Posted on 05/16/2002 11:22:07 AM PDT by Reagan Man
I cannot think of one domestic issue that has not been totally screwed up by Federal control, including drug policy.
The liberal interpretation of the Constitution, especially the Commerce Clause, created the need for a forum such as Free Republic.
Every conservative worth the name should support the Tenth Amendment and reject the FDR/LBJ Commerce Clause school of thought, which has empowered Leftists and Socialists.
The RKBA is totally explicit; not all rights are. And so ALL other rights have that in common.
Would you have us conclude that no other rights are assured?
Yeah, as if mandatory sentencing, no-knock raids, and the incarceration of millions upon millions of non-violent "criminals" is a recipe for societal health?
Give me a break. The Puritans had their time in the sun about two hundred years ago. The WOD is not just a recipe for societal decay, it is an abomination, making convicts out of people whose only crime was that they chose to do something that others don't think they should do.
The water is muddied by two groups of people who claim the name "libertarian." To me, it sounds as if those questions are directed to the anarcho-capitalists or whatever they're called.
"What will it's economic plank be?"
I am a supporter of free enterprise.
"How will libertarianism provide for military defense of our nation?"
Taxes.
A longer answer to that would be that the federal government should bill the states for the cost of running the federal government. It should be up to the states to decide how to collect revenue. I believe in the repeal of the 16th amendment, and do not believe the federal government should tax people's income directly.
"If there is an epidemic of terrorism, disease, anarchy, what will be their philosophy or course of action?"
Not all "libertarians" are peaceniks. I am all for peace and trade until we're attacked, at which time I become quite hawkish.
I believe in a strong national defense. The answer to terrorism is to capture or kill those responsibile, and destroy the capability to perform more acts of war. This requires a military, and as suggested above I support taxes be levied to pay for our military.
Disease, likewise, is a subject that requires government attention. Contageous diseases do not respect political boundries, and frequently outbreak cross international boundries. I see a place for the National Centers for Disease Control to deal with epidemics of contageous diseases. Of course, the CDC is hopelessly politicized nowadays in looking to cure such "diseases" as obsesity.
By anarchy, I assume you mean riots and other mayhem. I have little sympathy with looters and rioters, and feel they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
"Are they for nuclear disarmament or against it?"
Against. I support some reduction in our arsenel, because our largest nuclear enemy no longer has their proverbial finger on the button. Otherwise, I am a strong supporter of national defense and strategic weaponry.
"Are they willing to regulate disposal of hazardous materials or will they leave that to business and the states to iron out? Should that prove to be ineffectual how would they deal with inter-state issues?"
Pollution, like virulent disease, knows no political boundries. I see that there is a place for the federal government is regulating hazardous waste, such as radioactive materials, the release of which would contaminate large areas.
However, I do not believe that the federal government has a place in regulating the bruning of leaves and the draining of swamps. Land-use regulation belongs at the state level, not the federal.
"I'm really not asking for line by line specifics; generalities with some illustrations will do."
Hope this helps.
Then again, I am often told by libertarians that I am not one, so maybe you can ignore this post.
Rather a broad statement. I do know some folks who drink responsibly and a few casual "fatty" smokers who do OK but I know quite a few folks ruined or at a minimum impaired noticably by alcohol and pot use. As for other drugs(I used them all when young except crack), I have yet to see too many folks not have difficulties with heroin or crack or cocaine or crank or X or LSD. I know there are exceptions but amongst habitual users it usually becomes problematic and not only because it's illegal. I came of age in the early 70s (the nadir of drug use...and acceptabilty) and everyone I know who moved on to a productive life totally gave up hard drugs and minimized alcohol and pot use. Just my experiences and observations.
At the time my mother smoked cigs and my dad a few cigars (they both quit many years ago). It seems that all us kids had been pestering the folks with some sort of "You smoke, why can't we smoke?" type arguments. Well, it seems they got the bright idea to let us go ahead and smoke if we wanted, under their supervision.
Here's how it worked. They told us to go collect up all the butts we could find around the house and bring them back for a big family smoke-in. What fun this was and we all came back with a big stash.
So, there we were, feeling oh so smart as our parents proceeded to fire-up our smokes. And they even encourged us to smoke as much as we wanted! But the fun didn't last long.
Soon we all got very tired of coughing, and a stange light-headedness set in. Then a little nausea as my parents asked if we'd like some more.
In the end I think it was a long time before any of us ever smoked anything again. I personally never took up smoking, but must admit to puffing on a few in high school, but never found any enjoyment in it.
I think back on this as a brilliant move by my parents. Stupid adults, we couldn't figure out what they wanted to smoke for, it was awful. However, I do wonder what would happen to parents today if they tried this stunt on their kids. Probably some sort of awful public outrage...
