Posted on 08/05/2014 10:27:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
Some people confuse being libertarian with being libertine.
I’m sometimes asked, for instance, if I’m a libertarian because I want to smoke pot or do other drugs.
I respond that I’ve never done drugs and have no desire to use drugs.
Then I’m asked if I’m a libertarian because I want to gamble.
I respond by saying that I don’t gamble, even when I’m in Las Vegas or some other place where it’s legal.
Sometimes I’m asked if I’m libertarian because I want to use prostitutes.
I respond by explaining that I’d never patronize a prostitute because I want to at least be under the illusion that a woman actually wants to be with me.
At this point, some people conclude I’m boring, and that may be true, but this is also the point where I try to educate them about the libertarian philosophy.
I give them the usual message about small government and free markets, but I also explain that libertarians don’t believe that government should persecute people for victimless crimes.
This doesn’t mean we think it’s good to use drugs or that we personally approve of prostitution. And it doesn’t mean we’re oblivious to the downsides of gambling.
The libertarian message is simply that prohibition makes matters worse, not better. For instance, prohibition gives government the power to behave in reprehensible ways.
Let’s look at two examples, starting with this disturbing and powerful video from Reason TV (warning, both the subject material and language are not for the faint of heart).
The Drug War, the Fourth Amendment, and Anal Cavity Searches in New Mexico
Having watched the video, now ask yourself whether you think this is an appropriate way for governments to be using our tax dollars?
Remember, we’re not talking about cops busting people for impaired driving. That’s totally legitimate, regardless of whether they’re impaired because of drugs or booze.
The question is whether cops should look for excuses to pull people over simply in hopes of finding that they have some pot. And when they don’t find drugs, should they then go through obscene efforts in hopes of finding some contraband?*
Our second example isn’t as disturbing, at least on a physical level, but it should be equally troubling if we believe in decent and humane society.
It seems that SWAT teams have too much time on their hands and are now conducting raids on old folks playing cards.
On Saturday, state and local authorities raided a monthly poker tournament at a bar in the city of Largo, after an investigation into unlawful gambling, the Tampa Bay Times reported. The Nutz Poker League, which was running a free game open to the public at Louie’s Grill and Sports Bar at the time of the crackdown, said on its Facebook page that some of the police were in “full riot gear” and had their “weapons drawn.” …One woman present described the event in a blog post: “Today, while out playing poker with this poker league, we were raided by the [Florida Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco], all with men and women officers wearing black masks so we couldn’t see their faces. We were forced (by a threat of going to jail) to place our hands on the table where they could see them and to stay there until we were told.” …Luke Lirot, an attorney involved with the matter, told Card Player that players took cell phone photos and video of the raid, and that they were “ordered by officers to delete” the material. According to the Tampa Bay Times, the undercover investigation, dubbed “Operation Cracked Aces,” had been ongoing for months prior to the bust.
The community group that runs the recreational league has an appropriately libertarian view of this costly harassment.
“The ‘crime’ here is the waste of valuable public resources, and the misguided efforts to enforce an archaic law that was never intended to be used to criminalize events such as the one here, where six individuals were unjustly arrested and terrified, and now face prosecution,” the league said. “If state statutes can be exploited and stretched to criminalize these types of events, legislation needs to be adopted to clear up this unnecessary abuse.” Nutz Poker added that the raid was an example of “tyrannical [law] enforcement.”
By the way, the Florida raid is not an isolated incident.
Here are some excerpts from a report in the Baltimore Sun.
…at the Lynch Point Social Club in Edgemere, police say, …dozens of men would meet regularly to play no limit Texas Hold ‘Em poker games and gamble on electronic machines. County police said it was all off the books and against the law, and busted the club’s members in a raid involving a tactical unit last week. The organizer and dealers were arrested and face charges. Almost immediately after our story posted, there was a quick backlash against police. The story’s been shared nearly 200 times on Facebook and generated 40 comments as of this writing… commenters had no tie to the event but were angered at an investigation they believe was a waste of police resources.…But police say games like the ones hosted in Edgemere are against the law and must be enforced, and may even put the players at risk for becoming victims of a robbery.
