Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How libertarianism helps the poor
Daily Caller ^ | 6/9/11 | Matt Zwolinski

Posted on 06/09/2011 1:38:51 PM PDT by markomalley

Everybody knows that libertarians are greedy capitalists who favor the maximization of profit above all else. “Taxation is theft!” they cry, but the exploitation of the working classes fails to elicit any similar moral outrage. Libertarians, everybody knows, care about the rich to the utter neglect of the poor and vulnerable.

But everybody is wrong.

The reason for the common misperception, of course, is that libertarians oppose many of the governmental policies that are commonly thought to benefit the poor and working classes. Libertarians oppose redistributive taxation, oppose the minimum wage, oppose workplace safety regulations, antitrust laws, and many other restrictions on business. But none of this means that libertarians are indifferent to the plight of the poor. After all, just because you care about something doesn’t mean you want the government taking care of it.

People make three important errors when thinking about libertarianism and the poor.

The first mistake is to believe the government when it claims that its policies are intended to help the poor. They almost never are. The great bulk of redistributive taxation and subsidization goes to benefit interest groups that are politically powerful, not economically vulnerable. Think Medicare, agricultural subsidies, and the mortgage interest deduction. And most existing regulation of business is, paradoxically enough, for the benefit of business itself. Regulation raises the cost of doing business, and so establishes a barrier to entry that benefits large existing firms at the expense of their smaller competitors. Occupational licensing, for example, whether of doctors, lawyers, or barbers, is almost never forced upon an unwilling industry by public-spirited regulators. Rather, it is actively sought after by established members of the profession itself, eager to insulate themselves against potential competition. And politicians are all-too-willing to

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: brownshirts; charity; christianity; ethics; handouts; headshot; liberalfascism; libertarian; libertarians; poverty; universalhealthcare; welfare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 06/09/2011 1:38:55 PM PDT by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley

By making more of them.................


2 posted on 06/09/2011 1:39:48 PM PDT by Red Badger (Nothing is a 'right' if someone has to give it to you................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Smell No Cannabis Evil
Weekend Libertarian ^ | 9 June, 2011 | B.P. Terpstra
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2732002/posts


3 posted on 06/09/2011 1:45:00 PM PDT by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in a thunderous avalanche of rottenness heard across the universe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Occupational licensing, for example, whether of doctors, lawyers, or barbers, is almost never forced upon an unwilling industry by public-spirited regulators. Rather, it is actively sought after by established members of the profession itself, eager to insulate themselves against potential competition.

Just saw a classic example of this in my state and field over the last few years.

In this particular case, it was a small group within the profession that succeeded in forcing licensing onto everybody else. Nobody ever took a poll or survey to determine what was wanted.

4 posted on 06/09/2011 1:45:13 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
"and the mortgage interest deduction"

It would be truly refreshing to see a libertarian on FR dis the mortgage interest deduction.

The typical quasi-libertarian line around here is "No new taxes. Eliminating a deduction is equivalent to raising a tax. Anyone in favor of eliminating an existing deduction is a commie socialist scumbag."

5 posted on 06/09/2011 1:46:44 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
This article may have been appropriately posted to this (conservative) website if its message was "How Conservatism Helps The Poor," as libertarian and conservative fiscal policies tend to overlap. However, it was obviously written for a liberal audience, and has no real place on FR. Libertarians and Conservatives are different types of Republicans, but libertarians are not Conservatives.
6 posted on 06/09/2011 1:56:22 PM PDT by presidio9 ("Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask rather what you can do for your country." -Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

“Ending the war on drugs, for instance, would disproportionately benefit poor families who live in neighborhoods destroyed by the gang violence created by criminalization, or those who lack the financial and social resources to keep their children out of prison for crimes of mere possession.”

Ugh, what nonsense. One of the reasons these families stay poor is because their kids get strung out on drugs in the first place. Enforcement against drug dealers in the neighbourhood needs to be greater and not lesser, deal with the drugs, and you can protect your family.

If you treat possession as a serious issue, then your kids are not going to be one of the statistics and they have a shot at a better future.

