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.
You can tolerate “decriminalized” (not legalized) stuff if the users are a small, marginalized minority and this stuff doesn’t get the governments approval.
When I created an idealized country it was illegal to import, export or advertise illegal drugs. As long as no-one knew you were doing it, even your kids, then it wouldn’t be an issue.
The war on pedophilia and the war on child prostitution also never ends. Oh wait, I think the Libertarian Utopianists want those legal too
An adult... don’t pretend the libertarians limit this crap to adults
...and your post makes the key point: the libertine in me wants to say do whatever, leave me alone. The realist in me knows that a drugged out society would result, and then that society would lay down for even more and faster socialism. Catch 22. Maybe this is why the USA ain’t in Revelation.....
You are right, libertarians didn’t foist Mitt on us as a candidate, but they helped foist Obama on us as President.
No candidate has ever trampled on my freedom. A lot of elected officials have.
You didn’t answer. Who owns YOUR body?
I think Coulter drastically underestimates the cost incurred by criminalizing drugs. Violence, incarceration, etc. It has been catastrophically expensive in direct and indirect expenditures to maintain a war on drugs through direct enforcement and incarceration as well as indirect costs like rendering thousands of people unemployable for petty possession charges under three strikes laws. It’s no different than the catastrophic consequences seen during the prohibition of alcohol which was rightfully recognized as a giant failure though alcohol is far more dangerous than many of the drugs on the black market today.
Such an obvious question. You never saw my FR page, I guess.
There is a huge difference between liberty and license and Liberdopians have totally forgotten it
Who owns the body of the guy driving 120mph on highway?
If you do not think there are and should be limits then you are insane.
They don’t misunderstand things. They don’t care that they are lying any more than liberals care about lying. It’s a statist thing not a right or left thing.
I recall only a few candidates whom weren’t of the body politic (Cain); hence, they have ALL infringed upon some Right or another.
I’ll support drug legalization on the condition that no tax payer welfare/healthcare be given to druggies and if they cause harm to another person while on drugs they get long jail/prison sentences and the govt taxes the formerly illegal drugs.
You missed my point...which was in context of the post I replied to. Perhaps I should have copied it....
Coulter is right that as long as we socialize the costs of bad behavior we must accept some regulation. I don’t like the Libertarian label much because they do seem to associate too much with themes like freedom to drug, abort and do whatever you want. I like to start from a non-coercion principle instead and apply it across the board. I don’t think we should be able to tell someone they can’t smoke pot or else we’ll jail them, shoot them, etc. But I don’t think if they sit around high all day they should be able to tax me or else jail me, shoot me, etc., so they can get food stamps, health care etc. In such a free market, bad behavior would be self limiting because of the costs. And under true freedom and justice people would behave better.
If you own my property, to pay for your habit, then you are trying to own my body in a much more aggresive way.....
I am curious, do all of the prohibitionists on this thread abstain from alcohol?
So, where does that Power come from? The Fed is (supposed) limited to A1S8, I’ll presume here it’s a State issue?
We survived 150+ years w/out 99% of the ‘Laws’ we have today, but you believe, somehow, what we have today is Freedom/Liberty? License is easy to define = permission from gov’t to do what would otherwise be unlawful.
When one can dictate to another, through the force of Law, one becomes a slave and no longer Free, the former, master.
You bring up the tired cliche about driving....how does the Law work today? Well enough, with bans on alcohol, eating food, texting, etc.
It seems Coulter is quite content we are no longer a Constitutional Republic, as long as her side are the Fascist ‘in control’.
Usually, when people have a point, they don’t have to resort to crude insults to get it across.
Now, I have used the "welfare state" argument to counter libertarians' insistence on open immigration. I think it would bankrupt us [faster].
But the drug users' medical bills we would be responsible for would probably be balanced out by reduced court and imprisonment costs.
The fact remains: enforcement can stop illegal immigration; enforcement cannot stop illegal drug use.
“I dont know how libertardians think those things will bring about a better civilization”
I’m just as perplexed as to how folks like you think more government will bring about a better civilization.
Very well said!
(If Ann Coulter understood what you wrote, she’d either say something useful or shut up. She doesn’t seem to be learning anything as the years go by. Some sort of mental block, perhaps.)
As long as we have to live in the world as it exist we must make sacrifices to those realities.
The welfare state exist and it will not be abolished tomorrow or the next day, so we must out law drugs or suffer more disabled people that will swell the welfare rolls.
However the War on Drugs is just as much the War on Civil Liberties.
The War on Drugs has been the excuse for No Knock Raids and the militarization of our police forces. The War on Drugs has been the source of money for the expansion and arming of street gangs and international mafias.
At some point we may have to decide that the combination of the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty have both become more than our economy and our society can bear.
In short, vice addiction.
That's basically what she said to them.
Libertarianism and liberalism were the politics of Sodom and Gomorrah which had zero(almost) conservatives, basically anti-God philosophies, and anti-American.
The libertarian goal for the future of America is revealed in their immigration efforts.
“”COMPLETE PLATFORM TEXT
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND CIVIL ORDER
The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new Berlin Wall which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. governments policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.
The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.
Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.
Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.””
That’s a very insightful comment, and it saddens me that too few conservatives think as clearly as you about this issue. One doesn’t need to be in favor of drug use in order to believe that we are pursuing the wrong tactics in our “drug war”, but some people can’t make that distinction.
There are only two ways that I know of to successfully stop a drug epidemic. One of them involves winning over the public so that they voluntary choose to abstain, and that can be a daunting task, no doubt. However, the other way involves the government killing a whole lot of people, which is not where I think America should be heading.
Right now, we’re not really on either of those paths. The public outreach isn’t working well, and we’re not willing to take the enforcement steps that would actually cause any effect. So, the epidemic will continue until we pick one way or the other.
The State's only legitimate function is to protect freedom and adjudicate and punish those who infringe on an individual's freedom; I don't think I've heard a principled libertarian argue against a speed limit. Or even laws prohibiting intoxicated driving. People own their own body, but as I own mine, others don't have the right to put my body under undue risk of their behavior.
So your answer is that you don’t fully own your body but have allowed others to select what your limits are? Who’s then setting the limits, neighbors? A select committee of like minded ‘smart’ people? A democratic majority? A person doing 120mph on an empty highway is a threat only to himself and as such that person should solely bear the consequences of his actions. With others on the highway that person then infringes on their right to life then limits/’license’ on that person’s liberty come into play. There should be no limits on what I choose to do with my own body as long as I bear the full consequences of my choices.....in a free society YOU nor anyone else should have a say in how I treat myself. Here Coulter has a point, if I can’t pay then I shouldn’t play else society has license on my body.
When did I say I want more government?
I would reduce the size of government by 90% AT LEAST if I were in power.
So explain how that is MORE government ??
Libertardians think pedophilia and kids using crack while hooking is just fine and dandy
They are not normal in the head
The poster didn't say that, and it isn't what conservatives believe, we know that libertarianism creates more government, more welfare and social programs, and more democrat voters, not conservative voters.
The last 50 years of libertarian gains has destroyed America and doomed conservatism, the more broken our families and individuals and communities, and the more immigration, the more those weak, indulged, titillated people vote democrat and for programs to support their decadence.
Social liberals vote liberal, and vote for social liberalism, which creates more social liberals, and that is what libertarianism has been working hand in hand with the left to create for the last 50 years.
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.