NationStates Jolt Archive

This is just a general question to anyone.

I've been moving steadily Libertarian since before Bush was elected.

I've been moving steadily Libertarian since before Bush was elected.

Same ... bush and other big government "moralistic" right wingers (hardly conservitive) have just hasten the push

This is just a general question to anyone.

I've always been a Libertarian. But now I'm also a Socialist too.....

I used to be quite authoritarian(socially anyway), Bush has changed that, I think he is going to change the american psyche forever. The next generation of voters will be very libertarian, due to what they saw happening during the Bush years.

Same ... bush and other big government "moralistic" right wingers (hardly conservitive) have just hasten the push

Too true. I generally credit Clinton with pushing me towards libertarian politics because of the progress made by his Administration on free trade during the 90's; from there, I kind of just drifted more and more towards a socially liberal/economically free-market viewpoint.

Were I voting in 2000, I probably would have voted for Gore simply because his platform at the time was a continuation of the (relatively) more libertarian policies of Clinton as opposed to the moralistic ones espoused by W and co.

Too true. I generally credit Clinton with pushing me towards libertarian politics because of the progress made by his Administration on free trade during the 90's; from there, I kind of just drifted more and more towards a socially liberal/economically free-market viewpoint.

Were I voting in 2000, I probably would have voted for Gore simply because his platform at the time was a continuation of the (relatively) more libertarian policies of Clinton as opposed to the moralistic ones espoused by W and co.

you have no idea what libertarian is do you? it is not another word for Liberal. If you are a morally permissive liberal than just say that, but a libertarian believes in no government interference or programs except for police and military and to an extent, roads. everything else is up to the private sector and the individual.

simply because you do not like a "moralistic" approach does not make you libertarian. Clinton was not at all popular with Libertarians, neither is Bush but Clinton got them mobilized because wished to expand government programs, and Al Gore even toyed with the idea of National Healthcare.

Libertarians are also dead set against an Income Tax.

Libertarians are a distant cousin to Conservatives and have more in common with a Republican than a Democrat. You want to see a real Libertarian? look at John Stossle or however you spell his name from ABC. You want to see a fake Libertarian? look at Bill Mahr on HBO.

The next generation of voters will be very libertarian, due to what they saw happening during the Bush years.

The next generation of voters will be very Democratic, if anything, as that is the only other viable choice provided by the single member plurality electoral system. In the minds of most voters, being anti-Republican means being Pro-Democrat. Besides, politicians have done all sorts of things as bad as or worse than Bush (nuclear attack on civilian populations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki), concentration camps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_American_internment), Watergate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate), Iran-Contra Affair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Contra_Affair)) including unpopular wars, yet no mass libertarian alignment.

In the future, I would expect more of the same. Seems to be what the voting population tends to favor.

Libertarian for at least a decade.

I became a left-wing anarchist after Bush was "re"-elected (there was a good deal of intervening time, though.)

To me, that makes me more libertarian. I don't know whether you would classify it the same way.

you have no idea what libertarian is do you? it is not another word for Liberal. If you are a morally permissive liberal than just say that, but a libertarian believes in no government interference or programs except for police and military and to an extent, roads. everything else is up to the private sector and the individual.

simply because you do not like a "moralistic" approach does not make you libertarian. Clinton was not at all popular with Libertarians, neither is Bush but Clinton got them mobilized because wished to expand government programs, and Al Gore even toyed with the idea of National Healthcare.

Libertarians are also dead set against an Income Tax.

Libertarians are a distant cousin to Conservatives and have more in common with a Republican than a Democrat. You want to see a real Libertarian? look at John Stossle or however you spell his name from ABC. You want to see a fake Libertarian? look at Bill Mahr on HBO.


Were I voting in 2000, I probably would have voted for Gore simply because his platform at the time was a continuation of the (relatively) more libertarian policies of Clinton as opposed to the moralistic ones espoused by W and co.


Go back and read Vetalia's post a few more times, paying special attention to the "(relatively)." That "(relatively)" bit is important. It clearly indicates that Vetalia didn't intend to equate "libertarian" with "Liberal" absolutely. It seems to me, anyway.

I became a left-wing anarchist after Bush was "re"-elected (there was a good deal of intervening time, though.)

To me, that makes me more libertarian. I don't know whether you would classify it the same way.

if your economic policies are as hands-off and libertine as your social policies, than you are a libertarian. this means no welfare unless provided by private companies or charities and absolutely no free health care unless provided by corporations or charities.

this also means no illegal immigration...libertarians are very free minded but also believe in well funded law and order to protect their free living society.

Go back and read Vetalia's post a few more times, paying special attention to the "(relatively)." That "(relatively)" bit is important. It clearly indicates that Vetalia didn't intend to equate "libertarian" with "Liberal" absolutely. It seems to me, anyway.

what i am trying to say is there is no "relatively" when it comes to libertarian. i suppose some policies could seem "libertine" in nature, but a libertarian includes the whole package. that means you gotta eat the dark chocolate with the milk chocolate.

this also means no illegal immigration...libertarians are very free minded but also believe in well funded law and order to protect their free living society.


What does artificially constraining the size and participants in the market, my force no less, have to do with maintaining law and order?

you have no idea what libertarian is do you? it is not another word for Liberal. If you are a morally permissive liberal than just say that, but a libertarian believes in no government interference or programs except for police and military and to an extent, roads. everything else is up to the private sector and the individual.

simply because you do not like a "moralistic" approach does not make you libertarian. Clinton was not at all popular with Libertarians, neither is Bush but Clinton got them mobilized because wished to expand government programs, and Al Gore even toyed with the idea of National Healthcare.

Libertarians are also dead set against an Income Tax.

Libertarians are a distant cousin to Conservatives and have more in common with a Republican than a Democrat. You want to see a real Libertarian? look at John Stossle or however you spell his name from ABC. You want to see a fake Libertarian? look at Bill Mahr on HBO.
First, if there's one thing I've learned in my time here, it's that Vetalia says exactly what he means, and if it sounds stupid you've probably failed to understand it. I've seen the guy post, and he's certainly got a libertarian slant.

Second, who are you to judge real and fake libertarianism?

you have no idea what libertarian is do you? it is not another word for Liberal. If you are a morally permissive liberal than just say that, but a libertarian believes in no government interference or programs except for police and military and to an extent, roads. everything else is up to the private sector and the individual.

There is no set ideology for libertarianism; the liberal tradition encompasses a lot more variants on the concept than just one form. I mean, there are major differences between a monetarist economic policy and an Austrian one, even though they both fall under the liberal economic umbrella.

I believe in minimizing government interference, but I also believe some realities have to be acknowledged in order to make those policies work. Our economic structure is nowhere near ready for a transition to a minarchist form of government; we've built the system on hundreds of years of government intervention and we can't just transition overnight. Our current economic system is so deeply rooted that any crash liberalization will result in failure and backlash against these policies.

simply because you do not like a "moralistic" approach does not make you libertarian. Clinton was not at all popular with Libertarians, neither is Bush but Clinton got them mobilized because wished to expand government programs, and Al Gore even toyed with the idea of National Healthcare.

They were a step in the right direction; we have to remember, again, that we can't just move gung-ho towards a Libertarian system without undoing the previous situation. I consider the moves by Clinton and Gore towards freer markets, more social liberty and trade liberalization to be a huge improvement over the prior situation.

Libertarians are also dead set against an Income Tax.

I have no problem with that. I support gradual transition from an income tax to a national sales tax or similar system, provided that the guarantees made to current recipients of Medicare/SS are fulfilled; in other words, we phase out these programs gradually and replace them with the new system.

Libertarians are a distant cousin to Conservatives and have more in common with a Republican than a Democrat. You want to see a real Libertarian? look at John Stossle or however you spell his name from ABC. You want to see a fake Libertarian? look at Bill Mahr on HBO.

Libertarians have very little in common with either Democrats or Republicans; both of them consist primarily of populists willing to sacrifice economic efficiency for political gain.

From 2004 to the present I went from paleoconservative to quasi-fascist to libertarian to anarcho-capitalist and back to libertarian again. Quite a rollercoaster. :D

You want to see a fake Libertarian? look at Bill Mahr on HBO.

Amen. I'm sick of that pus puddle calling himself a "libertarian."

Second, who are you to judge real and fake libertarianism?


"For whoever keeps the whole law, and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all."
James 2:10 ( http://bible.cc/james/2-10.htm )

The diety is secularized, but the basic nature of the religion is exactly the same. Any deviation, non-conformity, or independent thought is the work of the <insert whatever bogeyman here>.

if your economic policies are as hands-off and libertine as your social policies, than you are a libertarian.

There is no such thing as "hands off" economic policies, except perhaps in radical versions of anarcho-communism and anarcho-primitivism.

Right-libertarian "hands-off" economic policies mean "keep the mob from disturbing the rule of capital"; the enforcement of that rule (not "hands off") is, of course, just "protecting individual rights" and thus justified.

(The genuinely radical free-marketists are sometimes an exception to this.)

this means no welfare unless provided by private companies

There is no such thing as a "private company."

There are companies operated directly by the state, and companies merely operating in the framework enforced by the state, but there is no company that is independent of the state.

or charities and absolutely no free health care unless provided by corporations or charities.

Let's make people dependent on the generosity of others! How "libertarian"!