The writer of this article has never lived in a crack infested neighbourhood and tried to make a living there.


7 posted on 06/09/2011 1:56:38 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

The members of a ‘profession’ limit their competition by having their ‘friends’ in the legislature require licenses.

Pretty soon, we’ll have to have licenses for hamburger flippers or street sweepers. It’s a way to ‘unionize’ without the union................


8 posted on 06/09/2011 1:57:01 PM PDT by Red Badger (Nothing is a 'right' if someone has to give it to you................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
The writer of this article has never lived in a crack infested neighbourhood and tried to make a living there.

they live in their theoretical drug induced haze just like a libtard - they want planes crashing everywhere and all of us on deathbeds from antibiotic resistant disease

but hey - small price to pay so they can escape the misery of their pathetic lives without fear of the popo

9 posted on 06/09/2011 2:01:52 PM PDT by sloop (don't touch my junk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Libertarians want to legalize drugs so poor people can afford them too. LOL

I am not anti-Libertarian, but they a so easy to make fun of.


10 posted on 06/09/2011 2:02:26 PM PDT by Gator113 ("GAME ON." I'll be voting for Sarah Palin, Liberty, our Constitution and American Exceptionalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

The best way to help the poor is to continously raise the productivity of labor.


11 posted on 06/09/2011 2:02:49 PM PDT by mjp ((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gator113; BenKenobi; sloop
Goofy May Be a Libertarian
12 posted on 06/09/2011 2:04:28 PM PDT by presidio9 ("Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask rather what you can do for your country." -Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Goofy- Paul 2012

LOL


13 posted on 06/09/2011 2:06:34 PM PDT by Gator113 ("GAME ON." I'll be voting for Sarah Palin, Liberty, our Constitution and American Exceptionalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

You haven’t been talking to people like me then. No new taxes. Repeal most of the old ones. No deductions. Reduce spending, State and Fed, to <1% of GDP.


14 posted on 06/09/2011 2:09:12 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (explosive bolts, ten thousand volts at a million miles an hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
Multi-trillion dollar drug war going on right now...

Note: There were no crack houses before the drug war.

Another Note: Notice how speak-easies disappeared after alcohol prohibition ended?

Yeah... Same thing.

15 posted on 06/09/2011 2:12:20 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (explosive bolts, ten thousand volts at a million miles an hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

For a dead corpse, you’re rather refreshing!


16 posted on 06/09/2011 2:13:59 PM PDT by who_would_fardels_bear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear

Pine tree air freshener. Works every time, one in every car repo’ed.


17 posted on 06/09/2011 2:14:39 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (explosive bolts, ten thousand volts at a million miles an hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gator113
Goofy- Paul 2012

A wee bit redundant, no?

18 posted on 06/09/2011 2:14:57 PM PDT by presidio9 ("Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask rather what you can do for your country." -Cicero)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

You again? I’ve lived in several neighbourhoods. If you think the poor is helped by lax enforcement, think again.


19 posted on 06/09/2011 2:15:22 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Libertarianism is perfect if they would promote virtuous behavior...the behavior that the Founders knew was essential for a free people.

Your government has to promote the (few) laws that reward the good and punish the bad....it is that simple, yet Libertarians deny that we have a standard based on God’s Laws....which is in our Founding documents.

They want to say that morality has no business in government when that is the only purpose of any laws. (Thou shalt not steal, kill, commit adultery). Government has to make sure that societies are run so people are not using other people as a means to their ends (Marxism). This idea (Austin, Bentham, Holmes) that morality can be separated from our legal system is the BIG LIE.

To have a civil society that can interact efficiently and productively in a safe environment....morality is essential...stated as “virtue” by the Founders. The more virtuous, the more freedom.

In the 18th century it was a common idea among everyone that acting with virtue was the only thing that created happiness. It is proven throughout societies....evil, immoral behavior causes destruction of the civil body and damage, both monetarily and emotionally, that damages the culture. Children are particularly vulnerable to damage, and emotionally damaged children, like the sodomized Manson, end up causing death and destruction. You can never have a “civil” society if there is no moral standard. The Bible has been the most successful standard for free people in all of history.

