Skip to comments.Ann Coulter Has A Point
Posted on 02/25/2013 3:04:49 PM PST by Shout Bits
Last week, conservative Ann Coulter took a swipe at libertarians, calling them "pussies" for their stance on marijuana. Coulter's best qualities are her bluntness (get it?) and her willingness to fight. In her "pussies" comments, she argued that, since the US is a socialist welfare state, people's choices regarding their lifestyles are her business hence MJ should be illegal. Coulter has a point; socialism turns strangers into family. However, her conclusion that statism and central control are warranted is an abandonment of principle.
Libertarians come in several flavors, and nearly equally from left and right backgrounds. The actual Libertarian Party is dominated by barely reformed hippies and ideologues, who put drug policy front and center. Most libertarians, however, do not belong to the LP. While libertarians like GOP Sen. Rand Paul do not support the war on drugs, that issue is just an example in the spectrum of Constitutional abuses and overreaches by today's government. Perhaps coincidentally, the Tea Party has embraced much of the constitutional libertarian platform of confining government to its enumerated powers.
When conservatives complain about the cost of providing services to immigrants and their children, libertarians blame welfare, not immigration. When conservatives like Coulter complain about the harm drugs do (never mind tobacco and booze), libertarians blame socialized medicine, not drugs. Perhaps Coulter is being pragmatic by acknowledging the US socialist family, but she is conceding this generation's key battle and even the soul of the US by doing so.
Socialists refer to their subjects as family much as dictators refer to their subjects as their children. Under collectivism, the consequences of an individual's bad choices (e.g. smoking, or drinking, or irresponsible debt) are borne by everyone. This creates what economists call a moral hazard. By mitigating the negative consequences of bad behavior, the deterrent is minimized. Why not borrow too much when the government will always bail me out? Why not smoke crack when food, shelter, and health care are available no matter how worthless drugs make me? Of course the government might outlaw crack, but the criminal deterrent has proven to be less effective than the personal ruin deterrent. The best policy regarding vices is for people to live with their decisions' consequences, but socialism is a family where consequences are limited.
Coulter is a big sister who thinks MJ should be illegal so she does not have to pay for whatever negative consequences its users might incur. However, the socialist family is not one which libertarians wish to join. Banning drugs is ineffective at best, and the consequence of proscription might actually be more drug use based on decades' long trends. Libertarians are not in favor of MJ, they are opposed to substituting personal responsibility for the socialist family. Liberals just like MJ for policy reasons. While MJ is a popular example and a clear policy argument, the issue is only an example of why the government should not be the master of a socialist family.
Still, Coulter has a point. The US is a socialist welfare state, and she is forced to be responsible for the bad choices of others. She is not wrong to expect good behavior from her wards. Perhaps Coulter has illuminated the key difference between conservatives and libertarians Coulter is willing to be a member of today's deeply flawed US socialist family, while libertarians are still willing to fight. As such a famous fighter, Ms. Coulter should try harder and expect a little more.
Shout Bits can be found on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ShoutBits
If the Liberdopians were honest they would call for the complete legalization of all drugs even for children.
You are correct, I’m going to steal that statement.
They do call for legalization of all drugs, including whatever new stuff and combinations that the pushers and chemists can come up with, they also support the full advertising and marketing of those drugs, and while children aren't mentioned in regards to drug use, the libertarians do support pedophilia, and the ending or lowering of 'consent' laws.
So because it is illegal no one will smoke it and Annie won’t ever have to pay for the (supposed) consequences. The actual present day expense of the pointless, endless WOD is apparently not an issue for her. I see.
I don’t know how libertardians think those things will bring about a better civilization, I think it would return humans to the wild as animals.
I see nothing wrong with a bit of Recreational Heroin
I’m not a fan of legalization but I think this fight is a distraction from far bigger issues.
Remember to ingest it anally!
You can’t build a republic with druggies for your citizenry. People who can’t govern themselves will be governed by their fellows.
You can tolerate legalized drug use if the users are a distinct, marginalized minority and if your public morality is sufficiently strong to keep them marginalized.
So, America in the thirties could tolerate legalized marijuana use. America in the 1890s could tolerate legalized cocaine use.
If the moral disapproval was sufficiently strong among average people, we could tolerate some kind of de-criminalization as long as Madison Avenue didn’t get involved. Cocaine? Does too much damage regardless. Meth? Anyone selling meth should get a bullet in the head.
Now, to anyone who points out that the drug war doesn’t “work”, I would tend to agree. The war on murder never stops because human depravity never stops. If we have to fight drug use using police and courts, the horse has already left the barn, the moral rot has already taken hold. And until we address the moral rot we’ll never “win” the war on drugs. And as we see, the republic itself is in danger. You can’t build a free country with citizens unable and unwilling to govern themselves.
Everyone in this thread so far is just insanely wrong about libertarian philosophy, but no way should anyone let that stand in the way of all the semi-literate fulminating. It’s a lot easier to poor-mouth what you don’t understand than to research and read and actually, y’know, understand it.
On the other hand, libertarians didn’t foist Mitt Romney on us.
There is no bigger or more important issue to doper/druggie lunatictarians.
My drug plan is to legalize every drug, however they government reserves the right to intercept drug shipments and spike them with a deadly neurotoxin until the problem solves itself...
Seriously, there should be a legalization of all non-halucanegenic and non-agression causing drugs.
(I think this would actually keep pot illegal)
I think it would mean cocaine would be legal, but it was in the 1800’s anyways...
What we really need are “drug hotels” where you check in, get high as a kite, then after you sober up they allow you to check out. Then you are no longer endangering others and you can get your high, also they reserve the right to arrest you for any warrants when you check into the drug hotel in case you stole crap to feed your habit.
The RINO’s did that.
But the libertarians are closer to the Dems than they are to conservatives
Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian Party curtain.
Libertarian Party Platform:
Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through political boundaries.
Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.
Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.
Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.
Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.
Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.
Military Strength; minimal capabilities.
Even Iceberg Slim complained in his book “Pimp” that marijuana would make his tricks too lazy to go to work.
As an adult in a free society , Who owns your body?
On the other hand, libertarians didnt foist Mitt Romney on us.
However, counterpoint, Rom Paul was on of the reasons we got Romney in the RNC primary because the little puke seemed to attack only Bachman and Santorum.
Well libertarians DID support keeping Mitt’s buddy Ron Paul in the 2012 race where the two tagteamed on any conservative challengers in the race. Never did have a nasty word for each other in that race.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.