Here’s the bottom line: A bunch of guys want to pass the time by playing cards and making wagers. They’re not hurting anybody else, yet cops decide to send a “tactical unit” to conduct a raid.
Once again, I’m glad there’s a backlash against the police. Cops should beprotecting innocent people, not harassing them.
Or killing them.
And this is why libertarianism is a philosophy of human decency. We don’t believe in using coercive government power against people who aren’t harming others.
*I’m thinking an involuntary cavity search might be worth it if I got a $900,000 award after suing the government.
P.S. Since I feel very confident about libertarian principles, I don’t object to sharing anti-libertarian humor.
Here’s the latest example.
I’ve previously shared a cartoon with the same theme, and that post also makes the should-be-obvious point that fire departments would exist in a libertarian world.
And that link also has many more examples of libertarian humor.
It’s just that some Libertarians are insane, like Ron Paul. My issues with Libertarians fall around the role of the military, and the border.
You are committing the "Strawman Fallacy," since welfarism is not a tenet of Libertarianism. In other words: You have no justification in laying the blame for the Welfare State (and resultant tide of welfare mothers, deadbeat dads, etc.) at the feet of Libertarianism.
In short: The abuses of the Welfare State are not the fault of Libertarianism, nor is it logical to cite them as reasons to dismiss Libertarianism.
Regards,
Every single thing you named is a crime with a victim.
Let us say that welfare doesn't exist and that the children of indulgent bums who prefer to be under the influence have no safety net. This touches near to me because it is exactly the situation I and my siblings grew up in. We had a worthless drunken father who would not support his family, and preferring to party instead of work.
So Libertarianism considers this situation an improvement? We damn near starved to death. Yeah, that's much better. Obviously the man's conduct was not harming us.
Seriously, this is a non realistic view of human society. It is unnatural for humans to watch other's children starve without feeling a compulsion to do something about it. It is inflicting emotional pain, as opposed to physical pain. It is robbing our pocket through emotional distress.
Why should we as a society put up with these people twisting our emotional arms because they feel like they have a right to do any damn thing they please?
How does libertarianism address this issue? God forbid that we should force people to take care of their f***ing responsibilities!
Taking the tax payer's unwilling pocket out of it, there is still harm done.
Libertarianism is equal to human decency?
Ha ha ha ha ha.... (whew)
Moral Absolutes bump.
(I’m outta town)
I noticed a conspicuous absence of reference to “religious charities”.
By your reply I can see that you did not read beyond the title
jimt wrote:
“<<... child abuse, spousal abuse, elderly absue, doctor malpractice, hospital malpractice, cops invading ol’ granny at 2 a.m., any federal agency not operating within the Constitution...>>
“Every single thing you named is a crime with a victim.”
That is correct, but if you were to listen to the ‘dumptruck’ liberals, these would NOT be so!!
The ‘timeline’ has been too long; the ‘number of ‘individuals, aka perpetrators’ has risen too high.
We need no more courts, no more laws, just simple justice of a group bent on selling and distributing POISON, which many of these drugs are, and summarily executed, on the street corner.
All else is one’s massage therapy to one’s own body part.
Opium wasn't criminalized until 1875, and marijuana in the '30s. We tried criminalizing alcohol in 1917, but the effort proved to be too costly.
I also think about the fact that anyone, of any age, can huff paint if they want to. But very few do.
'This Is Working': Portugal, 12 Years after Decriminalizing Drugs
FTA....
And this is why libertarianism is a philosophy of human decency.
___________________
Oh I read the article all right. And libertarianism is still a joke.
And here you are again telling that same bald faced lie. American involvement in hard drugs was insignificant until the Civil war when massive numbers of soldiers were exposed to these substances to relieve the pain of their battle injuries.
