Thank you....very well said. Most of the FSP folks I've communicated with are very pragmatic. The FreeRepublic criticism of LIbertarians hinges solely on the drug issue. Never mind that the Libertarians are a leading pro second amendment force.
Leading in what sense? Among dog catchers in low population states?
Regarding the drug problem, I think libertarians are really killing themselves by taking such an extremist position. Saying that drugs should be legalized is fine, if you can explain how drug abuse would be kept under control. The reason people are not receptive, IMO, is because they don't want their children to be exposed to dealers and addicts at every turn. How would an idealized libertarian society avoid this?
This essay is an example of where a more thoughtful libertarian is coming from on the drug issue. He does not advocate or predict heroin kiosks at the local mall.
Regarding the drug problem, I think libertarians are really killing themselves by taking such an extremist position. Saying that drugs should be legalized is fine, if you can explain how drug abuse would be kept under control. The reason people are not receptive, IMO, is because they don't want their children to be exposed to dealers and addicts at every turn. How would an idealized libertarian society avoid this? Back in 2001, I authored a thread called ''Do You Ever Wonder About How a Society With Legalized Drugs Would Look?'', which was a verbatim paste of a USENET post in 1993. The post was written by a LP member, Paul R. Conte, and was a plea to fellow Libertarians to outline the implications of drug legalization beyond the sound bite stage.
Very few folks who self-identified as libertarians took the challenge seriously, a few of which mocked Conte for postulating that the answers weren't simple.