It is government’s responsibility to make sure that every law enacted, promotes the good and discourages the bad. It makes sure there is equality among all the people with no special rights for anyone unless it is essential to the virtue and future of a culture—like the uniting of the sexes and establishing a support system for children like the natural family. Inalieanble right to biological parents is a child’s right for the best chance at happiness and needs to be highly encouraged and attempts to diminish this unit need to be discriminated against since it goes against nature. Our legal system is aligned to Natural Law Theory and so, everything can not be encouraged....particularly unnatural things with demean the body and make people commodities....like prostitution. It leads to inhumanity toward human beings and is the slippery slope.

Today’s government is totally unconstitutional because it goes against the fundamental principles of our legal system (Judge Joseph Story’s Commentaries). Marxists have destroyed the “equal under the law” and give special rights to their buddies and lobbyists who bribe them.

Libertarians have to understand that, yes, they are right about free markets....but the law does have to exist where humans are treated as commodities (no slavery, prostitution, drugs that damage the body) where humans are not treated with dignity, worth and equality, using the logic and reason of Natural Law Theory and God’s laws as that standard of “right and wrong”.

Repeat: God’s standard....not allah’s, not Marx’s....but God’s. There is a difference and our Constitution is clear on their standards that Libertarians want to ignore.


20 posted on 06/09/2011 2:16:11 PM PDT by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

I think the “soft bigotry of low expectations” from the Nanny State does more damage than drug addiction. The proof is all around you...


21 posted on 06/09/2011 2:16:58 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (explosive bolts, ten thousand volts at a million miles an hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

You are keeping me laughing.


22 posted on 06/09/2011 2:19:11 PM PDT by Gator113 ("GAME ON." I'll be voting for Sarah Palin, Liberty, our Constitution and American Exceptionalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

That’s why it’s important to have high expectations, to get rid of the scummy dealers and keep your kids off dope.

But I guess we should just ignore them, and leave them be and hope for the best.


23 posted on 06/09/2011 2:22:49 PM PDT by BenKenobi (Honkeys for Herman!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; Allerious; ...




Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
24 posted on 06/09/2011 2:31:11 PM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi
The writer of this article has never lived in a crack infested neighborhood and tried to make a living there.

Libertarians are not all bad but they are always educated and live in nice places. They tend to do well in life, so they think so can all others even if they are dumb as posts. Far better to try and execute all drug pushers but free republic libertarians always object to this. They either take drugs or have friends who sell and distribute them
Plop down a libertarian with his wife and kids in one of these drug infested neighborhoods and see how long they last. See if they don't want to kill the drug pusher who approaches his young son and daughter

25 posted on 06/09/2011 2:31:18 PM PDT by dennisw (NZT - "works better if you're already smart")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie
Repeat: God's standard....not allah's, not Marx's....but God's. There is a difference and our Constitution is clear on their standards that Libertarians want to ignore.

Was legal prohibition of alcohol or drugs present in any of the societies in the Bible?

Was there any recommendation that these should be prohibited under secular law?

Speaking of the Constitution, do you think the original Commerce Clause authorized fedgov to impose national drug or alcohol prohibition... yes or no?

26 posted on 06/09/2011 3:10:08 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: familyop
Do you think the original Commerce Clause authorized fedgov to impose national marijuana prohibition... yes or no?
27 posted on 06/09/2011 3:14:33 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Libertarians and Conservatives are different types of Republicans, but libertarians are not Conservatives.

True, but as I say to my conservative friends all the time, we can debate our differences in a civilized forum later. Right now, though, we have more important battles to fight against the Marxists and the Islamists. We cannot afford divisions in our ranks while the fate of civilization is on the line.

28 posted on 06/09/2011 3:16:10 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Alcohol is not bad if it isn’t used to excess. In fact, there are benefits. Everything used to extremes can be bad....even drinking too much water-—so no, there should be no law against alcohol except slight ones where children are concerned.