And if the crumbs tossed aren't sufficient, well, clearly, those left behind just need to work harder to please the rulers; then their faithful servitude will be paid with a few more crumbs, and all will be perfect!

this also means no illegal immigration...libertarians are very free minded but also believe in well funded law and order to protect their free living society.

"Law and order to protect their free living society" and stopping people from trying to find work are two different things.

One could be perhaps construed as libertarian, but the other is absolutely not.

There is no obligation to obey (or to participate in enforcing) an unjust law.

First, if there's one thing I've learned in my time here, it's that Vetalia says exactly what he means, and if it sounds stupid you've probably failed to understand it. I've seen the guy post, and he's certainly got a libertarian slant.

Second, who are you to judge real and fake libertarianism?

I am an Ex-Libertarian is who I am. I know their platform pretty well but after losing a friend to a drug overdose and seeing him stuggle to get the right treatment because he lacked health insurance as well as other occurrences i decided Libertarianism was not quite my thing and switched over to Traditional Conservatism.

IV.1 Immigration

The Issue: Our borders are currently neither open, closed, nor secure. This situation restricts the labor pool, encouraging employers to hire undocumented workers, while leaving those workers neither subject to nor protected by the law. A completely open border allows foreign criminals, carriers of communicable diseases, terrorists and other potential threats to enter the country unchecked. Pandering politicians guarantee access to public services for undocumented aliens, to the detriment of those who would enter to work productively, and increasing the burden on taxpayers.

The Principle: The legitimate function and obligation of government to protect the lives, rights and property of its citizens, requires awareness of and control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demands that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders.

Solutions: Borders will be secure, with free entry to those who have demonstrated compliance with certain requirements. The terms and conditions of entry into the United States must be simple and clearly spelled out. Documenting the entry of individuals must be restricted to screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. It is the obligation of the prospective immigrant to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. Once effective immigration policies are in place, general amnesties will no longer be necessary.

Transitional Action: Ensure immigration requirements include only appropriate documentation, screening for criminal background and threats to public health and national security. Simplifying the immigration process and redeployment of surveillance technology to focus on the borders will encourage the use of regular and monitored entry points, thus preventing trespass and saving lives. End federal requirements that benefits and services be provided to those in the country illegally. Repeal all measures that punish employers for hiring undocumented workers. Repeal all immigration quotas.

http://www.lp.org/


read their platform, learn about them. Their ideology is very consistent and reasonable when considered with the other alternative parties out there.

And Vetalia I did not mean to be short with you, I am sorry.

There are companies operated directly by the state, and companies merely operating in the framework enforced by the state, but there is no company that is independent of the state.

I'm sorry, but that's so absurd it's not even worth commenting on.

Let's make people dependent on the generosity of others! How "libertarian"!

As opposed to using brute force to coerce people into helping others?

And Vetalia I did not mean to be short with you, I am sorry.

Kein Problem. Trust me, I've misjudged peoples' political affiliations many, many times since I joined here...I still do it more than you'd expect from someone who's been posting since 2005.

There is no such thing as "hands off" economic policies, except perhaps in radical versions of anarcho-communism and anarcho-primitivism.

Right-libertarian "hands-off" economic policies mean "keep the mob from disturbing the rule of capital"; the enforcement of that rule (not "hands off") is, of course, just "protecting individual rights" and thus justified.

(The genuinely radical free-marketists are sometimes an exception to this.)



There is no such thing as a "private company."

There are companies operated directly by the state, and companies merely operating in the framework enforced by the state, but there is no company that is independent of the state.



Let's make people dependent on the generosity of others! How "libertarian"!

And if the crumbs tossed aren't sufficient, well, clearly, those left behind just need to work harder to please the rulers; then their faithful servitude will be paid with a few more crumbs, and all will be perfect!



"Law and order to protect their free living society" and stopping people from trying to find work are two different things.

One could be perhaps construed as libertarian, but the other is absolutely not.

There is no obligation to obey (or to participate in enforcing) an unjust law.


Soheran, it is real late where i am right now, so perhaps i am reading you wrong, but are you trying to debate with me the merits of Libertarianism? Because I am not a Libertarian. You're gonna have to find a Libertarian to explain why crumbs tossed will have to suffice.

i gotta get to bed. night.

I'm sorry, but that's so absurd it's not even worth commenting on.

Surely you can do better than that?

All property (distinguished from possession) has its origins in coercive power.

Not only that, but state intervention in the interests of the elite has been a major element of capitalism from the start; pretensions that the current distribution of private property has nothing to do with the state are absurd, and there is no good reason to suppose that this would not be the case in a right-wing, supposedly libertarian society.

As opposed to using brute force to coerce people into helping others?

Morally, I have no objection under the right circumstances; practically, it is not necessary (and thus wrong, as an unjustified limitation upon liberty). But redistribution of private property does not amount to coercion of the individual.

I have moved from libertarian to anarcho-capitalist Bush has made me question the idea of government entirely.

No and No. The only think I like about the liberts is their view on drugs. Other then that.....

Libertarians have very little in common with either Democrats or Republicans; both of them consist primarily of populists willing to sacrifice economic efficiency for political gain.

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats strike me as "populists."

Hugo Chávez and Evo Morales are populists; George Bush and John Kerry are over-privileged rich white men who stay away from both populist rhetoric and populist action.

No and No. The only think I like about the liberts is their view on drugs. Other then that.....

Yes, damn them for wanting people to have the freedom to live the lifestyle of their choice.

*snip*

I'll leave this for someone far better at debating than I.

Yes, damn them for wanting people to have the freedom to live the lifestyle of their choice.

It really pisses you off that nobody will buy your message, doesn't it. :D

It's only a matter of time until I start voting for candidates guaranteed to lose, because I cannot stand the R's or the D's.

But redistribution of private property does not amount to coercion of the individual.

If you are forcibly taking property from an individual and giving it to others, how is that not coercion?

It's only a matter of time until I start voting for candidates guaranteed to lose, because I cannot stand the R's or the D's.

For the right kind of money, any loser can make it into office! ;)

If you are forcibly taking property from an individual and giving it to others, how is that not coercion?

Because a person is not her property; there is no necessary connection between the two.

Doing something someone else doesn't want you to do is not coercive.

It's only a matter of time until I start voting for candidates guaranteed to lose, because I cannot stand the R's or the D's.

Join the rest of us... no doubt we'll be voting for different candidates guaranteed to lose, though.

co‧erce  /koʊˈɜrs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[koh-urs] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -erced, -erc‧ing.

1. to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, esp. without regard for individual desire or volition: They coerced him into signing the document.

2. to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.

3. to dominate or control, esp. by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.: The state is based on successfully coercing the individual.

Dictionary.Com is your friend.:D I would have to say that definition one covers it pretty well. An individual forced by dint of force or authority to give up their property, is by definition, being coerced into doing so.

Because a person is not her property; there is no necessary connection between the two.

Doing something someone else doesn't want you to do is not coercive.

Of course, from my point of view, a persons property is little more than just an extension of themselves. They have mixed their labor with stuff, they have mixed their life and their liberty with that stuff, and that stuff retains the value of their life and their labor. That makes it their property. It is, in a philosophical sense, a part of an individual.

Dictionary.Com is your friend.:D I would have to say that definition one covers it pretty well. An individual forced by dint of force or authority to give up their property, is by definition, being coerced into doing so.

I suppose you might consider the act of transfer itself to be coercive - that is to say, making the person go to the effort of filling out the tax forms. That is indeed something they are compelled by force to do.

But taking property from someone is not "coercive", though it is immoral in some circumstances - they are not "compelled by force" to do anything. Something merely happens that they do not like.

Of course, from my point of view, a persons property is little more than just an extension of themselves. They have mixed their labor with stuff, they have mixed their life and their liberty with that stuff, and that stuff retains the value of their life and their labor. That makes it their property. It is, in a philosophical sense, a part of an individual.

I've already responded to your argument here several times, and each time, IIRC, you've declined to argue it out, so I won't do it this time.

Eventually, my hands begin to hurt.

I've already responded to your argument here several times, and each time, IIRC, you've declined to argue it out, so I won't do it this time.

Eventually, my hands begin to hurt.

Nah, we've argued it out, and wound up at the same normative sticking point. That one spot where all economic and political decisions hinge on a single moral decision, whose judgement on the matter varies from individual to individual. It's a discussion industrial societies have been having for well over a century. If we were to magically resolve this single dispute on NS General, we'd probably make the greatest contribution to political thought since Hobbes gave birth to liberalism.

Nah, we've argued it out, and wound up at the same normative sticking point. That one spot where all economic and political decisions hinge on a single moral decision, whose judgement on the matter varies from individual to individual.

I actually don't think that's what it is at all. Sometimes, the disagreements are fundamental and irreconciliable, but sometimes they are just different conclusions reached from analogous premises, and the differences can be resolved through reasonable discussion.

Most of the time, I think people who advocate inalienable or nearly-inalienable property rights fall into the second category.

It is my opinion that the individual should control his own destiny.

For a time, I considered Communism: even in its most ideal form, it gave the individual the freedom to do what he wished (if everything was provided for him, he could persue his own interests) Ultil I slowly came to the realization that it equated to extortion: the individual was only free so long as the state desired it to be so. when a dog is fed by his master, he becomes dependant on the master and subject to his whims. the dog may occupy his time as he pleases, but that does not make him free.


I do not consider myself a pure libertarian: I do believe that the government exists to help those who cannot help themselves.