Subsequent drug activity became a continuously growing problem until the early part of the 20th Century when we deliberately banned these substances and thus avoided the utter societal collapse which destroyed China.
That you keep SAYING there were minor problems is evidence of a deliberate attempt to deceive people who have not studied this period of history. You are wrong. You have an agenda, and you cannot be trusted to tell the truth because the truth does not conform to what you want.
If the problems were minor, then why did we ban these substances? Even the agreed upon facts dispute your account of the events. 
1900 - Opium, morphine and cocaine in many patent medicines leads to addiction and death. Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup kills many children each year due to overdosing on morphine. Morphine is the syrup’s primary ingredient but it is not listed on the label.
http://www.goodmedicinebadbehavior.org/explore/history_of_prescription_drugs.html
Are those part of Libertarian philosophy? No? Then what do they have to do with a conversation about Libertarian philosophy?
And here you are again telling that same bald faced lie. American involvement in hard drugs was insignificant until the Civil war
Exactly my point - thanks for the confirmation.
when massive numbers of soldiers were exposed to these substances to relieve the pain of their battle injuries.
Which, let's note in passing, doesn't fit your 'epidemic' model of drug use.
Subsequent drug activity became a continuously growing problem until the early part of the 20th Century
There is no evidence for any growth - in fact, the available evidence that I have posted says it was shrinking.
If the problems were minor, then why did we ban these substances?
Your liberal faith in government shows again ... if evil businesses weren't a major problem, why do we have so many business regulations? Conservatives know that government is happy to invent crises to expand its power.
They were estimated as 2% of the population back in 1900, they are still ~2% today.
We need no more courts, no more laws, just simple justice of a group bent on selling and distributing POISON, which many of these drugs are, and summarily executed, on the street corner.
I have heard the theory that this is a self-correcting problem, but I am aware of the fact that it did not self correct in China. It would appear that it is not a self correcting problem.
In China it was legalized around 1840. By 1900 half the population was addicted. And you are wrong about Opium being criminalized in 1875. It wasn't criminalized until after the Harrison Narcotics act in 1914.
As for the comparison between Alcohol and Heroin, that is nonsense and is not worthy of commentary.
I also think about the fact that anyone, of any age, can huff paint if they want to. But very few do.
It doesn't have the addictive qualities of cocaine or opium or meth. And that's why they don't.
'This Is Working': Portugal, 12 Years after Decriminalizing Drugs
Ah yes, the Socialist government of Portugal says their new policy is working splendidly! Libertarians have responded by repeating this claim in their world wide echo chamber ever since. Is it true? Libertarians do not care. It favors what they want to believe, so that's good enough.
No dude, you aren't being confirmed, your allegations are being disputed. You point to the 1700s as a time period when drugs were legal and imply they didn't cause any problems, as evidence that the large quantities capable of being supplied now won't either. This is deliberate manipulation of differing circumstances and misleading people into thinking they are the same thing.
Which, let's note in passing, doesn't fit your 'epidemic' model of drug use.
And here you are lying again. You do not know whether it does or whether it doesn't because NOBODY KEPT ANY GOOD RECORDS AT THE TIME. (Except the British regarding their Opium Shipments. They kept very good records.) You falsely conflate a lack of records as the equivalent to there being no problems. The fact is, by the end of the 19th Century, people were noticing all sorts of problems. You just refuse to acknowledge this.
There is no evidence for any growth - in fact, the available evidence that I have posted says it was shrinking.
Again you are lying. Your "Available Evidence" says that it was increasing, but you used the numbers they gave and concluded that it was decreasing. At the very best, that "evidence" you posted disagrees with itself, but you are portraying it as a vindication of your position when it is nothing of the sort.
This is why I hate arguing with Libertarians, because they are fast and loose with the truth. Here is the article to which he is referring.
And here is where he posted the link to it.
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.
