For those who might be confused about libertarianism

[steveh_131]

I'll offer some statistics, since you don't seem to have any idea what the cost/benefit analysis of the war on drugs really looks like.

32 Reasons Why We Need To End The War On Drugs - Business Insider

In the past 40 years, The US has spent more than $1 trillion enforcing drug laws.
Annually, the US spends at least $15 billion a year on drug law enforcement.
Globally, over $100 billion is spent fighting the war on drugs every single year.

Forty years ago, 38,000 people were imprisoned in the US for drug-related offenses.
Today, that number stands at over 500,000, over 13 times the amount 40 years.
The Office of National Drug Control Policy estimates resulting productivity losses of around $40 billion a year.
And get this: the U.S. has more people in prison for drug-related crimes than the entire EU has prisoners. This is despite the fact that the population of the U.S. is 40 percent smaller than that of the EU.

And there's plenty more to read once you're finished with this article.

 

[Birds Away]

Even the Libertarians can't agree on what it is to be a Libertarian.

 

[poptab]

Even the Libertarians can't agree on what it is to be a Libertarian.

Nope. We all agree that people who want to use the state as a bludgeon against thier fellow dope head, prostitute and gambling addict are not in fact libertarians even if they might call themselves such.

 

[Liberty1911]

Please provide some evidence that people will behave more irresponsibly with drugs if they are legalized.

That's a red herring. No one has provided any examples that society will not bear an increased burden either. It's all - trust me.

I'm starting to understand now. This statement illustrates that you really and truly don't have the slightest idea what libertarian ideals are about. I'm growing tired of explaining it to you.

I get it. I'm being sarcastic. However, we seem to have gotten off on a tangent.

We're arguing in circles again, so I think we're about done here.

Bottom line - I agree with Libertarians in principle, but disagree with having a free-for-all until we establish personal responsibility. I already pay for enough irresponsible people, I don't want to add to that burden.

And there's nothing you're going to say that will convince me that drug legalization, homosexual "rights", and open borders, among other things, as Libertarians advocate, is not going to cost me something.

I'm simply not willing to advocate freedom without responsibility as Libertarians are doing.

Unless someone has an epiphany and can add something else substantial to the discussion, I'm done here.

 

[steveh_131]

That's a red herring. No one has provided any examples that society will not bear an increased burden either. It's all - trust me.

I did, actually. Now it's your turn.

I get it. I'm being sarcastic. However, we seem to have gotten off on a tangent.

Then stop taking us in that tangent with the inane 'that's not very libertarian of you' comments.

And there's nothing you're going to say that will convince me that drug legalization, homosexual "rights", and open borders, among other things, as Libertarians advocate, is not going to cost me something.

Let's start with drug legalization. I've provided the evidence. Care to respond to it?

 

[steveh_131]

Two wrongs do not make a right.

We seem to agree on this: It is not moral for the government to take our money and give it to others.

This immoral act does not justify yet another immoral act, such as tossing someone in prison for possessing a plant. You don't fight tyranny with more tyranny.

This same line of logic can easily be extended to gun control. Why should we give people the liberty to own guns, when we as tax-payers are forced to provide free medical care to criminals who shoot each other? First, get rid of medicare and free emergency room visits. Then we will allow people to own guns.

Right?

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Even the Libertarians can't agree on what it is to be a Libertarian.

Well I thought it would naturally be "liberty" they were promoting as the core value (after all, its right there in the name) but I have since learned that the party says it is the "Zero Aggression Principal".

This seems a bit like the republican party not really being for a republic.
Or the democratic party not really being democratic.

This is why I despise the party system. Trying to put everyone into neat little boxes, with pre-packaged, pre-determined, by-laws.

The party system is, at its core like central planning by the government.

Instead of having a non-party system which is fluid and dynamic which would encourage political thought, and political evolution, we provide pre-packaged parties to encourage both the sheep and the under-informed to go and pull a lever without any real idea of how they may be affecting their neighbors, themselves, or their posterity. Tyranny by the many.

They then get to watch on TV while cheering for the team they have chosen to "win" and feel a false sense of accomplishment and political satiation when either the red or blue team they cheer for are declared the "winners"

Our problems are not what "party" is in control, but rather the natural political de-evolution of a population which has for generations not had to think politically.

 

[steveh_131]

Well I thought it would naturally be "liberty" they were promoting as the core value (after all, its right there in the name) but I have since learned that the party says it is the "Zero Aggression Principal".

Liberty, yes. But not absolute liberty. Your liberty must be limited when it begins to affect the liberty of another. Hence the non-aggression principle.

It's really not that complicated. You seem very determined to remain ignorant of the definitions of these words.

This seems a bit like the republican party not really being for a republic.
Or the democratic party not really being democratic.

This is why I despise the party system. Trying to put everyone into neat little boxes, with pre-packaged, pre-determined, by-laws.

The party system is, at its core like central planning by the government.