"Libertarian", to me, does not mean that private companies control everything instead of the government. If I could, I would eliminate monopolies and other side effects of unrestricted capitalism as well, because whether by the state or by the store: when the individual is at the mercy on one unopposed force for his well-being, he is not free.

I favor a government that provides an economic safety net, a shield from foriegn force, and leaves all else to the people.

"You have the right to do what you want with your body and your property, and the government is here to make sure it stays that way"

well, looks like I missed another great inter-discussion :( . I'll just go back to the OP.


- Are you really implying that we voted for third parties just as some sort of rebellious little temper tantrum? That we really should have just voted for an either-or in a game where both faces come from the same body? I am not intimidated by pointless little propoganda peices like "A vote for a third party is a vote for the Republicans". Bush himself has said things with more intellectual depth than that. I will vote for whichever candidate and whichever party I choose no matter what society says, and how many social taboos are created from it. You can keep investing your votes in the two-party system if you like. Tell yourself that things will change. Hell, tell yourself that things have changed even when they haven't. Play your little game all you want, but dont try to obligate us into it. We have better ways to waste our time and hurt ourselves while doing it.

If that wasnt what you were implying, then good day sir ;)

I am an Ex-Libertarian is who I am. I know their platform pretty well.../snipThe problem here is that you are confusing the Libertarian Party of the US with libertarianism as an ideology. There are plenty of libertarian ideologies, only one of which did the Libertarian Party choose for its own. It's entirely possible to be a libertarian but not agree with the Libertarian Party.

t's odd, but I'm kinda at both ends of the political spectrum thanks to Bush being elected.

I've gotten to the point where I either want the government to be very Authoritarian or I want the Government as far out of our lives as it is safe to do so.

Basically I no longer believe that a government should fall between these norms.

I think the more important question is (or should be),

"Who here, who claims today to be a Libertarian, will go right ahead and vote Republican anyway on Nov. 7th?"

I've always been a Libertarian. But now I'm also a Socialist too.....

So you're a walking contradiction?

yeah i have been a registered Libertarian for about 9 years now :D
and i vote Libertarian about 3/4 of the time if there is a Libertarian candidate running.

this also means no illegal immigration...libertarians are very free minded but also believe in well funded law and order to protect their free living society.

*scratches head* I dunno, the vast majority of libertarians I know(as well as most libertarian bloggers, think-tanks, and publications) are pretty staunchly pro-immigration. Freedom of movement is an essential liberty and it is hard to raise any serious objection to illegal immigration from a free-market perspective. Immigration in the US doesn' threaten a free society, it just makes for a more competitive unskilled labor market,

I am an Ex-Libertarian is who I am. I know their platform pretty well but after losing a friend to a drug overdose and seeing him stuggle to get the right treatment because he lacked health insurance as well as other occurrences i decided Libertarianism was not quite my thing and switched over to Traditional Conservatism.

Boo fucking hoo. No, seriously, I'm sick to death of hearing rationalizations like that for paternalist intervention. Just because your friend made bad choices does not mean that my choices should be restricted. Try being honest, you decided that you didn't like the idea libertarianism because it was hard.

More to the point, you really don't have much room to call anyone a "fake" anything when your own arguments lack internal consistancy. Your friend died of a drug overdose complicated by a lack of health insurance, so you moved to traditional conservatism. Which makes sense, I guess, if you feel it would have been better for your friend to be thrown in prison and still be without health insurance after his overdose.

read their platform, learn about them. Their ideology is very consistent and reasonable when considered with the other alternative parties out there.

Not every libertarian is big "L." Hell, most libertarians have no interest in the party. It is a philosophy, a general way of looking at the world and assessing the relative value of different government interventions. Reading the LP platform isn't going to give you much of an understanding of what being a libertarian is. That comes from sitting down and reading Locke, Nozick, Hayek, Freidman, Smith, etc then sitting down and thinking through it all. Being a libertarian is about working through various philosophies and deciding which ones you agree with, it is about choosing the way in which you look at the world. It isn't about finding a new party line to bend over.

In the years I've been voting as a libertarian I've voted for LP candidates maybe a dozen times, generally as a protest vote in a race which wasn't going to be close. Most of the time I end up voting for major party candidates who I think will do less damage. I voted for Bush in '00 because I honestly thought he'd be better, after four years of kicking myself I voted for Kerry. In November I'm going to vote straight ticket Democrat in the hopes of getting gridlock in Washington.

i'm a "traditional" lefty (supporting communism and anarcho-socialism)
so in the american sense of the word: no i'm not a libertanian.

Boo fucking hoo. No, seriously, I'm sick to death of hearing rationalizations like that for paternalist intervention. Just because your friend made bad choices does not mean that my choices should be restricted. Try being honest, you decided that you didn't like the idea libertarianism because it was hard.

No, I did not like the idea of Libertarianism because it ignores the weak or those in need. I love the idea of freedom and liberty but I do see a place for government. An addiction is a disease and with no government interference at all through drug crackdowns, education programs, rehabilitation centers (as well as forced rehabilitation) or clinics many people will die. If you want to go and shoot up in your basement then you can go ahead and do that. Fact is right now it is against the law and it always should be against the law because drugs degrade and destroy society and this is what government is supposed to do, protect society. Liberty is freedom with responsibility, emphasis on responsiblility.

More to the point, you really don't have much room to call anyone a "fake" anything when your own arguments lack internal consistancy. Your friend died of a drug overdose complicated by a lack of health insurance, so you moved to traditional conservatism. Which makes sense, I guess, if you feel it would have been better for your friend to be thrown in prison and still be without health insurance after his overdose.

Traditional Conservatism is small government, low taxes and a crackdown on Drugs which are a detriment to society. Traditional Conservatism also contains a moralistic element to it which supports the right for the individual to receive respectable health care that is NOT controlled by the government nor an HMO and where health providers, including HMOs are not shielded from lawsuits for providing negligent care. Traditional Conservatism is actually more broad than Libertarianism.


Not every libertarian is big "L." Hell, most libertarians have no interest in the party. It is a philosophy, a general way of looking at the world and assessing the relative value of different government interventions. Reading the LP platform isn't going to give you much of an understanding of what being a libertarian is. That comes from sitting down and reading Locke, Nozick, Hayek, Freidman, Smith, etc then sitting down and thinking through it all. Being a libertarian is about working through various philosophies and deciding which ones you agree with, it is about choosing the way in which you look at the world. It isn't about finding a new party line to bend over.

Now you're just arguing semantics. John Locke never used the term Libertarian in his writings. The main similarity that Locke's writings had with Libertarianism was that he was against monarchy in the same fashion that Libertarianism is the opposite of Authoritarianism. But Libertarianism, though it has some wiggle room, is in fact a defined political ideology. The problem is that people like you and Bill Mahr like to call themselves Libertarians or say they believe in the Libertarian philosophy when in reality they couldn't care less. A Libertarian is essentially a combination of an "old Liberal" and the "old Right" before the left wing economics and the moral conservatism redefined liberalism and the right, respectively. You may like some of the elements of libertarianism, but that does not make you a libertarian any more than Clinton supporting Free Trade makes him a neocon.

Robert Heinlein popularized the word in one of his books (2100 i believe was the name) and Libertarianism became a specific belief system when the party was created in the early 1970s.

And most Libertarians do have an interest in the party, they just worry about wasting their votes.

In the years I've been voting as a libertarian I've voted for LP candidates maybe a dozen times, generally as a protest vote in a race which wasn't going to be close. Most of the time I end up voting for major party candidates who I think will do less damage. I voted for Bush in '00 because I honestly thought he'd be better, after four years of kicking myself I voted for Kerry. In November I'm going to vote straight ticket Democrat in the hopes of getting gridlock in Washington.

There is no big "L" or little "l". What you sound like is a disenfranchised voter who feels alienated by the 2 party party political system. The thing is, it is the Republicans and Democrats who don't have a specific belief system, the Libertarians actually do. It is not just some broad belief system. Yes, certain people may be more "libertine" when it comes to economics or more "libertine" when it comes to social issues but that does not make them a "libertarian".

and don't you ever "boo f****** hoo" someone when a person close to them dies. Have some respect and common decency.

*scratches head* I dunno, the vast majority of libertarians I know(as well as most libertarian bloggers, think-tanks, and publications) are pretty staunchly pro-immigration. Freedom of movement is an essential liberty and it is hard to raise any serious objection to illegal immigration from a free-market perspective. Immigration in the US doesn' threaten a free society, it just makes for a more competitive unskilled labor market,

I said no illegal-immigration. Immigration and Illegal Immigration are very different. Libertarians support securing the borders but not sealing the borders. They value controlled legal immigration but not unmonitored open borders. They want background checks and medical history exams to protect the people from possible criminals or diseases.

Most people of all ideologies, save the Xenophobes, support legal immigration because it has historically proven beneficial to society and the economy. Uncontrolled and open borders on the other hand is seen as irresponsible by many.

I posted the Libertarian's beliefs on this issue in this thread. They are quite clear and have a balanced approach.

t's odd, but I'm kinda at both ends of the political spectrum thanks to Bush being elected.

I've gotten to the point where I either want the government to be very Authoritarian or I want the Government as far out of our lives as it is safe to do so.