You are seeing the heart of contemporary 'conservatism' at work. It is no better than pharaseeism in that it worships the law and damns the citizen.
Libertarian-bashers (and that is what it is when political disagreement requires repeated use of smear, innuendo, and outright name-calling) prefer to overlook the current society AND Constitutional decay by the current system. By insisting that the current system just hasn't be fully funded or that the right people haven't participated, they, in principle, are little different than the marxist apologists for communism, despite obviousl evidence that neither prohibition or communism have ever worked, EVER.
And let's not forget the small element of dishonesty that the lib-bashers constantyly employ, insinuating that the only reason anyone wants drug law reform or the end to the current War on (some) Drugs is for personal use and abuse. Nearly every libertarian on FR has denied those allegations, yet the bashers continue to charge them with allegations of drug abuse.
Some of us promote the maximum amount of freedom and individual responsibility for all, and others don't.
Hope you like it!
Let's not forget, on the historical balance of probabilities, chances are the War on Drugs is a great success at achieving its true goals.
Folks are just unwilling to admit what the true goals are.
Yes, the Great Society and other earlier transfer programs hurt but also the Doppler Effect from the 60s implosion. The Boomers (like me) who bought into all that garbage and rebelled did so because they had the time and money and leisure to do so. Perhaps the first American youth generation with the "liberty" to embrace irresponsibility, and we're now reaping the aftereffects...and it's not pretty. I'm afraid some of this was simply fate and demographics. Problem is...how do we fix it? As you can tell from this thread some folks want to fix the problem and some want to fix the cure and some think there is no problem and hence no cure for that matter.
Societal morality issues are very important, but they are issues that government has shown itself to be spectacularly incompetent at dealing with. And if government is granted the power to impose societal morality rules, there is no guarantee that it will be your preferred rules which will be imposed. Certainly the evidence from recent decades is that government will instead impose rules you personally are likely to detest.
Instilling and inspiring proper moral values is the perview of parents and family and friends and churches and any number of other voluntary organizations and associations, but not government. [Especially not government-run schools, which have tended to shred and destroy proper moral values, but then that's another rant...] The Drug War has exascerbated these problems by creating enormous financial incentives to break the law (just as Prohibition did), by corrupting our judicial system and law-enforcement agencies, and by trashing the Constitution and the principles of a free society upon which this nation was founded.
The most moral thing we can do is end the Drug War, and thereby end this cancer that has been eating into our society and corrupting our government.
Still other want to spend eternity pounding away at the symptoms, while willfully ignoring the problem.
In reverse order.
2. Repeal federal drug laws and turn the issue of legalization over to the states where it belongs.
A viable alternative. Thanks. There is strong arugment for substance control policy being a states rights issue. Although, I don't agree with it, I respect such reasonable and sensible logic.
1. The prohibition of alcohol, a substance arguably more problematic than illicit drugs, was a miserable failure.
Some people view alcohol prohibition as a failure. That's one school of thought. From what I've read over the years, prohibition dramatically cut alcohol use. Several individuals have written that alcohol consumption, was literally cut in half under prohibition. That would make alcohol prohibition a success. Suffice it to say, American's eventually became opposed to alcohol prohibition and it was overturned.
In addition, I view all illicit drugs, including marijuana, to be more highly problematic to our society, then alcohol will ever be. Many people can consume a few alcoholic drinks and not be intoxicated. The same can not be said for using heroin, cocaine, marijuana, methamphetamine, designer drugs and on and on and on. Think about it. Smoke a joint, shoot up heroin, snort some cocaine, pop a pill and you're high! Period. Most people don't get stoned from a few drinks. That may be a generalization to some, but its one, that makes complete sense.
Then there are the effects that legalizing, illicit drugs, would have on the children of America. That's an issue we should all take very seriously.
You should ask yourself why you don't want to grasp that nettle.
I grew up in NYCity, in the 1950`s, 1960`s and into the early 1970`s. Its simply not true, that marijuana prohibiton was an artificial creation of government. Since the earliest civilized society, the people, through their (representative) government, have been placing restrictions on certain aspects of life. Through thousands of years, society has more often then not, placed reasonable restrictions on people, through basic moral and ethical considerations.
I would agree, and the result is the same whether or not drugs are legal.
IMO The difference between legal and illegal drugs is that legitimate businesses don't typically kill their competitors.
Bears repeating!
Thanks for the compliment; it's important that we back each other up on these issues. I appreciate that our fellow Freepers treat us with a lot more respect than the left-wing whiners and their fellow travelers, even when they disagree with us.
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.