Instead of having a system which is fluid and dynamic which would encourage political thought, and political evolution, we provide pre-packaged parties to encourage both the sheep and the under-informed to go and pull a lever without any real idea of how they may be affecting their neighbors, themselves, or their posterity. Tyranny by the many.

We are discussing the libertarian philosophy, not the Libertarian party. You do understand the distinction between a philosophy and a political party, right?

 

[lucky4034]

I
Let's start with drug legalization. I've provided the evidence. Care to respond to it?

He can't... he doesn't have the slightest clue on what he is talking about. He obviously would rather not accept that it COST MORE to fight drugs than not to.....

LOTS MORE... LOTS LOTS LOTS MORE.

Why does he not want to accept that fact? Because it would destroy his entire argument.

He also doesn't care to explain how homosexual marriage will create another category for him to take care of. Why? Because he doesn't have a clue.

............


The majority of his claim is based on the fact that he believes GIVING people more rights will infringe on his rights... but what he fails to recognize is that those rights were already given... and when we TOOK THOSE RIGHTS AWAY... he incurred the burden. Not vice versa...

Libertarians propose DEREGULATION of drugs.... not GIVING drug users rights... but RESTORING rights that were TAKEN AWAY.

Until he accepts that... then there really is no need to talk further, unless we all want to here more useless banter and insults.

I wonder what he would say if I told him it would likely be cheaper to give EVERYONE who smokes pot... FREE government grown weed, then it would be to house all the pot smokers we have in prison?

The average Federal inmate costs taxpayers about $200k a year to house in federal prison.... There isn't a person I know who smokes $200k a year worth of pot.

Currently our government OVER SPENDS One Trillion Dollars a year....

[A 2008 study by Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron has estimated that legalizing drugs would save taxpayers $76.8 billion a year in the United States

Not to mention the additional revenue that could be made from regulating sales... but that would be a whole other libertarian argument.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

We are discussing the libertarian philosophy, not the Libertarian party. You do understand the distinction between a philosophy and a political party, right?

You are doing a great job in turning people away from your ideals. You are the reason many people associate libertarians with condescending attitudes.

You do realize your behaviour is counterproductive if your goal is to bring more peope into libertarianism, dont you?

 

[lucky4034]

You are doing a great job in turning people away from your ideals. You are the reason many people associate libertarians with condescending attitudes.

You do realize your behaviour is counterproductive if your goal is to bring more peope into libertarianism, dont you?

Well... you know the adage.

"You can't teach an old dog new tricks"

 

[hornadylnl]

You are doing a great job in turning people away from your ideals. You are the reason many people associate libertarians with condescending attitudes.

You do realize your behaviour is counterproductive if your goal is to bring more peope into libertarianism, dont you?

How is republican behavior any more palatable to the left?

 

[steveh_131]

You are doing a great job in turning people away from your ideals. You are the reason many people associate libertarians with condescending attitudes.

You do realize your behaviour is counterproductive if your goal is to bring more peope into libertarianism, dont you?

My apologies for the condescending tone.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

How is republican behavior any more palatable to the left?

He claims to be speaking of the libertarian philosophy and not the libertarian party.

I am not a republican. Or a democrat. But I would think it to be no more palatable to them than I usually find it.

 

[hornadylnl]

He claims to be speaking of the libertarian philosophy and not the libertarian party.

I am not a republican. Or a democrat. But I would think it to be no more palatable to them than I usually find it.

If I had a dollar for every time I read the "You do realize your behaviour is counterproductive if your goal is to bring more peope into libertarianism, dont you?" Line on here, I could retire. Do those on the right wish to win the left over to their side? Is any of the left bashing here productive in winning them over?

 

[steveh_131]

He claims to be speaking of the libertarian philosophy and not the libertarian party.

I am not a republican. Or a democrat. But I would think it to be no more palatable to them than I usually find it.

Now now, get off your high horse for a bit here. You've been plenty condescending in this thread. I've been civil, and I don't think I was completely off-base in making sure you understand the definitions of the words I'm using. You've been mistaken about several of them so far.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Now now, get off your high horse for a bit here. You've been plenty condescending in this thread. I've been civil, and I don't think I was completely off-base in making sure you understand the definitions of the words I'm using. You've been mistaken about several of them so far.

I think I must be mistaken again because I do not understand how you took offense to that post.

 

[steveh_131]

I think I must be mistaken again because I do not understand how you took offense to that post.

Regardless, my apologies for the condescending tone.

Feel free to ask any other questions or express any points of confusion you may have about libertarian ideals.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

Regardless, my apologies for the condescending tone.

Feel free to ask any other questions or express any points of confusion you may have about libertarian ideals.

How can you defend your liberty without any form of aggression?

 

[steveh_131]

How can you defend your liberty without any form of aggression?

Webster:

Definition of AGGRESSION

1
: a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master

They key here is the word unprovoked.

If you are 'defending' your liberty, then whatever manner of force you may use is no longer 'unprovoked', by definition, and it is therefore not 'aggression'.

Make sense?