Basically I no longer believe that a government should fall between these norms.


that is because Bush himself is a paradox. I approve of his sweeping tax cuts yet am shocked by his refusal to veto a single spending bill.

you are not alone in your confusion but I think it is Bush who is at both ends of the political spectrum and not you.

that is because Bush himself is a paradox. I approve of his sweeping tax cuts yet am shocked by his refusal to veto a single spending bill.

you are not alone in your confusion but I think it is Bush who is at both ends of the political spectrum and not you.

Trust me on this one. I know what party(ies) I support.

The problem here is that you are confusing the Libertarian Party of the US with libertarianism as an ideology. There are plenty of libertarian ideologies, only one of which did the Libertarian Party choose for its own. It's entirely possible to be a libertarian but not agree with the Libertarian Party.


I'll agree it is possible to be a Libertarian but not agree enitrely with the Libertarian party. But one of the charms of the Libertarian party, as well as many alternative parties is it tries to resist the whole "big tent" attribute of the 2 major parties and stick true to its core ideals.

There is certainly flexibility, I agree, but when people start calling themselves "Libertarians" but only support, say, a Libertarian approach to social issues but have no problem with government intervention and regulation of the private sector, I have to object. That is a core element of Libertarianism that is being ignored and is a contradiction.

I've seen what Bush has done with Conservatism, he has in certain ways turned it upside down on its head. Confusing people on what a particular philosophy is is not healthy for the philosophy or the people.

or maybe people are just misusing the word Libertarian when they really mean to use the word "libertine". Such as, I have more "libertine views on governments role in social issues."

I'll agree it is possible to be a Libertarian but not agree enitrely with the Libertarian party. But one of the charms of the Libertarian party, as well as many alternative parties is it tries to resist the whole "big tent" attribute of the 2 major parties and stick true to its core ideals.Yes, many right-libertarians agree with the Libertarian Party, but not usually entirely.

There is certainly flexibility, I agree, but when people start calling themselves "Libertarians" but only support, say, a Libertarian approach to social issues but have no problem with government intervention and regulation of the private sector, I have to object. That is a core element of Libertarianism that is being ignored and is a contradiction.It may be a core element of capital 'L' Libertarianism, but is not a core element of lowercase 'l' libertarianism.

Yes, many right-libertarians agree with the Libertarian Party, but not usually entirely.

It may be a core element of capital 'L' Libertarianism, but is not a core element of lowercase 'l' libertarianism.

thisis where my confusion is...so is "L" libertarianism, the actual libertarianism including all or most of its core beliefs on government both economic and socially while the little "l" is more or less choosing the parts you like?

thisis where my confusion is...so is "L" libertarianism, the actual libertarianism including all or most of its core beliefs on government both economic and socially while the little "l" is more or less choosing the parts you like?Well, some people have tried to redefine the word to mean exclusively the way that you mean it, however libertarianism itself refers only to social issues. With that said, social libertarians don't usually refer to themselves as libertarians, so there is some additional aspect there. This additional aspect is typically government staying out of the private sector, but isn't always defined that way; it's entirely possible to be a socialist libertarian.

Well, some people have tried to redefine the word to mean exclusively the way that you mean it, however libertarianism itself refers only to social issues. With that said, social libertarians don't usually refer to themselves as libertarians, so there is some additional aspect there. This additional aspect is typically government staying out of the private sector, but isn't always defined that way; it's entirely possible to be a socialist libertarian.


yes but the term Socialist Libertarian is such a contradiction to me. It is basically a cover word for Liberal, in my opinion. some people just feel uncomfortable with identifying themselves as liberals, as well as some conservatives, because of the stigma opponents have attached to the label.

just for fun, take this test:

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

the "Libertarian Purity Test". The questions are obviously slanted so read them carefully. It's all in good fun.

yes but the term Socialist Libertarian is such a contradiction to me. It is basically a cover word for Liberal, in my opinion. some people just feel uncomfortable with identifying themselves as liberals, as well as some conservatives, because of the stigma opponents have attached to the label.Lots of people believe it's a contradiction, because of the belief that the government should stay out of the private sector. Socialist libertarians believe that private property rights shouldn't be created by governments in the first place. This usually occurs by not having a government at all.

No, I did not like the idea of Libertarianism because it ignores the weak or those in need. I love the idea of freedom and liberty but I do see a place for government. An addiction is a disease and with no government interference at all through drug crackdowns, education programs, rehabilitation centers (as well as forced rehabilitation) or clinics many people will die. If you want to go and shoot up in your basement then you can go ahead and do that. Fact is right now it is against the law and it always should be against the law because drugs degrade and destroy society and this is what government is supposed to do, protect society. Liberty is freedom with responsibility, emphasis on responsiblility.

No, personal failure degrades society. We have had drug prohibition in this country for close to a century, and drug use hasn't declined. All we have is a marginalized group of addicts who have become prey for black market dealers and local police departments looking to make quota. Drug prohibition doesn't save lives, it just wastes time and money.

I agree that addiction is a disease, but it is the only disease in this country that we tend to treat with incarceration. Still, I've known addicts, lost friends, and had troubles with drugs myself, and after all of that I've come to the conclusion that the only one responsible for my behavior is me. Forced rehab doesn't work, prohibition doesn't work, social stigma doesn't work. At the end of the day the only time an addict ever really kicks is when they decide to.


Traditional Conservatism is small government, low taxes and a crackdown on Drugs which are a detriment to society. Traditional Conservatism also contains a moralistic element to it which supports the right for the individual to receive respectable health care that is NOT controlled by the government nor an HMO and where health providers, including HMOs are not shielded from lawsuits for providing negligent care. Traditional Conservatism is actually more broad than Libertarianism.

Tell me, without government control, how exactly is an indigent person going to have access to health care? You cannot have small government, low taxes, and widespread social wellfare programs. The money has to come from somewhere.




Now you're just arguing semantics. John Locke never used the term Libertarian in his writings. The main similarity that Locke's writings had with Libertarianism was that he was against monarchy in the same fashion that Libertarianism is the opposite of Authoritarianism. But Libertarianism, though it has some wiggle room, is in fact a defined political ideology. The problem is that people like you and Bill Mahr like to call themselves Libertarians or say they believe in the Libertarian philosophy when in reality they couldn't care less. A Libertarian is essentially a combination of an "old Liberal" and the "old Right" before the left wing economics and the moral conservatism redefined liberalism and the right, respectively. You may like some of the elements of libertarianism, but that does not make you a libertarian any more than Clinton supporting Free Trade makes him a neocon.

I'm wondering what evidence you have to support the idea that I "couldn't care less" about libertarian philosophy. What is it that I have said which would point to having a selective interest in libertarian philosophy? Is it because I don't feel the need to seek safety in number with an organized political party? I believe in personal liberty, minimal government, and the cultivation of a free market. I believe that individual freedoms should be the guiding light of government intervention, that the primary function of the government is to protect individual liberty. I believe that more choice is almost always a good thing.

And most Libertarians do have an interest in the party, they just worry about wasting their votes.

Funny, my experiance has been different. *shrug*


and don't you ever "boo f****** hoo" someone when a person close to them dies. Have some respect and common decency.

Respect is earned and common decency is overrated. I'm not going to walk on eggshells because a friend of yours was weak, and I sure as hell am not going to play nice when you invoke the death of your friend as a justification for limiting my freedom. Sorry, bub, but I worked damn hard to make sure I didn't end up on a slab and I'm not about to see all that pain and effort flushed because someone else failed. Treating everyone like children because a few people make bad choices is an insult to those of us who make good choices as well as to those us who come back from the brink after making bad choices.

You can dress it up however you want, you can rationalize and justify, but at the end of the day you are arguing that human beings should have their liberty restricted so that no one can make a mistake. That stance can only come from two things: cowardice or arrogance.

I've always been a libertarian.

Lots of people believe it's a contradiction, because of the belief that the government should stay out of the private sector. Socialist libertarians believe that private property rights shouldn't be created by governments in the first place. This usually occurs by not having a government at all.

The questions I've always had about socialist libertarianism have always been practical ones. In the absence of private property, how do you prevent usages abuses like the commons dilemma? If government control(public property) is the answer how do you hold back corruption and favortism? If social force(frank drank too much from the well, the community decides not to let frank use the well anymore) is the answer how do you prevent syndicalism?

The questions I've always had about socialist libertarianism have always been practical ones. In the absence of private property, how do you prevent usages abuses like the commons dilemma? If government control(public property) is the answer how do you hold back corruption and favortism? If social force(frank drank too much from the well, the community decides not to let frank use the well anymore) is the answer how do you prevent syndicalism?I'm not entirely certain why you would want to prevent syndicalism.
This page explains it rather nicely (ignore the sentences about capitalism, they aren't relevant.):
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI6.html

No, personal failure degrades society. We have had drug prohibition in this country for close to a century, and drug use hasn't declined. All we have is a marginalized group of addicts who have become prey for black market dealers and local police departments looking to make quota. Drug prohibition doesn't save lives, it just wastes time and money.

More money is spent on health care related to drug use/abuse than on drug related crime. The main philosphy behind the legalization of drugs is that it will save society more money and end violence. This is absolutley untrue. A high proportion of crimes have been committed under the influence of alcohol and drugs. Drug use will result in drug dependence and dependence on anything, be it drugs or on big government entitlement programs is destructive to society. Health issues, loss of responsibility, less productivity; all can be traced back to drug use. We all know the dangers of Hallucinogens, stimulants and depressants but even the so called "gateway drug" Marijuana has been proven to decrease EEG function basically making you dumber as time goes by. Almost every drug I can think of from Opiates to Cocaine to Heroin to Ecstasy has been legal at one time in our history and has had nothing but a negative impact on society. Legalizing or tolerating these drugs would send a message to youth which suggests that drug use really isn't all that harmful.

