Legalize Drugs?

[Select]

But I see too many people getting screwed until the long term finally happens. That isn't worth it to me. I'd rather see it nipped in the bud... which is why I don't align myself with the party... (duh)

[Klast Brell]

Libertarianism is more about turning over the majority of the government to the states. Individual states would get to decide tax policy, drug policy, welfare policy, most environmental policy

Follow it out to it's logical conclusion. Now you have 50 individual countries. You live in one of those 50 countries. Should the state government overrule the rights of the counties? Should the counties overrule the rights of the cities? Should the cities overrule the neighborhoods? And on and on. House rules are not libertarian. Your room mate should not have the right to tell you it's your turn to take out the trash. Only free market forces should govern who takes the trash out and when it gets taken out.

[Klast Brell]

Bullshit. Shady policies pay off in spades.
Lets say it costs 1 dollar to make a package of sausages that are fresh and healthy. (never mind the cholesterol)
Lets say it costs 50 cents to make a package of sausages that say fresh and healthy on the label, but are made of slaughterhouse sweepings and ground rats.

History shows us that without government regulations like the Pure Food and Drug Act the manufacturers with the higher production costs will be driven out of business by the manufacturers of sub par product. When you go to the store you won't have any way of trusting a label to tell the truth. So what do you buy? The most expensive thing on the shelf and hope it doesn't suck?

[Ddrak]

If I remember my history correctly, the outrage that followed the outing of the meat industry after The Jungle virtually crippled the industry, bringing me right back to the point that in the *long term* shady practices do not win according to the libertarian philosophy.

Dd

[Klast Brell]

It crippled the shady people. What emerged from the crisis was safer food.

[Taxious]

A lot of these laws we have been talking about are important preventative measures. A system based purely off of cause and effect scares me. I realize everything would be turned over to the states, but I think some of this stuff is important enough to require each state to partake in.

Instead of affirmative action, a law in attempt to ensure equality before inequality occurs, you are proposing that a black kid's only response to being treated unfairly is to stand up to the man or move to another state. Instead of utilizing the FDA to help filter out corrupt consumables before they enter our bodies, you suggest that we simply shouldn't buy the same brand of tomatoes if we don't want to get salmonella again. Instead of trying to prevent drug addiction, our only response to a crack fiend that needs help is "sorry, you fucked up your own life."

Another issue I see with libertarianism is the differentiation of states being too great. We would have some states that offer excellent services but would be very expensive to live in while another state would essentially turn into Mexico. Instead of the entire country growing as a whole, there would be some booming states and some regressing states, with no national authority to help the people in need.

[Embar Angylwrath]

It crippled the shady people. What emerged from the crisis was safer food.

You just proved Dd's point. With enough time, the market is self-correcting.

[Embar Angylwrath]

A lot of these laws we have been talking about are important preventative measures. A system based purely off of cause and effect scares me. I realize everything would be turned over to the states, but I think some of this stuff is important enough to require each state to partake in.

Instead of affirmative action, a law in attempt to ensure equality before inequality occurs, you are proposing that a black kid's only response to being treated unfairly is to stand up to the man or move to another state. Instead of utilizing the FDA to help filter out corrupt consumables before they enter our bodies, you suggest that we simply shouldn't buy the same brand of tomatoes if we don't want to get salmonella again. Instead of trying to prevent drug addiction, our only response to a crack fiend that needs help is "sorry, you fucked up your own life."

Another issue I see with libertarianism is the differentiation of states being too great. We would have some states that offer excellent services but would be very expensive to live in while another state would essentially turn into Mexico. Instead of the entire country growing as a whole, there would be some booming states and some regressing states, with no national authority to help the people in need.

Think that through, Tax. If some states are more expensive to live in, and some states aren't, people would could make a choice as to what state they want to live in, and what level of government they want to pay for. Also, the state would have a vested interest in finding the balance bewteen adequate service and low cost government. Essentially, states would "compete" for the population. You see, the "state" can't really exist without a population. Without people, its just empty land, no commerce, nothing. If a state wanted to increase population, the state would have to make itself attractive to enough of the population reach a certain critical mass of people.

