get "all of the sudden civil", when faced with questions that can't be easily answered with such quick replies as "statist", "jack booted thug", or "boot licking drug warrior".

The quote, "You doth protest too much" seems quite apt.

Hey who would of thought that Shakespere wrote about and ridiculed "liberal/libertarian" thought in the late 1500's.

Just reaffirms my beleif that political naivete and the words that describe that naievte are ageless.

[Mike4Freedom]

BTW, why do you strident Libertarians get "all of the sudden civil", when faced with questions that can't be easily answered with such quick replies as "statist", "jack booted thug", or "boot licking drug warrior".

I don't "get civil". I am always civil, even when faced with nonsensical ad hominem attacks. I just assume that if my opponent resorts to ad hominem, he has no real argument and is admitting that I have won the point.

I use only real arguments. If I do not have a good case, I do not get into a debate until I have worked it out or I change my mind on the matter. That is a requirement of intellectual honesty.

I find that drug warriors have no good arguments. They either repeat long disproven nonsense or moral platitudes. There is no good argument to justify the evil of the War on Drugs. If you think you have one, bring it on, but you have to overcome the moral, constitutional AND practical arguments that make the WOD evil.