I do not support inceration for non violent drug offenses and especially first time offenders. I do support forced rehabilitation, education and prevention programs. These sorts of programs do work as long as they are given a chance to work.

I agree that addiction is a disease, but it is the only disease in this country that we tend to treat with incarceration. Still, I've known addicts, lost friends, and had troubles with drugs myself, and after all of that I've come to the conclusion that the only one responsible for my behavior is me. Forced rehab doesn't work, prohibition doesn't work, social stigma doesn't work. At the end of the day the only time an addict ever really kicks is when they decide to.

see above for my response.


Tell me, without government control, how exactly is an indigent person going to have access to health care? You cannot have small government, low taxes, and widespread social wellfare programs. The money has to come from somewhere.

Lowering taxes has proven time and time again to actually Increase Tax Revenue. JFK, Reagan and Bush have all enjoyed a substantial increase in tax revenues after initiating deep tax cuts. This is a fact.

And by treating drug offenders as patients rather than inmates through rehabilitation, education and prevention programs, alot of money will be saved and can be funneled back into the programs themselves.

Libertarianism is against taxes and sees it as theft. No state revenue unless it is for police and military. And even those organizations are to be privatized, according to many Libertarians.


I'm wondering what evidence you have to support the idea that I "couldn't care less" about libertarian philosophy. What is it that I have said which would point to having a selective interest in libertarian philosophy? Is it because I don't feel the need to seek safety in number with an organized political party? I believe in personal liberty, minimal government, and the cultivation of a free market. I believe that individual freedoms should be the guiding light of government intervention, that the primary function of the government is to protect individual liberty. I believe that more choice is almost always a good thing.

The general statement you just said sounds to fall in line with Libertarian philosophy. Though many truly don't care about Libertarianism, they just pick choose the aspects of life they want the government to be more "libertine" on but call themselves "Libertarians" because it is a relatively neutral label to the general public.


Funny, my experiance has been different. *shrug*

The Libertarian party popularized the word "Libertarian". Whatever your experiences, most "libertarians" do show an interest in the party since it is the only organization out there that truly fights for what they believe. They do not vote for the party always or give money because they feel the two party system will never be broken and they want to make their voted count.

Respect is earned and common decency is overrated. I'm not going to walk on eggshells because a friend of yours was weak, and I sure as hell am not going to play nice when you invoke the death of your friend as a justification for limiting my freedom. Sorry, bub, but I worked damn hard to make sure I didn't end up on a slab and I'm not about to see all that pain and effort flushed because someone else failed. Treating everyone like children because a few people make bad choices is an insult to those of us who make good choices as well as to those us who come back from the brink after making bad choices.

No, what you said was insensitive and your mother should have taught you better. How the hell am I trying to limit your freedoms when the only reason why I mentioned my friend was to explain why I shifted away from Libertarianism. I gave an honest and personal answer as to why I shifted away from raw Libertarianism so people could understand where I am coming from. Yet you jumped all over me for it. And under Libertarianism in its pure form...many many people will slip through the cracks because of "bad choices". I do not feel anyone should be babied but Libertarianism, IN MY OPINION, is just a little too cold for my tastes.

You can dress it up however you want, you can rationalize and justify, but at the end of the day you are arguing that human beings should have their liberty restricted so that no one can make a mistake. That stance can only come from two things: cowardice or arrogance.

You are sensationalizing things. Cowardice and arrogance? I could call you uncompassionate and naive. Leave the name calling out of this. I hardly see how drug use is a liberty when it can adversely effect the greater community as a whole. And there is a fine line between Freedom and Chaos, this has been known for thousands of years. Some restrictions have to be put in place...even Libertarianism has its laws. we see the world differently, you are gonna have to learn to accept difference of opinion.

I'm not entirely certain why you would want to prevent syndicalism.
This page explains it rather nicely (ignore the sentences about capitalism, they aren't relevant.):
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secI6.html

I'd think preventing syndicalism would be important because it tends to make an otherwise egalitarian system much more darwinian. Syndicates are little monopolies of power or production and the leverage they are able to bring to bare has the potential to be every bit as abusive as that of government or corporations.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is how libertarian socialism deals with the problem of human nature. Human beings are greedy little animals that are pretty bad at long term thinking.

More money is spent on health care related to drug use/abuse than on drug related crime.

Gonna have to ask for a source on that one.


I do not support inceration for non violent drug offenses and especially first time offenders. I do support forced rehabilitation, education and prevention programs. These sorts of programs do work as long as they are given a chance to work.

Tell you what, go through Staight, Inc and then tell me with a straight face that society can tollerate forced rehabilitation.


And by treating drug offenders as patients rather than inmates through rehabilitation, education and prevention programs, alot of money will be saved and can be funneled back into the programs themselves.

Because Dare and ONDCP have been so successful at stemming the tide of marijuana use through education and prevention.

Libertarianism is against taxes and sees it as theft. No state revenue unless it is for police and military. And even those organizations are to be privatized, according to many Libertarians.

So, on the one had there is only one monolithic version of libertarianism, and that is the one embraced by the party. Anyone who disagrees is cherry picking libertarian principles. On the other hand(when it might help you make a point) there are disagreements and differences of opinion and scope within the libertarian party. Which is it?


No, what you said was insensitive and your mother should have taught you better. How the hell am I trying to limit your freedoms when the only reason why I mentioned my friend was to explain why I shifted away from Libertarianism. I gave an honest and personal answer as to why I shifted away from raw Libertarianism so people could understand where I am coming from. Yet you jumped all over me for it. And under Libertarianism in its pure form...many many people will slip through the cracks because of "bad choices". I do not feel anyone should be babied but Libertarianism, IN MY OPINION, is just a little too cold for my tastes.

I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings? There, there, you're a special person and your human experiance is just as valid as anyone elses. Happy?

Now, to your point. You are suggesting that the government should tax individuals and spend that money to produce propaganda(education and prevention) in order to convince them to make the choice you believe is right. If they still make the wrong choice you want to use more public money to deprive them of their liberty and send them to treatment through the use of force even if they are not an addict. Sorry, but a framework in which the government has the power to do that over a difference of opinion looks quite a bit like an infringement upon my liberty.

You aren't preventing people form slipping through the cracks, you aren't being less cold, you are forcing your will upon others because someone else made a mistake that made you feel bad.



are sensationalizing things. Cowardice and arrogance? I could call you uncompassionate and naive. Leave the name calling out of this. I hardly see how drug use is a liberty when it can adversely effect the greater community as a whole. And there is a fine line between Freedom and Chaos, this has been known for thousands of years. Some restrictions have to be put in place...even Libertarianism has its laws. we see the world differently, you are gonna have to learn to accept difference of opinion.

Go ahead, call me uncompassionate and naive. I'll own the first, and I can disprove the second.

A lot of things can adversely effect the greater community as a whole. I've known people who wasted away years of their lives looking at porn in their mother's basements, never becoming productive and withdrawing from their friends and families, that doesn't mean I think anyone caught rubbing one off should be put into treatment. I'm convinced that facism has nothing good to offer the modern world, but I still own(and have read) a copy of "Mein Kampf." That book did quite a bit to bring chaos to the 20th century, but I'd have a gun in my hand if someone came to confiscate it, because choice and reason are always superior to paternalism and superstition.

Western civilization has spent the last 500 years slowly fighting it's way to liberty. Every step along the way someone has warned that it would be the end, that this new freedom was too dirty or dangerous or sinful, that society would fall in upon itself and chaos would come. We cut up corpses to see how they worked and the stars didn't fall. We let the working classes read and production increased. We abandoned our kings and our nations flourished. The blacks were freed and all the only evil came from those who would keep them in chains. Women voted and worked, flags were burned, people of assorted races intermarried, hippes had sex, men kissed other men, the female half of the species no longer had to tollerate an unwanted parasite, and the ground never cracked open to swallow us.

But what has happened? We've doubled our life span, become better educated, more productive, happier people. You'll forgive me if I don't shit myself in terror when the chicken littles of the world warn me of the reefer madness.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/hosb1506.pdf

Thats a 91 page report from the Home Office in the UK. It says quite a bit, but boiled down it shows a downward trend in both occasional and frequent marijuana use since possession of marijuna become a non-arrest offense. It further shows that the decriminalization of marijuana did not correlate with an increase in the use of any other "harder" drug(the increase in powder cocaine use occurring prior to marijuana decriminalization). Just sayin'....

I'm a lesb... oh, never mind, different word.

But I classify myself a conservative and that generally has me voting for Republicans (better than the alternative) but always being dissatisfied. I will vote for Republicans again only because I cannot imagine Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House! Whenever I think of how bad Republicans are, there are always Democrats around to remind me the alternative is far worse. And the differences really are too extreme for me to throw away my vote on a candidate who isn't viable.

I have been a libertarian all my life, Bush has merely reinforced my beliefs.

Government is a necessary evil, but let us keep the evil to a minimum.

One should not look at regulations and government bureaucracies by what they could accomplish is fully staffed by wonderful altruistic geniuses – ponder what effect they will have if enforced and staffed by incompetent fools and selfish bastards. Which do you think is closer to reality?