I think what you'd find, if we went to a loose confederation of states based on libertarianism, is 50 states with populations that each hold distinct sets of ideals. New York, for instance, might remain a high tax, high government state, but Colorado might chop the government in half, eliminate welfare, and turn most of the state into open range. The governmental environment in each of those states would attract very different types of people, but the people would get to choose where they want to live, and under what level of governmental control.

[Klast Brell]

It crippled the shady people. What emerged from the crisis was safer food.

You just proved Dd's point. With enough time, the market is self-correcting.

The point that government regulation is okie fine because With enough time, the market is self-correcting? Sure I'll be glad to prove that point.

[Klast Brell]

As for your loose confederation of states we have that already. it's called the nations of the world. Loosely bound by treaties and UN resolutions but otherwise autonomous. Don't like American taxes. Why don't you move to Mexico. They get taxed 60% as much as we do.

[Embar Angylwrath]

As for your loose confederation of states we have that already. it's called the nations of the world. Loosely bound by treaties and UN resolutions but otherwise autonomous. Don't like American taxes. Why don't you move to Mexico. They get taxed 60% as much as we do.

Because I like our constitution, which Mexico doesn't have.

[Partha]

The Confederacy tried that 'loose network of states' thing with a weak central government. In fact, so did the original colonies.

Guess what? It don't work!

[Taxious]

states would "compete" for the population.

What I'm concerned about is the outcome of the states that "lose" this competition. They would need to make themselves more appealing to attract a larger population, but that requires money. This is essentially the same thing as walking up to a bum on the street and saying "I'm not going to help you, but clean yourself up and go get a job."

As I understand it, states are already competing with one another for a larger population. The difference being that if they do need fiscal help, they can get it through the federal government. It seems like taking that help away would end up downward-spiraling poor states to become so bad that no one would want to live there. As you wrote earlier, a state can't exist without a population, but how would these bankrupt states pick themselves up without taxpayers or help from the national government?

If some states are more expensive to live in, and some states aren't, people would could make a choice as to what state they want to live in, and what level of government they want to pay for.

This seems awfully elitist to me. Poor people inhabit the states with low running costs, and in turn have to put up with crappy highway systems, bad health coverage, minimal police support, and whatever else the state can't afford.

I like the idea of being able to choose what level of government control I'm under depending on what state I live in. However, restricting certain (poor) citizens from that opportunity seems... wrong.

[Select]

Embar and Dd are you both Libertarian? Since you're arguing for it, I'm going to assume you are. If not, what are your reasons against it?

[Embar Angylwrath]

states would "compete" for the population.

What I'm concerned about is the outcome of the states that "lose" this competition. They would need to make themselves more appealing to attract a larger population, but that requires money. This is essentially the same thing as walking up to a bum on the street and saying "I'm not going to help you, but clean yourself up and go get a job."

As I understand it, states are already competing with one another for a larger population. The difference being that if they do need fiscal help, they can get it through the federal government. It seems like taking that help away would end up downward-spiraling poor states to become so bad that no one would want to live there. As you wrote earlier, a state can't exist without a population, but how would these bankrupt states pick themselves up without taxpayers or help from the national government?

If some states are more expensive to live in, and some states aren't, people would could make a choice as to what state they want to live in, and what level of government they want to pay for.

This seems awfully elitist to me. Poor people inhabit the states with low running costs, and in turn have to put up with crappy highway systems, bad health coverage, minimal police support, and whatever else the state can't afford.

I like the idea of being able to choose what level of government control I'm under depending on what state I live in. However, restricting certain (poor) citizens from that opportunity seems... wrong.

Tax - You haven't connected the dots yet, but you're close.

Your question of "how would these bankrupt states pick themselves up without taxpayers or help from the national government?" is an excellent one. Answer: private investment from people who see opportunity in an underutilized resource, and then shaping the government of that state to continu the growth in the constituencies vision.

Also, you statement of "Poor people inhabit the states with low running costs, and in turn have to put up with crappy highway systems, bad health coverage, minimal police support, and whatever else the state can't afford." seems to indicate that people are forced to live where they are. Not true. They are free to move to a state that better suits their ideals and vision of how they want to live their lives. Libertarianism is very freeing to the individual, it opens up new opportunities at the individual level, at the city level and at the state level. But it also makes states work without the federal government net. I use the word net, because it can save you, but it also traps you.

