priv8ter's Libertarian thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

dischord

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2003
Messages
937
Location
Virginia
priv8ter, RealGun, ZakSmith and others were making valid points and asking legitimate points in a thread that recently got locked (locking was valid).

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81227

So I invite them and others to start over here.

I'll start
DTLoken: I fully support this so long as it's only sold to adults. The Government has no place in telling an adult what he or she can do, so long as they're not harming someone else.
I agree. However, the response we libertarians often get is that drug users do harm other people -- through their own violence, driving under the influence and funding the violent underground.

These three points are dealt with by observing Prohibition. The same oberservations could be made about alcohol in the 1920s (when the pro-Prohibition forces created the violent gangland of the day).

Libertarians, like those who ended Prohibition, recognize that the War on Drugs is just as unwinnable as was the War on Alcohol, not to mention that it is harming our civil rights.
 
I'm not a Libertarian, but I am a libertarian. Imho, pot should be legalized. After that is done, maybe America can have a big conversation about other drugs and the war on some drugs.
 
Maybe you're a "civil libertarian" - a liberal in other words. I agree. Marijuana is no great social harm and should be legalized. Other drugs should be addressed on a case by case basis, with harm reduction strategy replacing criminal enforcement. Legalizing some drugs will probably come with a high societal cost - maybe greater than the harm of keeping them illegal. The issue should be studied, and plans made to deal with those costs.
 
Glad this was revived. I'm not sure whether it should be classified under Frankenstein or what caliber for zombies but you can't have too many libertarian threads.:D

Victimless crimes are a good place to start. The term itself is an oxymoron. If there is no victim how can there be a crime?

However, the response we libertarians often get is that drug users do harm other people --

There are already laws to deal with any harm that drug users do to others. It was a crime to steal and murder before the first drug law was passed. These laws are valid extensions of the non-agression principle.

The only objection that the prohibitionist have that isn't a straw man argument is that using drugs (and all other similar things that the govt doesn't like) is that the people who use them are hurting themselves. This is where the disagreement usually makes further discussion difficult. You either believe in freedom and personal responsibility or you don't. I realise the world isn't always as simple as this but if your first impluse is to always use the power of the state to force others to do things your way how much committment to freedom do you have?

If you want to be free yourself you have to be willing to let other's be free, even if you don't like what they do with that freedom.
 
Maybe you're a "civil libertarian" - a liberal in other words.

I have to disagree. The two are not the same. Most liberals are all to happy to use the state to control others. They just want to control different aspects of people's live than the conservative types.

Most conservatives seem to be happy to control personal behavior. (Sex, drugs and rock and roll) Liberals want to control financial aspects of peoples lives. (Tax the rich, confiscate firearms). The one thing they both agree on is control by the state.

The problem for freedom is that when you put liberals and conservatives together there isn't much of anything left they don't want under their absolute control.
 
want to control financial aspects of peoples lives. (Tax the rich, confiscate firearms

Not to be contentious, or anything, but IMHO it's a bit of a stretch to lump firearms in with economic freedom. In my mind, it's as much a personal freedom as freedom of speech or due process.

Anyway, I agree with longrifleman. Some people can control themselves with drugs (i.e., alcohol, caffeine, marijuana, cocaine) and it doesn't become a big deal. Sure, you could argue they are physically dependent on these substances, but the fact that some people can have a few beers without going home and slapping their wife around means that everyone is different.

As with the problem of "gun violence," the real solution is not prohibition, but education. Let kids have a sip of your beer or smoke a cigarette - most alcoholic drinks don't taste so good and most people cough the first time they smoke. Teach them responsible use of drugs and warn of any history of abuse in your family. There is no need for a bureacracy of government ninjas breaking in doors.
 
...IMHO it's a bit of a stretch to lump firearms in with economic freedom.

I'm not sure. I doubt it's a coincidence that the governments that exercise the most draconian control over their subjects' economic well being also exercise the most draconian control over their rights to defend themselves. I have a hunch control is control is control: an addictive drug to tyrants everywhere.
 
QUOTE]...IMHO it's a bit of a stretch to lump firearms in with economic freedom.[/QUOTE]


Yea I know but I wanted something more than tax the rich and couldn't think of anything good so this being a firearms board...............:p

I agree. And that's why I say that gun control is a rural vs. urban debate, not a liberal vs. conservative debate.

About 70% correct.:neener:[
 
Most conservatives seem to be happy to control personal behavior.
I think that the left can be just as guilty of this when they attempt to codify speech rules, ban books from schools and other P.C. silliness.
The one thing they both agree on is control by the state.
I read an article once (don't remember by whom), that you could walk into any drug/department store and make three piles -- one of objects that the right likes/wants to control, one of object that the left likes/wants to control, and one of objects they both like/want to control. You'd end up with three fairly even-sized piles and few if any items left on the shelves.
 
Consensual or "victimless" crimes -

There are two things about these prohibited things (gambling, prostitution, drugs) that get govt as we know it in an uproar:

1. The practitioners often become dependent on the social programs that the nanny state offers.

2. They do not PAY TAXES - probably the more compelling reason.

That imho is why they pursue such behavior, other than the gen U wine dogooders that are out there.
 
I think that the left can be just as guilty of this when they attempt to codify speech rules, ban books from schools and other P.C. silliness.

Good point. Thats what happens when you paint with a broad brush. You (I) get paint in the wrong places and look like a fool.

w4rma, sorry for being a wisea**. It was getting late and I needed my beauty sleep (I probably shouldn't get out of bed). Your point is accurate and is probably getting more accurate over time as fewer and fewer folks have easy access to places to hunt and shoot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top