No such thing, constitutionally, as a 'legal ban'. Local/state gov's can regulate, but not prohibit possession of property. 'Covert' efforts prove this point.
I mentioned four things: prostitution, pornography, drugs and abortion. You must have drugs on the brain.
You do, not me. -- I mentioned unconstitutional prohibitions on property, any property.
Clearly most states do ban prostitution. And until recently, many jurisdictions had bans on abortion and pornography.
They can 'ban' criminal acts using due process. Prohibitions on 'sin' or on property are not due process, thus are unconstitutional.
Now they have to make use with zoning and other non-overt means of control. I don't know if you are right about bans on drugs, but clearly states and localities can ban activities or behavior regarded as destructive.
That is a common misconception about unconstitutional 'bans'. Criminal conduct can be banned. "Activities or behavior regarded as destructive" can be 'regulated', under constitutional guidelines.
Things are 'out of hand' because of the 'war'. Regulate drugs as we regulate booze, and the main problems of black market lawlessness dissappear, as the end of alcohol prohibition once taught us.
If you look at my post, I suggested that this was a possibility. But one also has to take into account the problems of societies with widespread legal drug use. If you don't, you're only looking at half the picture.
We have ALL been looking at ALL the 'picture' for five years now at FR.
Again, no one is advocating that local gov's lose their power to regulate criminal conduct.
No one? There are some libertarians, anarchists and anarchocapitalists who suggest just that. There was much agitation to legalize "victimless crimes." You may not agree with that, but any full portrayal of libertarianism can't ignore those who think that way
Yet again:
"You may not agree with that, but any full portrayal of republicanism can't ignore those who think that way" --- either.
Your point is a generalization, true of any political idea based on individual liberty. -- Thus:
'Republicanism rests on an idea of the rational and responsible individual, but one can't assume that all individuals fit this pattern or that republican policies would increase the number of such citizens.'
True, but the gap is much greater with libertarianism or anarchism than with other ideologies. No other ideologies rely so much on the existence of rational and responsible individuals.
Sheer, unsupported supposition on your part. Our republic was formed on the basis of the rationality of the individual. Many founders remarked upon that fact, as you well know.
But libertarians don't put more effort -- may even put less effort -- into inculcating reason and morality in society.
Again. --- Sheer, unsupported supposition on your part. Getting silly in fact. Repetition of biased thought is still bias.
It may be that the "war on drugs" has been a failure, and that laws will be loosened to allow some access to drugs. But this will come about in a very controlled atmosphere, that takes all sides of the question into account. It won't -- and shouldn't -- be done in the way the radical libertarians want.
Whatever. -- As long as the radical Rino WOD madness is ended.
Sheer, unsupported supposition on your part.
That's the kind or rejoinder one could make against any argument -- including yours, but such a blanket dismissal doesn't carry the argument any further. Nor do the "you too" responses. Any defense of Republicans will have to take Republicans of all stripes into account, but I'm not aware of any Republicans who advocate legalizing all "victimless crimes." There are libertarians who do and one can't deny that they exist. You can't say that "no one is talking about" something that more than a few libertarians have been talking about and expect to be taken seriously.
Similarly, how can one deny that libertarianism relies more on the existence of rational and responsible individuals than other ideologies? Isn't it a staple of libertarian rhetoric that individuals know best for themselves what they want and how to get it? Isn't it a point of pride for libertarians that they represent this point of view more than those of other political stripes? And will libertarian policies encourage or discourage such intelligent and moral conduct? Simply denying these questions or my earlier assertions doesn't prove anything.