There are very few cases where government intervention has led to a better outcome than allowing free choice and behavior to flourish. While the intentions may have been wonderful, the reality is generally a poor imitation.

One thing I will continue to point out to those who say government is needed to strangle free markets because monopolies are bad – monopolies only arise because of government interference. Natural monopolies are practically nonexistent, free markets would encourage competition, not strangle it.

Look at life with a little perspective. Those who want perfect safety don’t have the balls to live in the real world. Life is full of risk – pretending you can be perfectly safe if only there were more laws and rules and restrictions on other people’s behavior is a dangerous thing to do. Limiting my freedom because some idiot can find ways to hurt himself is not acceptable to me. Let nature take its course and start giving out a few Darwin awards.

I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings? There, there, you're a special person and your human experiance is just as valid as anyone elses. Happy?

mmm, you are about what, 15? maybe 16? Either that or your mental growth has been severely stunted. If I ever thought there should be a Nanny State, it would be for individuals like you.

Now, to your point. You are suggesting that the government should tax individuals and spend that money to produce propaganda(education and prevention) in order to convince them to make the choice you believe is right. If they still make the wrong choice you want to use more public money to deprive them of their liberty and send them to treatment through the use of force even if they are not an addict. Sorry, but a framework in which the government has the power to do that over a difference of opinion looks quite a bit like an infringement upon my liberty.

I believe in Democracy above all else. There are laws against drug use. The laws are there, especially for the hard drugs, because it has a negative effect on society. If you break the law, you go to jail, if you do not like the law then take it to the polls and get it changed. Isn't Democracy quaint?

You aren't preventing people form slipping through the cracks, you aren't being less cold, you are forcing your will upon others because someone else made a mistake that made you feel bad.

Ok, your brain may be clouded with THC but listen carefully, the only reason why I brought up my friend was to show why I shifted away from Libertarianism. That is what got me thinking. Other life experiences and the whole maturing process assured me that Libertarianism is better in theory than in practice. I like the ideals of Liberty, but Libertarianism does not have sole claim to Liberty.


Go ahead, call me uncompassionate and naive. I'll own the first, and I can disprove the second.

if someone wants to do drugs, let them. if they die they die. they become dependent, they become dependent. too bad. As long as I can shoot up.

That is basically your thinking.

A lot of things can adversely effect the greater community as a whole. I've known people who wasted away years of their lives looking at porn in their mother's basements, never becoming productive and withdrawing from their friends and families, that doesn't mean I think anyone caught rubbing one off should be put into treatment. I'm convinced that facism has nothing good to offer the modern world, but I still own(and have read) a copy of "Mein Kampf." That book did quite a bit to bring chaos to the 20th century, but I'd have a gun in my hand if someone came to confiscate it, because choice and reason are always superior to paternalism and superstition.

Who the hell wants an Orwellian society. I sure don't. You seem paranoid.

Western civilization has spent the last 500 years slowly fighting it's way to liberty. Every step along the way someone has warned that it would be the end, that this new freedom was too dirty or dangerous or sinful, that society would fall in upon itself and chaos would come. We cut up corpses to see how they worked and the stars didn't fall. We let the working classes read and production increased. We abandoned our kings and our nations flourished. The blacks were freed and all the only evil came from those who would keep them in chains. Women voted and worked, flags were burned, people of assorted races intermarried, hippes had sex, men kissed other men, the female half of the species no longer had to tollerate an unwanted parasite, and the ground never cracked open to swallow us.

But what has happened? We've doubled our life span, become better educated, more productive, happier people. You'll forgive me if I don't shit myself in terror when the chicken littles of the world warn me of the reefer madness.

You refer to an unborn child as an unwanted parasite...uncompassionate and naive suit you well for sure.

Civilization is a wonderful thing. How did civilization come about? Well, the people decided there needed to be laws and also decided an entity was needed to direct the affairs of the community and to help enforce the laws to preserve civilization. Government was born. There are many different forms of government, today and throughout history and many different levels of freedom and liberty.

Nice little monologue but you do realize that all of those advancements made were not under a libertarian style of government or even a libertine society. The Slaves were freed while Lincoln invaded states who felt they had the right to secede and pass their owns laws, he also waved Habeus Corpus and threw thousands into jail who tried to obstruct his war effort. corpses were cut up under the rule of Egyptian pharoahs and Roman Emperors. Women voted right after cocaine and opiates were made illegal. we've doubled our lifespan thanks to advancements in science and technology which were provided by the liberties protected by the Western democracies and republics we see today.

I certainly am for a government which is as small as possible, but there is still an important place for government and there is a need for laws and everything works just fine under the democratic system.

A government by the people, for the people and of the people sounds good to me. Whatever laws are passed is ultimately decided by the people in a free and equal electoral system.

I believe in Democracy above all else. There are laws against drug use. The laws are there, especially for the hard drugs, because it has a negative effect on society. If you break the law, you go to jail, if you do not like the law then take it to the polls and get it changed. Isn't Democracy quaint?

Drug laws are funny in the U.S. Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug while things like cocaine fall under schedule 2 and so on. Laws aren't perfect and though they should be respected it doesn't mean they shouldn't be challenged in ways outside of the legislative process. And remember here in the U.S. we don't have a pure democracy so taking it to the polls really won't get the job done unless all 50 states decide to put this up to a referendum which is very unlikely.


if someone wants to do drugs, let them. if they die they die. they become dependent, they become dependent. too bad. As long as I can shoot up.

That is basically your thinking.

No his thinking is more along the lines of if someone wants to use their body in a way that doesn't infringe upon the rights of others then its fine by him. Come on you say your a former lib you should know this.

And on topic I've considered myself a libertarian but I've moved to just being an independent right now.

Drug laws are funny in the U.S. Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug while things like cocaine fall under schedule 2 and so on. Laws aren't perfect and though they should be respected it doesn't mean they shouldn't be challenged in ways outside of the legislative process. And remember here in the U.S. we don't have a pure democracy so taking it to the polls really won't get the job done unless all 50 states decide to put this up to a referendum which is very unlikely.




No his thinking is more along the lines of if someone wants to use their body in a way that doesn't infringe upon the rights of others then its fine by him. Come on you say your a former lib you should know this.

And on topic I've considered myself a libertarian but I've moved to just being an independent right now.

I am a former lib, and still lean very close to the philosophy, but i never had his callous approach when explaining my position.

I am a former lib, and still lean very close to the philosophy, but i never had his callous approach when explaining my position.

Some people are more frank in this situation when it comes to drug use especially when someone uses a friends/someone elses problems in an arguement. And really some people don't like sugar coating stuff. If your friend had those problems it sucks but some people won't back you up just because its nice to show some sort of empathy to the plight of your friend.

mmm, you are about what, 15? maybe 16? Either that or your mental growth has been severely stunted. If I ever thought there should be a Nanny State, it would be for individuals like you.

So now we've resorted to little shots like that, have we? The bait was nice, but I really don't feel I have to answer it on an internet forum.


Ok, your brain may be clouded with THC but listen carefully...

if someone wants to do drugs, let them. if they die they die. they become dependent, they become dependent. too bad. As long as I can shoot up.

That is basically your thinking.

Again, a little bit of data in your personal attacks would be nice. I haven't used recreational drugs since high school. I just happen to believe that if someone else wants to light up a fatty and waste their day listening to Jethro Tull and eating twinkies, well, distasteful as that may be, it isn't much of my goddamn buisness.

I've known addicts, I came very close to that many years ago, and I've had both friends and family feel the harmful effect of dependence. The fact of the matter is all of that happened while drugs were illegal, all the laws do is put people into a more dangerous situation, make recovery more difficult, and turn people who are either sick(in the case of addicts) or harmless(in the case of that guy who smokes a joint a few times a week but is otherwise successful) into criminals. I don't really see the upside other than a few moralists feeling good about being tough on "those damn hippies."

But hey, if imagining me with a needle in my arm laying in a shooting gallery is what gets you through the day, fine, have at it. Its no skin of my nose.


Who the hell wants an Orwellian society. I sure don't. You seem paranoid.

Ahh yes, paranoia, that must be the reefer and heroin talking. Next will come the incurable insanity, followed by dancing and an appreciation of avant-garde jazz.

Its a good thing you don't want an Orwellian society, you had me scared there for a second, what with the mandatory reeducation and all.



You refer to an unborn child as an unwanted parasite...uncompassionate and naive suit you well for sure.

'Cause women who want abortions are all sluts and why should that precious, innocent little infant die 'cause they couldn't keep their legs together, right?


I certainly am for a government which is as small as possible, but there is still an important place for government and there is a need for laws and everything works just fine under the democratic system.

A government by the people, for the people and of the people sounds good to me. Whatever laws are passed is ultimately decided by the people in a free and equal electoral system.

No, you're for a government that is as small as possible while still enforcing the morals you would like to see enforced. That is the problem with liberals and conservatives. Both want to be in control, both want to tell others what to do but not be restricted in any way themselves, and neither is willing to let others make choices that they disagree with.

Our founding fathers had an inkling of that, they looked at the masses and what they saw scared them to death. They saw an army of uneducated, terrified, short sighted little tyrants. There is a reason we do not live in a democracy but a constitutional republic. That reason is because the founders recognized that there were some thing the government simply had no buisness legislating. If you read the constitution carefully you'll notice that it is largely a document which limits goverment authority. You'll notice that the first 10 amendment secure 27 individual rights and not a single social or communal right. You'll see that right after freedom of expression, conscience, and association there is a right to the tools needed to overthrow a government, followed by restrictions on movement and investigative methods for said government.

