The federal government should have no role in making drugs legal or illegal. That should be left to the states, for the most part. Same with prostitution, gambling, etc. The Liberaltarians I run across on FR want the federal government to legalize those things then put their stamp of approval on it by taxing it, thus protecting it and creating more bureaucracy in order to regulate it.
Most of them that I’ve come across are basically Rand disciples who believe individuality is the greatest good for society.
Where I differ is I don’t think the first step to liberty is for the feds to legalize every vice and start regulating it. That’s what I hear over and over again on FR. Let’s strip the feds of 99.833% of its power, give the States their power back, then let’s talk about whether or not we want pot legal in our respective states.
No Libertarians have ever agreed with me on that schedule but continue their mantra. That’s why I say their top priority is breaking society of its morals and blue laws so free thinking Randianism can prevail.
The federal government should have no role in making drugs legal or illegal. That should be left to the states, for the most part. Same with prostitution, gambling, etc. The Liberaltarians I run across on FR want the federal government to legalize those things then put their stamp of approval on it by taxing it, thus protecting it and creating more bureaucracy in order to regulate it.
As a general principle libertarians take a view that anything you do should be legal until it affects me. I have never met any actual libertarians who have argued for taxes or regulation. The most common position among libertarians is that things like drugs and prostitution should be left to the states as the Constitution would have it. Many would also say that the states should legalize it, not to tax it or regulate it, but simply because it is wrong to prevent people from doing what they want until they harm somebody else.
Most of them that I’ve come across are basically Rand disciples who believe individuality is the greatest good for society.
Yes, I have spoken to these types too, but not most. Not even close. Ayn Rand was a two-bit hack writer with about as much understanding of society as a toddler. Atlas Shrugged is chock full of stupidity about the monetary system and reveals no understanding at all of supply and demand or the competition of the free market. Her view, along the lines of anarcho-capitalism is certainly libertarian, but is a very extreme one. It would be much like the Birchers on the right, and hardly reflects the thoughts of the main. John Galt, and other such stuff, is invoked constantly, even among your run of the mill libertarian simply because it is so ubiquitous. Believe me, very few people really have such a view as Rand. Most are very much closer to the likes of Glen Beck or Ron Paul.
Where I differ is I don’t think the first step to liberty is for the feds to legalize every vice and start regulating it.
I, as a libertarian, absolutely agree. So would any libertarian I know.
That’s what I hear over and over again on FR. Let’s strip the feds of 99.833% of its power, give the States their power back, then let’s talk about whether or not we want pot legal in our respective states.
Absolutely. Government should be close to the people, where we can watch it closely.
No Libertarians have ever agreed with me on that schedule but continue their mantra. That’s why I say their top priority is breaking society of its morals and blue laws so free thinking Randianism can prevail.
I don't know about that. I would love to break society of its blue laws, because they are onerous. But, it isn't so that so-called "Randianism" can prevail. I just wish to be able to buy some liquor when I want. Why shouldn't I? Did I break a law and get restricted? Is it because somebody, who is not my pastor, thinks that Jesus is okay with me drinking on Saturday, but not on Sunday? I don't buy it, and neither should you. The day is fast coming when muslims will outnumber us, and guess what that precedent for government control is going to allow? I hope you don't want a ham sandwich.
But, in basic principle I agree with you. And I see little in your position which would offend my libertarian sensibilities.