29 posted on 06/09/2011 3:18:10 PM PDT by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Also laws governing the use of vehicles, etc. where people can be killed by the impairment....

You have to apply “Common Sense” which is so spelled out by Thomas Reid.

That is what we no longer do—use common sense and it is because of the Cultural Marxist’s PC to destroy the freedom of speech and the expression of ideas.


30 posted on 06/09/2011 3:20:34 PM PDT by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Gator113

Yes, and I really like their open borders drivel. Loosertarians will never win anything meaningful as long as they are against national defense(his reference to trident missles somehow being equivalent to our infantry on the ground in a foreign war)and for open borders.


31 posted on 06/09/2011 3:26:05 PM PDT by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie
Interesting. Now, would you care to answer the questions put to you?

1. Was legal prohibition of alcohol or drugs present in any of the societies in the Bible... YES or NO?

Was there any recommendation that these should be prohibited under secular law... YES or NO?

You mentioned the Constitution. Do you think the original Commerce Clause authorized fedgov to impose national drug or alcohol prohibition... YES or NO?

32 posted on 06/09/2011 3:32:32 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Yes, but Prohibition did make it harder for the so inclimed to get booze as well. In fact, cases of alcoholism dropped during those years.


33 posted on 06/09/2011 3:37:08 PM PDT by Amberdawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie
its all about drugz - so desperate to escape the reality of their life that they will fight to the bitter end to get approval of their dysfunction

all energy put into proving ‘hemp’ cures cancer and creates world peace

34 posted on 06/09/2011 3:41:10 PM PDT by sloop (don't touch my junk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BenKenobi

It’s up to ME to keep my kids off dope. Expecting the incompetent FedGov to do it is an exercise in sheer madness.


35 posted on 06/09/2011 3:57:20 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (explosive bolts, ten thousand volts at a million miles an hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Amberdawn
Actually, addiction rates to various substance have been steady since those stats have been kept.

However, addiction to more and more Nanny State government seems to have no end...

36 posted on 06/09/2011 4:01:20 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (explosive bolts, ten thousand volts at a million miles an hour)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

It is the philosophy of Thomas Reid that was the basis of the Biblical foundation, so it just wasn’t Tom, Dick. or Harry’s interpretation of the Bible. He founded the Common Sense school of philosophy and was more influential to John Adams than even Locke.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reid/

America was great because common sense was common. All this PC BS would have NEVER flown—having strangers teach little kids about how kids can have two mommies....to demean dads and make them irrelevant???? A biological LIE taught in schools?????? Absolutely stupid and unconstitutional to teach lies and pervert children’s nature to believe the ridiculous beats cause and effect. It is cognitive dissonance and destroys logic in children (KGB agent).

Jesus turned water into wine for a wedding at his mother’s request so I don’t see where you are going with this. Moderation is important in all aspects of life. Read Aristotle’s Virtues......It is all about the mean between two extremes. His definition of “virtue” holds up for the Bible also which was aligned with Natural Law Theory by Thomas Aquinas. Christian Theology is the most reasoned and logical religion (because of this alignment) because St. Thomas said that the Truth should never contradict the “laws of nature”.

It is the basis of our Constitution—laws of nature—cause and effect.....Understanding cause and effect is called Rational Thinking......

It is why the US was so successful....the religion was rational and the laws were rational. Rational laws (based on Natural Law Theory) according to Cicero (non Christian age) ALSO acknowledged that “Just Law” is based on the laws of nature. To go against nature (homosexual marriage) is not just law. It forces unnatural on the populous which means you need force of law to promote it since it will not be sanctioned otherwise. Since it is unnatural you are forcing people to go against their innate conscience and it can never be done in a FREE society where parents have the right to bring up their children in their worldview-—not some perverted person making up “right and wrong” NOT based on the laws of nature and God’s laws which is written in our Founding documents.

So, no, the Commerce Clause was greatly mutilated and is now unconstitutional because of the misuse. It is no longer reasonable and rational....it is twisted logic.....to control people and actions.(politicians/power for you!!)