You'll also notice that most major social advances came first in violation of the law. The American Revolution, the underground railroad, printing of the bible in the vulgate, the spread of birth control, the Stonewall rebellion, rejection of a geocentric worldview, advances in anatomy, on and on. The only reason the US exists is because a minority of the people decided to take up arms and started shooting police over taxes. It takes a very special reading to look at that action and interpret it as a cry for more regulation.

What you are suggesting is not a free and equal system, it is mob rule, its the majority beating down the minority.

I am a former lib, and still lean very close to the philosophy, but i never had his callous approach when explaining my position.

Sorry if my approach offends you. I've found that if you have a srong opinion you'll likely offend someone and if you mask what you believe people tend to misunderstand. Better to be hated for what you are than loved for what you aren't, right?

I'd think preventing syndicalism would be important because it tends to make an otherwise egalitarian system much more darwinian. Syndicates are little monopolies of power or production and the leverage they are able to bring to bare has the potential to be every bit as abusive as that of government or corporations.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is how libertarian socialism deals with the problem of human nature. Human beings are greedy little animals that are pretty bad at long term thinking.Well, if the community has control of the commons, then the only syndicate I can think of forming is the community itself, which is fine, since nobody should be using the commons who isn't in the community.
Arguably, the community could vote to force a member out, but with free association, that member should be able to find another community, or can use some nearby land that the community isn't using.

Well, if the community has control of the commons, then the only syndicate I can think of forming is the community itself, which is fine, since nobody should be using the commons who isn't in the community.
Arguably, the community could vote to force a member out, but with free association, that member should be able to find another community, or can use some nearby land that the community isn't using.

Sorry, I was imprecise. My question was how you prevent alliances within the community from using their collective influence and power to gain an advantage. In a small community this could be a large extended family, in a larger community it could be a given racial or ethnic group. How do you prevent groups such as these from taking more than their fair share without creating a constant splintering of communities?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just curious because the issue of corruption and human nature have always been two of the three or four major problems I personally have with socialism.

Sorry, I was imprecise. My question was how you prevent alliances within the community from using their collective influence and power to gain an advantage. In a small community this could be a large extended family, in a larger community it could be a given racial or ethnic group. How do you prevent groups such as these from taking more than their fair share without creating a constant splintering of communities?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just curious because the issue of corruption and human nature have always been two of the three or four major problems I personally have with socialism.Ah, I see. I suppose an alliance could form with the majority of votes on how to use the commons.
I don't know how all forms of libertarian socialism would handle it, but I would say that the people outside of the alliance would secede. Since I believe in use rights, the resources of the commons would no longer be (being) used by the one community, it would be two, and as such, each community would decide how to use their portion of the commons.

Ah, I see. I suppose an alliance could form with the majority of votes on how to use the commons.
I don't know how all forms of libertarian socialism would handle it, but I would say that the people outside of the alliance would secede. Since I believe in use rights, the resources of the commons would no longer be (being) used by the one community, it would be two, and as such, each community would decide how to use their portion of the commons.

What about in a situation where the common area cannot be easily divided(such as a factory or other means of production/refinement instead of raw materials or farmland)? What happens when the majority refuses to share land or uses it's influence to draw borders that are unfair(you can gerrymander for things other than votes)? How do you maintain an efficient, modern, industrial society when you have a constant shifting of alliances without a means of figuring who has the final say over how objects are used? Once you have split the commons haven't you instituted a weak system of private property wherein ownership is restricted to groups rather than individuals?

After getting through 6 pages of this post I think a good portion of you miss the point. Libertarianism at its root is all about personal responsibility. Everyone should be allowed to do what ever they want as long as they are not infringing on someone elses right to do the same. I don't need the government to tell ME what to do. I have a pretty good understanding of what I should be doing and what not to do. And honestly thats the way it should be. I'm not however that dumb to realize that most people aren't as responsible as I am. No real Libertarian will tell you that change will happen overnight. So little changes over the course of time to give back a little bit of responsibility to the people can and should recondition them to start thinking for themselves again.

My 2 cents

What about in a situation where the common area cannot be easily divided(such as a factory or other means of production/refinement instead of raw materials or farmland)? What happens when the majority refuses to share land or uses it's influence to draw borders that are unfair(you can gerrymander for things other than votes)? How do you maintain an efficient, modern, industrial society when you have a constant shifting of alliances without a means of figuring who has the final say over how objects are used? Once you have split the commons haven't you instituted a weak system of private property wherein ownership is restricted to groups rather than individuals?That would depend. Most likely if one group is using both the factory and the farmland, and they split, they probably can't use both, so they have to give one up. If they aren't willing to give one up, they'd need to find some way of compromising and keeping the other group from seceding. Or, in other words, an efficient, modern, industrial society can only be maintained if the people within said society are willing to do the work of maintaining it.
I'd imagine that in the case of a secession, the initial boundaries would be the boundaries where the people who've seceded are living, and they would be altered via negotiation.

That would depend. Most likely if one group is using both the factory and the farmland, and they split, they probably can't use both, so they have to give one up. If they aren't willing to give one up, they'd need to find some way of compromising and keeping the other group from seceding. Or, in other words, an efficient, modern, industrial society can only be maintained if the people within said society are willing to do the work of maintaining it.
I'd imagine that in the case of a secession, the initial boundaries would be the boundaries where the people who've seceded are living, and they would be altered via negotiation.

I see your argument, but I'm still not convinced. The whole idea just seems like a defacto system of private property lacking the normal legal protections such a system would have. From what you've said it would appear that the survival of such a system would depend on it's members being rational, well-intentioned individuals with an intellectual stock in it's continued success. I'm still not sure how such a system would deal with an internal element that really didn't care about the good of the group or the ideal of the community, but only about personal gain for themselves and their allies. If the factory is more valuable than the farmland, what is to stop the majority(or the powerful minority) from simply claiming it as their own and finding their food elsewhere. On a more extreme level, what is to stop the powerful group from simply asserting control over all the resources and relegating the less powerful group to the status of serfs(as has tended to happen in modern totalitarian "communist" nations)?

I guess what I'm saying is that the core issue of human nature is still unanswered. The system seems to beg corruption and abuse, either from the central authority that distributes wealth and labor(in the case of a governed commune) or from individual machiavellians(in the case of a more libertarian/tribal commune).

In any case, we've gotten waaaay off topic. If we wanted to continue this I'm sure one of us could start a thread. I propose we give this thread a decent burial and move on.

Same ... bush and other big government "moralistic" right wingers (hardly conservitive) have just hasten the push

ditto

Some people are more frank in this situation when it comes to drug use especially when someone uses a friends/someone elses problems in an arguement. And really some people don't like sugar coating stuff. If your friend had those problems it sucks but some people won't back you up just because its nice to show some sort of empathy to the plight of your friend.


thing is, i was not looking for any sympathy or to win anyone over to my cause. I was just explaining one of the reasons that got me to rethink my Libertarianism and to make a shift. My personal experience was a part of that. Then he jumps on me for it. a little unbalanced i would say.

Sorry if my approach offends you. I've found that if you have a srong opinion you'll likely offend someone and if you mask what you believe people tend to misunderstand. Better to be hated for what you are than loved for what you aren't, right?


When drugs are legalized, particularly Meth, Cocaine, Heroin, Opiates and all those painkillers after the FDA is abolished, you are going to develop some serious addicts. Good people going through tough times may just turn to these drugs so they can feel better, and soon become addicts. All it would take is one big depression, one little recession, one company downsizing or one death in the family and you can have instant addicts on your hands. They will not be able to function properly in society.

No insurance will touch them and most hospitals, now completely private will not be able to care for them. Exactly where will they go? what will they do? What will become of them in your "free" society? what about the other more productive members of society who have to put up with them?

on a simpler note...why should the majority of us have to breathe in your toxin infested cigarette smoke? Second hand smoke is very deadly, why would the majority of us non-smokers, especially those with asthma, be forced to put up with your habit/addiction for the sake of your personal liberty? what about everyone elses personal liberty?

Libertarianism does not work, just like Communism. sounds great on paper, but it is not practical. eventually the laws and restrictions will develop based on what society as a whole will tolerate.

When drugs are legalized, particularly Meth, Cocaine, Heroin, Opiates and all those painkillers after the FDA is abolished, you are going to develop some serious addicts.

Source please.

Good people going through tough times may just turn to these drugs so they can feel better, and soon become addicts. All it would take is one big depression, one little recession, one company downsizing or one death in the family and you can have instant addicts on your hands. They will not be able to function properly in society.

Hate to break it to you, but they already do. Prohibition doesn't stop it, slow it down, or mitigate consequences. All prohibition does is make treatment harder to find, drugs more dangerous, waste money, and create a lucrative black market which skews towards violent crime rather than the low grade property crime you tend to see from addicts.

Beyond that, you're just sticking your finger in the dike. In the 100 or so years of drug prohibition we have seen new drug after new drug surface to feed the desires of users. Prescription painkillers become popular because they are lower risk opiates than heroin. Heroin only exists because of an attempt to cure opium addiction. Meth is popular because cocaine ise hard to come by and expensive. Qaayludes, MDA, MDMA, the list goes on and on. Where there are humans there are drugs. And then you have the 400 pound gorilla in the room: alcohol.


