Posted on 04/04/2010 6:51:11 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
An article by a conservative named Cliff Kincaid, who serves as editor of the Accuracy in Media (AIM) Report, provides a perfect example of how different libertarians are from conservatives and, well, for that matter, how there ain't a dime's worth of difference, when it comes to individual freedom, between conservatives and liberals.
The article concerns the drug war and is entitled, "Dopey Conservatives for Dope." Ardently defending the continuation of the drug war, despite some 35 years of manifest failure, Kincaid takes fellow conservatives to task who are finally joining libertarians in calling for an end to the drug war. He specifically mentions columnist Steve Chapman, whose article "In the Drug War, Drugs are Winning," which was posted on the website of the conservative website Townhall.com, was apparently what set Kincaid off.
Chapman made the point that it is the illegality of drugs that has produced the drug gangs and cartels, along with all the violence that has come with them. The reason that such gangs and cartels fear legalization is that they know that legalization would put them out of business immediately.
Consider alcohol. Today, there are thousands of liquor suppliers selling alcohol to consumers notwithstanding the fact that liquor might be considered harmful to people. They have aggressive advertising and marketing campaigns and are doing their best to maximize profits by providing a product that consumers wish to buy. Their competitive efforts to expand market share are entirely peaceful.
Now, suppose liquor production or distribution was made a federal felony offense, just like drug production or distribution. At that point, all the established liquor businesses would go out of business.
However, prohibition wouldn't mean that liquor would cease being produced or distributed. It would simply mean that a new type of supplier would immediately enter the black (i.e., illegal) market to fill the void. Those suppliers would be similar in nature to the current suppliers in the drug business or, say, Al Capone -- that is, unsavory people who have no reservations about resorting to violence, such as murdering competitors and killing law-enforcement officers, to expand market share.
At that point, the only way to put these Al Capone-type of people out of business would be by legalizing booze. Once prohibition of alcohol was ended, the violent liquor gangs would immediately go out of business and legitimate businesses would return to the liquor market. The same holds true for drug prohibition.
The big objection to the drug war, however, is not its manifest failure and destructiveness but rather its fundamental assault on individual freedom. If a person isn't free to ingest any substance he wants, then how can he possibly be considered free?
Yet, for decades Kincaid and most other conservatives and most liberals have taken the audacious position that the state should wield the power to punish a person for doing bad things to himself. In fact, the drug war reflects perfectly the nanny-state mindset that has long afflicted both conservatives and liberals. They feel that the state should be a nanny for American adults, treating them like little children, sending them to their jail cell when they put bad things in their mouths.
Kincaid justifies his statism by saying that drugs are bad for people. Even if that's true -- and people should be free to decide that for themselves, as they do with liquor -- so what? Why should that be any business of the state? If I wish to do bad things to myself, why should the likes of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, and John McCain wield the power to put me into jail for that?
Quite simply, Kincaid: It ain't any of your business or anyone else's business what I ingest, whether it's booze, drugs, candy, or anything else. I am not a drone in your collective bee hive. I am an individual with the natural, God-given right to live my life any way I choose, so long as my conduct doesn't involve the initiation of force against others.
For decades, conservatives and liberals have been using the drug war as an excuse to assault freedom, free enterprise, privacy, private property, civil liberties, and the Constitution. They have brought nothing but death, violence, destruction, and misery with their 35-year old failed war on drugs. There would be no better place to start dismantling the statism that afflicts our land than by ending the drug war.
Jacob Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation.
Your own government aids abets this violent invasion, panders to millions of Mexicans, and then forces you at gun point to pay for this epic lawlessness?
Did you not expect this to escalate into a national security issue?
Hell you last president was celebrating Cinco De Mayo up in the White House while millions of illegals marched through your streets making demands and threats.
Did you forget about all that?
You're demonstrating an impressive ability to make erroneous assumptions.
It's worth reading as an example of how lawyers deal with stare decisis and contrary precedents before the Supreme Court, and the Court itself deals with stare decisis in a major case.
Here are the opinions: Citizens United.
Where is the explanation of the flaw in the reasoning of Hammer v Dagenhard in Darby?
They simply declare it to be wrong without providing any evidence to support that findig, and go from there.
Okay.
Can I ask what is that my knowing about their opinion is expected to accomplish and what it is about their opinion that will be worth the time invested?
I’m not familiar with this particular paper. I am familiar with the CATO Institute.
Why don't the attorneys just argue it the way the court's going to treat it?
An attorney’s job is to advocate the best plausible result for his client. Guessing what the Court probably wants to do and leading them to it is often contrary to the client’s interest.
Then two attorneys can make contradictory arguments based on the same stare decisis.
That is why cases go to court.
That's not the point. Two attorneys can constuct contradictory arguments based on the same stare decisis. That means either stare decisis is subjective, or one of the attorneys is lying. Or possibly both.
Differences of opinion are common among lawyers and judges — and everyone else. Baseball experts differ over what the rules of the game mean; art experts differ over the merits of great works and the tenets of art; accountants differ on their professional rules; rabbis, priests, and ministers differ on how the moral rules of their faiths are interpreted and applied; and so on.
Do attorneys argue that the opposition's arguments are motivated by criminality?
Prosecutors do, at times, civil lawyers, less rarely so.
And they'll do it, even knowing it isn't true, as long as they believe that strategy will help the convince the judge and/or jury to rule in their clients favor?
I know of a well respected federal judge some years ago who, while setting bail release conditions for an organized crime figure, stated that the mobster was not to associate with criminals and disreputable persons. The mobster's lawyer objected on the basis that the condition was vague and could apply to old friends, even to to the lawyer.
The judge agreed that it could apply to the lawyer -- who was notorious in his own right -- and that the mobster should be careful of who he associated with if he wanted to stay out on bail. The lawyer's face reddened and he had the good sense to shut up and sit down.
Don't feel too bad for the mobster though. As in the past, he escaped conviction again, that time by tampering with the jury.
Ooops. There I go again. Accusing people of a crime.
Well, you're not in court so there can't won't be any consequences if you're wrong, will there?
The federal prosecutors presented an open and shut drug trafficking case against Blackburn -- informants, audio bugs and wiretaps, extensive surveillance by agents -- the works. When the jury retired for deliberations, one juror said to wake her when they were ready to acquit, leaned forward, put her head on a coast bundled into a makeshift pillow, closed her eyes, and went to sleep. The result was a hung jury.
After much additional effort, Blackburn was eventually convicted.
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.