This isn't to say there would be no Federal government. There would still be some sort of government at the federal level that handled "big ticket" issues, like military presence, disaster response, foreign relations. The three pillars of government at a federal level would still exist, legislative, judiciary and executive, but two of those, the legislative and executive, would see their responsibilities and powers reduced.

And I'll say this.. in a libertarian form of government, the likeliihood of getting involved in wars would drop significantly. Why? Because unless the US itself was threatened with imminent attack, states wouldn't be so keen to free up money to pursue those wars. The lobbying industry would fall apart. US politics would cease to be shaped by special interests that drive the policies of the entire US. Libertarianism puts the control of the government back in the hands of the people.. AND it makes the people accountable for the type of government they choose.

[Select]

Answer: private investment from people who see opportunity in an underutilized resource, and then shaping the government of that state to continu the growth in the constituencies vision.

The lobbying industry would fall apart. US politics would cease to be shaped by special interests that drive the policies of the entire US.

I feel like this would yield similar if not worse results. "Oh, you can move to another state if you dislike what comes of it." I see multiple states being influenced by the same thing. I see the rich and the powerful and the "popular" really influencing things and shaping the government. (As if that doesn't happen already) I don't think that should happen in any state, even if we could "just move away." It's bad enough in little town governments in NJ right now.

Shouldn't each state be responsible for all their disaster relief? New Orleans would be Louisiana's problem since it was their city. Why should other states have to pay for it? The philosophy could carry over to disaster. I dislike it.

[Ddrak]

It crippled the shady people. What emerged from the crisis was safer food.

You just proved Dd's point. With enough time, the market is self-correcting.

The point that government regulation is ok ie fine because With enough time, the market is self-correcting? Sure I'll be glad to prove that point.

Actually, the thing that solved the problem was the simple requirement that the contract presented by the meat packers (ie the label on the sausages) should not be fraudulent. That's clearly a function of the rules that a society must be bound by and therefore the government. Beyond that, the market is self-correcting.

If you're attempting to say a libertarian would make fraud legal then you're simply posting crap.

Embar and Dd are you both Libertarian? Since you're arguing for it, I'm going to assume you are. If not, what are your reasons against it?

Small-'l', and not 100%. Personally I believe that the government should tend towards a libertarian ideal but there are good cases where it's not useful - especially given that many long term positives in the libertarian system are specifically made at the expense of short term negatives. I don't believe that the end ever justifies the means, the means must also be justified in its own right.

The fallacy of libertarianism is the same as socialism. It's an ideal and not something really attainable. In the end you have to compromise and just muddle your way through.

Dd

[Harlowe]

Small-'l', and not 100%. Personally I believe that the government should tend towards a libertarian ideal but there are good cases where it's not useful - especially given that many long term positives in the libertarian system are specifically made at the expense of short term negatives. I don't believe that the end ever justifies the means, the means must also be justified in its own right.

The fallacy of libertarianism is the same as socialism. It's an ideal and not something really attainable. In the end you have to compromise and just muddle your way through.

Dd

I think that's very well said. This is exactly why I always find moderates in either party to be the more desirable candidate. It brings the Republican more to the center with regard to Social freedoms and the Democrat more to the center with fiscal responsibility. I think it takes having different parties in control of the Executive Branch and Congress though in order to provide the motivation for that compromise as well. I think that's why Clinton did so well. He was centrist to begin with and had to work with a Republican majority congress. I've been too focused on the election the past year and half to really pay attention to Congress, but I really don't know if anything productive has come out of the Dems being in the majority there. Though Bush is hardly what you'd call a centrist.

[Klast Brell]

I see it as 2 sides of the same coin. Anarcho-capitalism Vs Anarcho-communism. As Tax said. Both work as long as everyone is inherently good.

[Taxious]

I must admit that it all sounds alluring Embar. Backing on what Dd said, it does seem somewhat unreachable though. What is the biggest change(s) you could hope to see within your lifetime towards libertarianism in this country? Having a libertarian candidate be taken seriously in an election?