No insurance will touch them and most hospitals, now completely private will not be able to care for them. Exactly where will they go? what will they do? What will become of them in your "free" society? what about the other more productive members of society who have to put up with them?

I'm wondering where you get your information. There is a great deal(not enough, though that is largely because of the social stigma generated by people like you) of drug rehab available. Most insurance plans offer substance abuse care, I just had to update my benefits package and every single plan offered included a variety of rehab services.

More to the point, I've known addicts whove gone through rehab, and I've had substance abuse problems in my past. At the end of the day recovery is not about going to the right program and hearing the right magic words, it is about the same thing that lead you down that road in the first place: choice. No addict has ever kicked their habit unless they chose to, it is a matter of will.

on a simpler note...why should the majority of us have to breathe in your toxin infested cigarette smoke? Second hand smoke is very deadly, why would the majority of us non-smokers, especially those with asthma, be forced to put up with your habit/addiction for the sake of your personal liberty? what about everyone elses personal liberty?

I'm not a smoker, never have been. Still, lets look at your analogy, shall we? If I smoke a cigarette in my home, it has no real net effect on the liberty of others. If I smoke in public, that changes, my actions have a direct, concrete, and substanative impact on other individuals. You argue that drugs are bad because they have negative consequences for society. I argue that the potential effects on society as a whole do not justify the privation of individual liberty. You attempt to disprove my argument by attacking applying it to a situation in which broader society is not attacked but rather the liberty of another specific individual. You're invocation of public smoking is a strawman.

This isn't the first time you've decided to go down a route like that. I'll admit that I was abrasive, I wont appologize because I'm not sorry, but I'll own my behavior. You responded by fighting dirty. So far in this argument you've engaged in ad hominem attacks, strawmen, association fallacies, appeals to emotion, popularity, force, probability, and more. You've ignored evidence presented and argued selectively in order to avoid strong arguments.

We could go around in circles for days like this, but NS has enough of that going around. I honestly have neither the time nor the inclination to have flamewar #23582 over morality and it's enforcement. Perhaps at some point you'll be looking for a discussion, maybe then I'll pop in and we can compare notes. Until then, I have a wife who wants me off the computer and a glass of burbon that won't drink itself.

In any case, we've gotten waaaay off topic. If we wanted to continue this I'm sure one of us could start a thread. I propose we give this thread a decent burial and move on.This is true. :) I imagine that at some point there will be a thread started about anarcho-communism. I will probably post on it, so wander in if you feel like it.

This is true. :) I imagine that at some point there will be a thread started about anarcho-communism. I will probably post on it, so wander in if you feel like it.

I promise I will, provided I find it before it reaches a hundred or so posts.

Source please.

lol, how about the millions of addicts out there right now as a source. what kind of source are you looking for??? :confused:



Hate to break it to you, but they already do. Prohibition doesn't stop it, slow it down, or mitigate consequences. All prohibition does is make treatment harder to find, drugs more dangerous, waste money, and create a lucrative black market which skews towards violent crime rather than the low grade property crime you tend to see from addicts.

legalization of drugs gives people the impression it is ok or perhpas not that dangerous, even acceptable. laws stop alot more people than you seem to realize from experimenting with drugs.

alcohol and tobacco are already shown to be an extreme health hazard and marijuna has been shown to cause cognitive, pulmonary, reproductive and immune deficiencies as an obstruction to productivity. why add this "light" drug as well as the many other much more harmful drugs into the mix? personal liberty? your argument is based on emotion, not reason.

and what about the mixing of drugs? It is a recent trend these days for urban youth to mix cough syrup with their Bacardi, it is also popular for marijuana users to lace their weed with a little cocaine. This presents a huge risk and results in many deaths. Cocaine, Crack and Meth in the slightest dose is much more dangerous than a drink of Alcohol or puffing on Cigarettes. Do you plan to regulate these illegal drugs? if so, then how can you regulate something without the money provided through taxes?

as for the black market, there is already a black market for cough syrup. Robitussin, when gulped rapidly will make you "trip". Pharmacies don't even sell the stuff unless it is behind the counter these days and will only sell a certain amount. so criminal types order the stuff in bulk and sell it to teenagers and others in the street, along with all the legal painkillers out there. kids are the most vulnerable to slipping through the cracks. Unless you want a free for all, there has to be some restrictions and as long as there are restrictions of any kind...there will be a black market.

Legalizers like you believe most black market syndicates involved with drugs would die out and that drug-induced crime would decrease because of legalization. This is wrong. The United States experimented with legalization before, multiple times, and it failed.

From 1919 to 1922, government-sponsored clinics handed out free drugs to addicts in hopes of controlling their behavior. The effort failed. (Jill Jonnes, "Forgotten History of Legal Drugs," The Baltimore Sun 16 February 1995.)

California decriminalized marijuana in 1976, and within six months, arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles. (Peggy Mann, Reasons to Oppose Legalizing Illegal Drugs (Danvers: Committee of Correspondence, Inc., September, 1988)

Decriminalizing marijuana in Alaska and Oregon in the 1970s resulted in the doubling of use. (Wayne J. Roques, "Decriminalizing Drugs Would Be A Disaster," The Miami Herald 20 January 1995.)

more than 80 percent of the cases of physical and sexual abuse of children now involve drugs. There is no evidence that legalizing drugs will reduce these crimes, and there is evidence that suggests it would worsen the problem. (Don Feder, "Legalizers Plan Harvard Pot Party," The Boston Herald 19 May 1994.)

Legalizing drugs will put less drug dealers and distributors in jail but what about the drug related crimes such as robbery, assault, rape? legalized drugs may make them cheaper, which increases their supply, which further feeds the habit of the user/addict which will increase their paranoia, mood swings and violent behavior. legal drugs will not make addicts into productive citizens!



are you honestly thinking this through at all?

Beyond that, you're just sticking your finger in the dike. In the 100 or so years of drug prohibition we have seen new drug after new drug surface to feed the desires of users. Prescription painkillers become popular because they are lower risk opiates than heroin. Heroin only exists because of an attempt to cure opium addiction. Meth is popular because cocaine ise hard to come by and expensive. Qaayludes, MDA, MDMA, the list goes on and on. Where there are humans there are drugs. And then you have the 400 pound gorilla in the room: alcohol.

what about alcohol? it is a deadly poison, just like the other drugs, but it is regulated to hell and it still not as dangerous as opiates, heroin, cocaine, MDMA, etc. And imagine combining alcohol with these other drugs which will no doubt happen...dear god.

and what about Prohibition?

History shows that prohibition did in fact curb alcohol abuse. Alcohol use declined by 30 to 50 percent; deaths from liver failure fell from 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 to 10.7 in 1929; and admissions to state mental hospitals for alcohol psychosis fell from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928.[53] Mark Moore, Harvard professor of criminal justice, wrote: "The real lesson of prohibition is that society can, indeed, make a dent in the consumption of drugs through laws." - Mark S. Gold, The Good News About Drugs and Alcohol (New York: Viliard Books, 1991). Gold is an excellent source on this subject.



I'm wondering where you get your information.

from books. and yes, choice is the most important. especially when it comes to the choice of getting involved with drugs in the first place. the more barriers set up, the more likely a person will avoid making the wrong choice.


I'm not a smoker, never have been. Still, lets look at your analogy, shall we? If I smoke a cigarette in my home, it has no real net effect on the liberty of others. If I smoke in public, that changes, my actions have a direct, concrete, and substanative impact on other individuals. You argue that drugs are bad because they have negative consequences for society. I argue that the potential effects on society as a whole do not justify the privation of individual liberty. You attempt to disprove my argument by attacking applying it to a situation in which broader society is not attacked but rather the liberty of another specific individual. You're invocation of public smoking is a strawman.

I disagree with your statement made in the bold. The greater welfare of society is normally more important. There certain liberties and rights that the individual is entitled to no matter what, such as life, but getting high is not one of them. it is not a "strawman" (the most overused term on these boards). It is a scenario which directly involves your thinking of "individual liberties".

This isn't the first time you've decided to go down a route like that. I'll admit that I was abrasive, I wont appologize because I'm not sorry, but I'll own my behavior. You responded by fighting dirty. So far in this argument you've engaged in ad hominem attacks, strawmen, association fallacies, appeals to emotion, popularity, force, probability, and more. You've ignored evidence presented and argued selectively in order to avoid strong arguments.
We could go around in circles for days like this, but NS has enough of that going around. I honestly have neither the time nor the inclination to have flamewar #23582 over morality and it's enforcement. Perhaps at some point you'll be looking for a discussion, maybe then I'll pop in and we can compare notes. Until then, I have a wife who wants me off the computer and a glass of burbon that won't drink itself.

where are your sources? where is your evidence? what research have you done? I am merely stating my position and the reasons for my position. these are not fallacies, appeals to emotion, strawmen or selective arguments. They are my beliefs born out of my own common sense and research on the subject.

i have listed some of the readings right here in this thread. some old books of mine from college on the subject. i have seen arguments for both sides. it is your argument which is based in emotion. it is your arguments which rely on hope and desire.

and back to your "free" society. exactly what treatment will be available for a bunch of drug addicts in a world with legalized drugs and as small a government as possible? who will treat them? especially when they are broke.

oh and my response, which you called "dirty", was a reaction to the "abrasive" comment you made and the condescending tone of your entire first post. you set the tone, not me.