Posted on 05/18/2011 9:12:16 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Liberty as our founding fathers defined it was accountability and responsibility; first each individual’s accountability directly to God, then to ourselves. If you are accountable to God and yourself, then the authority others can wield over you is limited.
The founders did not agree with you! All drugs, including hard drugs, were entirely legal during the time of the founders. Drug prohibion only came during the era of the nanny state progressives. You are out of step with their vision on this issue, not the libertarians.
There...fixed it for you.
All this is fine and swell but the fact remains, the nut known as Ron Paul will never be president.
Okay, now THAT was funny!
I have psoriaic arthritus...and I am allergic to aspirin and aspirin products. This removes 90% of all pain relief medicine from my use. There is really only one class of pain relievers left for me. Try to get a doctor to prescribe them for an extended period of time. The feds will be all over them. I currently am stuck living with the pain..
I said nothing about legalizing drugs and prostitution, did I? I spoke to the reasoning I see behind the movement. Before accusing me of something get straight what I said, and don’t assume to know me with the intimacy you have assumed.
Three arguments.
1) In our society, any adult can voluntarily have sex with an unlimited number of other adults, legally. Like it or not, as tacky as it is or not, it is how the law is written. Likewise, people can give money to each other for anything or nothing, as long as any applicable taxes are paid on it, as long as the consideration is inherently legal.
But put the two together, and it is “prostitution”. Importantly, there is nothing more than is directly inherent in prostitution than that, despite arguments that unrelated things, like drug abuse, etc. are involved. No, they are not part of the transaction, and nothing directly relates them to it.
2) Right now, government around the world, including our own, are in the midst of a “frenzy of control issues”. They literally want to have a hand in everything and anything we do, in an obsessive-compulsive manner. And this is wrong and evil. It is not their job, but to them it is becoming, or has become, *more* important than their fundamental purpose. Our nation is suffering because they have neglected their job.
Just yesterday, news came out that the Australian government has decided to ban thousands of plants, because they contain trace amounts of illegal to possess chemicals. This includes their national flower. Irrational and bizarre, but this is just one insanity among vast numbers.
This is why drugs, and many other things, should be legal. NOT because there is any legitimate value in the abuse of them, but solely to prevent government involvement in what is NOT a government prerogative. As such, it has wasted hundreds of billions of dollars to do something that should not be done, *by them*.
3) I used to be in favor of America as international policeman. This attitude was based in the fear that small wars can become large ones. But now, with US military forces deployed to over 100 foreign nations, on the most insignificant of pretenses, it has become obvious that we are trying to prevent anyone from fighting anyone, for any reason. This is not a legitimate use of our treasure and blood.
It is time for us to pick and choose our fights. Unless we have a stake in a fight, then we should allow the combatants to use whatever savagery they want against each other. And while we may contribute to war crimes investigations after the fact, intercession on our part is just futile.
“... complete autonomy from authority.”
That is inaccurate. That is not libertarianism, be it from Ayn Rand, Richard Epstein or Walter Williams, just to pick three. Limited government doesn’t equal no government.
My understanding comes from personal contact with Libertarians, so if I got the wrong impression, mia culpa.
Another thing, you are completely high, if you are going to try to tell me that the Founding Fathers thought drug abuse and prostitution were not morally reprehensible. If Libertarians are willing to substitute God’s authority for that which the state has taken, uprightly, then I recant my statement, otherwise, I stand by it.
If your school age daugther is sick and I say a prayer for her, you may be offened, but neither you or she is harmed in any manner.
If I suggest to that same daughter that she sell her body for money and snort a little coke is it possible she may be harmed by that?
We have an idiot as President now. Why go for another?
Yes they did agree with him. Public drunkeness, comminting acts while intoxicated, and prostitution were all illegal at the time. None of the founders sought to change that.
All drugs, including hard drugs, were entirely legal during the time of the founders.
Which drugs? You mean the ones that didn't exist at the time, don't you? Refined drugs like cocaine and heroine didn't exist at the time. You're right, the ones that didn't even exist were legal.
And there was minimal use of other drugs (marijuana, for example, was not smoked to any significant extent in the US until after the Mexican-American war). They weren't an issue at the time of the founding, because they were rarely found in society.
The Libertarian Party should be renamed the Libertine Party, because that is really what they espouse.
A libertine is someone that is free from restraints--legal, societal, religious, or moral. That's what the Libertarian Party espouses, but that is never what the founders espoused--not even close.
Well, there’s plenty of info out there. Thomas Sowell is a good starting point, as is Williams, if you like economics, and Williams hosts Rush’s show a lot.
My challenge to Medved and others is this: defend the War on Drugs without sounding like a liberal defending the War on Poverty. Good luck with that.
WORTH REPEATING
Ron Paul, a crack whore’s best friend.
Unseemly for silly pants Medved to be calling anyone Dr. Demento.
Huh? I never said or implied anything of the sort! Being against legal prohibition of a particular behavior doesn't necessarily mean that you don't find it "morally reprehensible." For example, I think devil worship, failing to give presents on mothers day, and lying to friends or family is "morally reprehensible" but that doesn't mean I'd make these behaviors illegal. Do you feel otherwise?
Unlike the founders, who lived in a world of completely legal hard drugs and apparently had no problem with it, you seem to completely confuse this obvious distinction.
Medved usually has strong arguments for his positions, but this article is lame. I think he intends a smear job on Ron Paul, who is simply arguing that, because regulation of dope and prostitution is not among the enumerated powers of the Constitution, Congress has no authority in regulating such matters. Medved is smart enough to have a deeper understanding of libertarianism and the concept of enumerated powers than he describes here, but knows that a some conservatives are ignorant or prejudiced enough to lap it up. I suspect that he’s really far more concerned about a particular aspect of US foreign policy. He’s certainly not so hard on candidates with dubious records on the right to life.
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.