I disagree about the "drug lovers" of the libertarians. It is true that most libertarians believe in drug legalization. I believe in this too. Why? Is it because I love getting high? Not at all! I could easily get high without any political leanings whatsoever. Do you think drugs are hard to get?
The reason that libertarians (and me) are for drug legalization is quite simple - drug use is a victimless crime. And in my book victimless crimes are not true crimes.
Drug use is a victimless crime because if I use drugs I may harm myself but no one else. Libertarians believe in self-ownership - meaning that whatever I do with my own body is solely my business as long as i don't violate the rights of others.
Now some say that a druggie does violate the rights of others. For example a father who spends the family income on drugs and lets his kids go hungry is violating the rights of his kids. Fine, I'd agree. Prosecute him for child abuse. But not for drug abuse.
The other argument against the WOD is consequentialist - it is a bloody failure. Around half the prisoners in the USA are there for drug offenses. Their incarceration deprives society of their productivity while costing taxpayers to keep them in prison.
The WOD is a mirror of Prohibition. It is a key driver I crime just as Prohibition was. Legalize drugs and you will see a big drop in the crime rate. /rant
Also about the anti-Christian libertarians. I think that this is another fantasy. Yes surely a fair percentage of libs are atheists but many are Christians also.
I started this thread as an attack on the libertarians. I still want to attack them. But let's attack them squarely on their beliefs. Rebut these beliefs. Don't use ad-hominem strawman attacks.
I have to agree with you on open borders and I have always felt this way. Open borders might make sense in some idael libertarian world but in our real world we should put troops on the borders. it is a scandal that we don't. And BTW the Republicans are scared to advocate this because they pander to the Hispanic vote.
I realize that many libertarians oppose laws against drug possession and use on the grounds that you gave, but this issue is not what draws them to libertarianism. They simply hold that position as a consequence of having looked at the evidence in light of libertarian principles and come to a conclusion. I may disagree with their position, but I understand that it isn't the center of their political philosophy. Instead, it is a result of their political principles.
In characterizing some libertarians as "drug-lovers," I am saying that I believe that there are people who are drawn to this political philosophy primarily as an excuse for wanting to legalize drugs. I don't claim that they make up a large percentage of the libertarian movement, but I think they are a faction. If someone made up another philosophy that sounded as good intellectually as libertarianism but called for complete confiscation of private property, they could support this philosophy just as easily as long as it held the promise that they could use drugs without fear of punishment.
The same is true of the "anti-Christian" libertarians. I realize that there are many Christians who are libertarian, but I think there is an "I hate God" faction. Members of this faction would be drawn to any movement that sounded good intellectually and promised an anti-Christian government. I was once romantically involved with a woman who had some of this flavor in her libertarian philosophy. I said I didn't think that the First Amendment was an excuse for government to work actively against Christianity. She eventually admitted that government action against Christianity or the church would be in violation of libertarianism, but her basic mindset was that Christianity was "anti-liberty," therefore, attacking Christianity (using the government or anything else) was "pro-liberty."
I also understand that every political movement has members of this kind. I'm opposed to legalized abortion because I believe the unborn child is a person with rights. That unborn child didn't ask to be conceived but came into being as a direct result of the free choices of a mother and father. Therefore, the mother and father may not kill that child. I think an overwhelming majority of the pro-life movement believes as I do, but I'm sure that some are drawn to the movement because they think it gives them an intellectual/moral basis for bullying women just as the pro-abortion movement claims.
Does any of this clarify where I stand? Do you recognize that I see these factions as subsets of the whole and not as characteristics of everyone who is drawn to libertarianism?
WFTR
Bill