Legalize Drugs?

[Embar Angylwrath]

For me, its not so much about a candidate's political party, it's more about what they want to acheive. If there was a Democrat that said "I beleive in reducing the powers of the federal government, and returning most powers to the states" I'd vote for him.

Sadly though, that won't happen as long as people see public office as a "career". Senators and Congressmen/Congresswomen get into office and then staying in office becomes their goal. They don't really go there to serve. They go there because they like power. As long as the entrenched political establishment remains, there won't be a return of powers to the states, and in fact you'll see more liberties and freedoms taken from you by both parties. As has been pointed out so many times on this board, both parties are fiscally irresponsible, and you (and every other citizen) will have to pay for that. Many Republicans championed the Patriot Act, which has to be one of the largest forfeitures of individual rights in my lifetime. Both right now are pretty much the same. They want to take from you, limit your freedoms, and control as much as they can.

This won't change unless people get elected to office for the sole purpose of changing the status quo. Or unless there's a successful seccession by a state.

[Harlowe]

Many Republicans championed the Patriot Act, which has to be one of the largest forfeitures of individual rights in my lifetime. Both right now are pretty much the same. They want to take from you, limit your freedoms, and control as much as they can.

This won't change unless people get elected to office for the sole purpose of changing the status quo. Or unless there's a successful seccession by a state.

The Patriot Act, the Defense of Marriage Act, War on Drugs, War on Terror - these are all things that have been used to take away our personal freedoms, inch by inch. I think you make good points, but right now, at least from the presidential candidate -the Democrats are doing less to take away my personal freedoms, which are by far, the MOST important thing to me.

If there was a Democrat that said "I beleive in reducing the powers of the federal government, and returning most powers to the states" I'd vote for him.

Well, I'd personally love to see that.

[Partha]

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.

Democrats control the House, but not the Senate, except in the chairmanships. 49 Dems in the House, Sanders, and a Lieberman who has clearly gone over to the GOP.

[Partha]

This won't change unless people get elected to office for the sole purpose of changing the status quo. Or unless there's a successful seccession by a state.

Why are so many Glibertarians pro-Confederate positions? Lincoln ring a bell?

[Embar Angylwrath]

This won't change unless people get elected to office for the sole purpose of changing the status quo. Or unless there's a successful seccession by a state.

Why are so many Glibertarians pro-Confederate positions? Lincoln ring a bell?

The state of the union in the mid 1800s is much different than today. And are you really painting this as as a snarky "Glibertarian" "pro-Confederate" stance?

[Minute]

The core of a libertarian philosophy isn't that people are good, it's that people should be free to do whatever the hell they want as long as they don't interfere with someone else against their wishes. It makes no assumption about "good" or "bad" but attempts to restrict the bad person to only damaging themselves.

In a purely libertarian belief, affirmative action would be unnecessary because a company restricting employment based on skin color would necessarily not be hiring as qualified people as one that didn't, so it should (over time) perform less well and fail compared to a company with more results based employment policies.

In relation to drugs, legalize everything. If people destroy themselves with crack addictions then you let them, acting only to prevent them hurting others in the process.

In relation to the economy, you let everything fail. No bailouts. Home owners will suffer, but next time they'll do more research into what they can and can't afford, and which company to get their loan with which is likely to last 30 years given their business practices. Companies with bad practice just fail.

Foreign policy - you don't get involved.

etc.

As a *result* of these beliefs, the government is trimmed because it provides nothing more than the infrastructure to prevent one person interfering with another.

Dd

Libertarian way is good on paper, and perhaps if we had a massive increase in the overall general education level in the country it might actually work in practice, but the reality is that people on the whole are simply too stupid to not need the shoulders of smart/able. To me it comes down to that simple mindset. That is why you see more and more intelligent educated people like Embar and Dd migrating towards the philosophy. Because they are educated enough not to need a shoulder or crutch of any sort. You will be very hard pressed to find a young black boy raised in the ghetto by a coked out single mother on welfare and trick money that shares a Libertarian view. Is it possible for a kid in such a situation to rise up out of the gutter and become a prominent, educated, self-sufficient business man without turning to drugs? Sure, but what are the realistic chances? I think it comes down to noblesse oblige, but that may be my seemingly instinctual altruistic nature.

P.S. Sorry if I derail with this, I don't have time to read all 4 pages right now

[Fobbon Lazyfoot]

Most people are too stupid to make a lot of decisions on their own. It's just like managing a child - you restrict their personal freedom so they don't get hit by a truck or stick a fork in a light socket because they're too stupid to know any better.

If everyone was capable of making rational decisions about drugs, then they should be legalized. We have no right to tell people what they can or cannot do with their bodies. But the reality is that most people do NOT know what is best for them and can NOT handle the responsibility of consuming mind-altering substances of any kind. Philisophically speaking, I would say legalize everything, because people deserve to decide for themselves. Practically speaking, I say ban all of it, including alcohol. Beer is great and everything, I like getting sloshed from time to time, but if I could give it up to save a single drunk driving victim, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

[Harlowe]

It doesn't matter whether you think people are stupid or not smart enough to make their own choices. It's their inalienable right to make them for themselves. Do you want all your decisions made for you because there are people that think they know better for you?

There is always someone smarter than you are, so thinking people should give up rights to those that feel they know better is absolutely foolish and frankly not at all what this country was founded upon.

[Partha]

And they claim Liberals are pompous knowitall elitists who try to run your life.

[Ddrak]

And they claim Liberals are pompous knowitall elitists who try to run your life.

They are. Libertarians are pompous knowitall elitists who refuse to run your life, even if you can't run it yourself.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Yep.. we continue in our quest to refuse responsibility for your choices.

