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.
I didn’t as for specifics, I just asked if the fact that the accusations are made outside of a courtroom means there aren’t any consequeces if you’re wrong.
Some persons, such as most criminals, are effectively unable to prove damages for defamation because their reputations are already bad, and statements as to public figures enjoy a qualified privilege. Statements made as opinion or supported by facts are also strongly defensible.
Sanctions may be imposed by a court or bar association against an attorney for a knowing or reckless false accusation of a crime, but rarely and in more limited circumstances. Proof of the knowing or reckless nature of an accusation is often hard to establish.
So, as long as you don't get sued there aren't any consequences?
That depends. What do you have in mind?
Does it matter?
Does your assesment of the potential consequences of your actions ever extend beyond what the effect might be on you, personally?
More so than you, I wager.
So far, none of your replies have exhibited any evidence of it.
This comes from someone who called me a “liberal plant” — which are near fightin’ words in this forum.
I did not call you a liberal plant. I observed that your arguments are consistent with what a liberal plant wanting to subvert any attempt to organize a campaign to take back their gains based on a return to original intent jurisprudence would argue.
You don't have to be a liberal plant to make those arguments, but the net effect of adopting them will be the same.
Hairsplitting.
The difference between disagreeing with someone's opinion or ideas and attacking them personally is not "hairsplitting".
Tuesday, April 13, 2010 8:07:35 PM · 487 of 611
tacticalogic to Rockingham
but they never expected modern conditions of commerce or the weakening of the states due to the Civil War, Progressivism, Socialism, the Depression, and the New Deal.
And Rockinghams.
I may have been mistaken about that. They did include and ratify the 10th Amendment.
?
If the Founder's never anticipated any of those things happening, how can it be submitted that they would support using stare decicis to prevent a return to original intent?
Stare decisis was a recognized principle of judicial reasoning at the time of the Convention and when the Bill of Rights was drafted. The Tenth Amendment did not address stare decisis.
The lipstick is stare decisis. The pig is the substantial effects doctrine.
You say it has lipstick.
I say it's a pig.
You ask why I don't like lipstick.
It's not about the lipstick, it's about the pig.
No, I’m still on the pig.
It’s very simple, you cant have freedom in a welfare state. Which is what we are.
Crack and Crystal Meth. One or two highs and we got another zombie taken care of by the state.
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.