Well, duh. EVERYTHING I write is "only my opinion"...just as everything YOU write is only YOUR opinion. And in cases where our opinions can not be reconciled, one of us is right, and the other is wrong. In the matter of whether it's constitutional for the federal government to criminalize the manufacture/possession of drugs, I'm right and you're wrong. Simple reading of both the Constitution, the history of the commerce clause, the details of alcohol Prohibition, and the history of the criminalization of cocaine, marijuana, LSD, etc. would lead any intelligent person to that conclusion.
America is a society that has always been based on the rule of law.
It was founded on the rule of law. And, in fact, it pretty much followed the rule of law (i.e., the Constitution) until about the time of the first World War. Since then, America has consistently gone farther and farther from the rule of law. And "conservatives" (ala G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, John McCain...and even Antonin Scalia) are most certainly NOT heading America back towards the rule of law.
Libertarians do not support the rule of law,...
Complete BS. Libertarians support the rule of law FAARRRRRR more than Republicans! It isn't even close!
...or the will of the people,...
Most certainly NOT when the "will of the people" is to take away rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Starting with the 10th amendment! The Constitution GUARANTEES my freedom from federal government interference in what drugs I take to make me well (or even for recreation). And your comment is basically BS...because you're equating the "will of the people" with how The People's representatives in government act. The Founding Fathers understood very clearly that government was NOT the same as The People. In fact, that is ABSOLUTELY demonstrated when there are state REFERENDA (i.e., TRULY the will of The People) to legalize marijuana for medical use, and stinking, corrupt conservatives like John Ashcroft attempt to unconstitutionally OVERRIDE that will! (No doubt you cheered him on, on that one!)
Libertarians want absolute and unrestricted liberty, as in no limitations on individuals and their personal behavior.
Complete BS. As I just posted, Libertarians want liberty ONLY to the extent that it does not "forcibly interfere with the equal rights of others" to liberty. In other words, exactly as Thomas Jefferson said:
A good government is one "which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread that it has earned."-- Thomas Jefferson (libertarian) (1743-1826) (inaugural address)
In my time on Freerepublic, you're one of the most pessimistic individuals I've ever come across.
Not pessimistic, skeptical. Conservatives here pretend (I think they've actually falsely convinced themselves) that they care about freedom (the "Free" part of Free Republic) and the Rule of Law. But a significant minority, if not a majority, of posters on Free Republic express opinions that are incompatible with freedom and/or the Rule of Law. Opinions like support of federal laws criminalizing drugs (without a corresponding Constitutional amendment).
Its impossible to have any further reasonable communication with you.
Heh, heh, heh! You're just like the guys I "debated" about evolution versus young-Earth-Noah's-Flood creation. I asked them, if all people on earth are descended from 8 (or 9...I don't know the Noah myth very well!) people who got off the Ark ~4000 years ago...what were those people's races? (Was Noah white, his wife black, and their children oriental, for example?) They responded by calling me a racist (ad hominen attack, the last refuge of someone being clobbered in a debate!) and saying they didn't think it was worth talking to me. I told them what I'll tell you: "Yeah...if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen." (Thanks, Harry Truman.)
You can't answer my question about why a 18th amendment was (or was not) necessary to prohibit the manufacture and sale of alcohol. That's because you know that it will force you to admit that all federal laws prohibiting the manufacture and sale of drugs are unconstitutional. That's the only conclusion that can be reached by a rational individual.
Come to think of it, that reminds me of a discussion board I was on with liberals a few years back. I got into a discussion with a fellow who claimed to be (he probably was, I have no reason to doubt it) a professor of constitutional law. I posted that virtually all that the federal government does is unconstitutional. He wrote something on the order that he agreed with some things I said, but that I was greatly exaggerating. But then I asked him to comment on the Constitutionality of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, federal ownership of land outside of the District of Columbia and federal forts (i.e. national parks, wilderness areas, and so on). He immediately stopped posting!
Incorrect. On a larger scale, conservatism is right and libertarianism is right. Law abiding citizens/societies have every right to restrict personal behavior of individuals, that they deem harmful to society at large.
Complete BS. Libertarians support the rule of law FAARRRRRR more than Republicans! It isn't even close!
Do you realize how absurd this sounds? I guess not. Libertarians have little resepct for American law and even less for American justice. Libertarians talk of dismantling the criminal justice system and abolishing victimless crimes, as though crimes againmst society and government, aren't real crimes. Now that's real BS!
Most certainly NOT when the "will of the people" is to take away rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
The American people aren't taking away anyones rights, nor are their elected officials. You've got no respect for the will of the people and no respect for majority rule.
Jefferson said:
"The fundamental principle of the government is that the will of the majority is to prevail."
Thomas Jefferson to William Eustis, 1809
"The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object."
Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801.
Jefferson also reminded us:
"Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression."
Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.
Not pessimistic, skeptical. Conservatives here pretend (I think they've actually falsely convinced themselves) that they care about freedom (the "Free" part of Free Republic) and the Rule of Law. But a significant minority, if not a majority, of posters on Free Republic express opinions that are incompatible with freedom and/or the Rule of Law. Opinions like support of federal laws criminalizing drugs (without a corresponding Constitutional amendment).
I'm an optimist and highly skeptical. You're a born pessimist. Natch, you're a libertarian. Conservatives are very mindful that the laws of the land and the Conmstitution, must be followed at all times. Conservatives respect both. Libertarians only mention the Constituion when it serves their purpose and aren't interested in abiding by the laws of the land. I note, you're starting to talk irrational and illogical once again. One more time, a Constitutional ammendment isn't required to make law.
Libertarians want absolute and unrestricted liberty, as in no limitations on individuals and their personal behavior.
Complete BS. As I just posted, Libertarians want liberty ONLY to the extent that it does not "forcibly interfere with the equal rights of others" to liberty.
Horses**t! Libertarians only care about themselves, they don't give a rats arse about other people. Their lust for drugs is a good example of their selfish desires.
Its impossible to have any further reasonable communication with you.
Heh, heh, heh! You're just like the guys I "debated" about evolution...
I think we've reached that point again, you know, were you claim to be for civilized debate and then throw a rhetorical pie, it in your opponents face, when he speaks the truth. I know you like the back of my hand.
If you have anything further to say, I'll be around. But I suggest you make any future comments relevent and salient. I won't be wasting anymore time, responding to your endless diatribes, about how right you are and how wrong the rest of the world is. Suffice it to say, your reactionary absolutism is obvious and evident.