[Harlowe]

But apparently we'll take responsibility for businesses that make poor choices.

[Embar Angylwrath]

But apparently we'll take responsibility for businesses that make poor choices.

Awwww.. c'mon. That's not right and you know it.

[Harlowe]

I don't know about that anymore. I think we're fine with bailing out companies that are large enough and create a big enough mess, even though they got there because of their own poor decisions. Though people like Gramm & McCain are the ones that love deregulating shit so they are able to make these shitty choices in the first place. We're like crappy parents that get high with our kids and then bail them out of jail when they get busted.

It's just incredibly depressing to see such a crazy amount of our tax dollars going to fund a war that should have never started and bailing out financial institutions we never should have deregulated so much. It would be nice, for a fucking change, to see my tax dollars doing something more productive within our country than fixing all the shitty choices that are the result of political tunnel vision that rewards greed and incompetence.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I have no issue with anyhting you said. I thought you were saying that people of a libertarian mindset got us into this mess, but I think you're just railing at the current politics as usual.

If we had more of a libertarian type of governmental structure, we would not have had the war in Iraq, and we probably wouldn't have the financial meltdown (banks would have been more diversified).

[Harlowe]

No, but I do blame our fellow libertarians that voted for this administration a second time and continue to support it via McCain, for a third term of horseshit. Bush nor McCain have any interest in smaller government nor empowering states nor lower taxes for the middle class. I'm not saying either side is going to help in the smaller government dept - BUT if you are using that as a litmus test thinking Republicans will be for those things, you're blind. Not only that, but they make foolish choices that taxpayers continually have to bail out the country to fix. Not ALL Republicans, just the ones that seem to have the power. So you have to look at the other things important to you as someone with a libertarian mindset and if you enjoy, or have enjoyed having our personal liberties taken from us "for the better good", if you enjoy constantly bailing out failing policy - then fine, continue to support the policies of people like Bush & McCain. McCain offers nothing different, he's actually even more of a proponent of deregulation, less interested in diplomacy and even more (if you've been listening) war mongering than Bush.

He's someone up until this very week (in his own words) has been promoting doing to Health Care & Social Security the same thing as the Banking Industry - deregulate and bring in competition. Yeah that's going to work reeeally well. Lets fuck up a few more important services in our life.

I thought Andrew Sullivan (he's one of my favorites) and Bill Maher made some really good points here (regarding liberty)...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmCC_jasq0E

[Alannia_Raindancer]

There are 2 people from the Minnesota contingent that take the high road. Nether of them post here any more. But Leewei and Eidolon both have been sober all their lives. Hardest drugs any of them ever did was Mountain Dew.

I've been away for awhile. I'm catching up on the politics, so I can cast an informative vote this year, and Brell Rants is STILL one of my best sources for information. I know Lee and Eido too (guild and in person, but not as well), and Klast, I'm sorry but this HAS to be said!

Mountain Dew is a starter drug!! WIthout all those sleepless nights in my teenage years, I never would have used alcohol as a forced sleep inducer! I'm just lucky it wasn't valium! Those mountain dew hoarkers aren't saints!

mostly kidding, but only sort of. /hugs to klast, lulu, all the other names I recognize, and brell rants as a whole. sucks that my political education this year won't include Lee and Eido.

/going back to lurking. research you know. mice and mazes, and all.

[Klast Brell]

It doesn't matter whether you think people are stupid or not smart enough to make their own choices. It's their inalienable right to make them for themselves. Do you want all your decisions made for you because there are people that think they know better for you?

How does libertarianism deal with me exercising my right to do something you don't like. Like affecting your property values by painting my house on orange and purple stripes. Or running a meth lab in my basement and selling drugs out my front door so addicts are going in and out at all hours of the day and night.
The government keeps people from doing stupid things because they hurt other people, not because they hurt themselves. There is no law against not showering and picking your scabs till you get infections and horrible scars. There is no law against tattooing a swastika your face so you can never get a decent job.
Your right to swing your fist does end where my nose begins. But actions have consequences. Your right to knock over your domino should also end if its going to cause mine to fall 10 dominoes down the line.

[Harlowe]

If it's affecting the other person, then it isn't "just doing something you don't like". Libertarianism is not about anarchy or a free-for-all.

Your right to swing your fist does end where my nose begins. But actions have consequences. Your right to knock over your domino should also end if its going to cause mine to fall 10 dominoes down the line.

The first line covers the rest, it is an action that affects another person. So I'm not sure what you are getting at.

[Embar Angylwrath]

It doesn't matter whether you think people are stupid or not smart enough to make their own choices. It's their inalienable right to make them for themselves. Do you want all your decisions made for you because there are people that think they know better for you?

How does libertarianism deal with me exercising my right to do something you don't like. Like affecting your property values by painting my house on orange and purple stripes. Or running a meth lab in my basement and selling drugs out my front door so addicts are going in and out at all hours of the day and night.
The government keeps people from doing stupid things because they hurt other people, not because they hurt themselves. There is no law against not showering and picking your scabs till you get infections and horrible scars. There is no law against tattooing a swastika your face so you can never get a decent job.
Your right to swing your fist does end where my nose begins. But actions have consequences. Your right to knock over your domino should also end if its going to cause mine to fall 10 dominoes down the line.

I think some of you miss the point about libertarianism. As Harlowe said, its not anarchy. There is still a government, but most of the governing is done at the state level. If the state (or more likely city) had codes that prevented purple stripes on houses, or meth labs, then so be it. If they didn't, and you wanted that type of regulation, move to a state that had that, or work to change the governmental structure iin the state in which you live.