I agree with limited government....we are WAY beyond constitutional since Dewey, Holmes, FDR and Wilson...


37 posted on 06/09/2011 5:22:25 PM PDT by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Da Bilge Troll
We cannot afford divisions in our ranks while the fate of civilization is on the line.

Right! Too bad most don't see it like that.


Built with SUSE Studio

If you can't appreciate the pure beauty of the violin after hearing this, something's wrong with your ears.

Or you can get raw with these strings. Either way, the violin is sweet yet lethal.

Do it!

38 posted on 06/09/2011 5:23:27 PM PDT by rdb3 (The mouth is the exhaust pipe of the heart.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: who_would_fardels_bear; bamahead
"No new taxes. Eliminating a deduction is equivalent to raising a tax. Anyone in favor of eliminating an existing deduction is a commie socialist scumbag."

If we must maintain the individual income tax, all of the deductions and credits need to go, all income should be taxed at the same rate, the number of filing statuses should be reduced to one (individual), and the number of brackets should be reduced to two (5 percent and 10 percent), with the dividing line between the brackets indexed to median individual income.

Oh, and eliminate the estate tax while you're at it.

39 posted on 06/09/2011 6:00:27 PM PDT by rabscuttle385 (Live Free or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

I’m a libertarian/conservative who generally lives in what one would call “da hood.” I am all for decriminalizing drugs.


40 posted on 06/09/2011 6:21:53 PM PDT by nonliberal (Graduate: Curtis E. LeMay School of International Relations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

I’ll have to look up how long the stat’s have been kept.


41 posted on 06/09/2011 6:33:36 PM PDT by Amberdawn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: nonliberal

odd thing to be proud of


42 posted on 06/09/2011 6:50:17 PM PDT by sloop (don't touch my junk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie
So, no, the Commerce Clause was greatly mutilated and is now unconstitutional because of the misuse. It is no longer reasonable and rational....it is twisted logic.....to control people and actions.(politicians/power for you!!)

Actually, the original understanding of the Commerce Clause is still reasonable and rational. But I agree that it's been misused in the way you describe since the 1930's.

The federal War on Drugs uses the same New Deal Commerce Clause for its existence.

I agree with limited government....we are WAY beyond constitutional since Dewey, Holmes, FDR and Wilson...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you supported the federal War on Drugs. If so, then you are supporting federal laws that you believe violate the Constitution.

Is that not showing contempt for the Constitution?

43 posted on 06/09/2011 7:04:59 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: nonliberal

You live there with children and family that would be exposed to decriminalization?


44 posted on 06/09/2011 7:06:10 PM PDT by dennisw (NZT - "works better if you're already smart")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Commerce Clause meaning and intent has been grossly mutilated... The Natural Law Theory Justice from Wikipedia: “ Justice Clarence Thomas, in a separate concurring opinion, argued that allowing Congress to regulate intrastate, noncommercial activity under the Commerce Clause would confer on Congress a general “police power” over the Nation.”

Right now, YES, I believe in Federal control in the War on Drugs ONLY because we are so unconstitutional now with welfare laws, etc. that people get government money (mine) when they do dysfunctional things, because we are no longer based on God’s Laws and We the People.

In other words, they do not suffer consequences for their drug use....they are picked up from the gutter and do not die...where people would learn really quickly what happens to drug addicts, etc.....kind of the way things happened in the Wild Wild West. If people don’t suffer consequences for their actions it is endorsement of the activity. Give unwed mothers money for having children out of wedlock===Wow!!! You get lots of it. (Cause and effect).

Then you have the Opium trade in China that shows the evil and destruction of a culture that happens when there is no drug law. (I know why Soros wants to legalize it....to push it on the kids and ruin their future, motivation and respect of culture and destroy their brains and make them uninterested in learning true history and the joys of intellectual endeavors. He wants obamabots who copulate all over the place since they’re so vulnerable with “plastic minds” at age 6 (easily shaped into godless idiots by our public schools because of Postmodernism.). Kind of like the Brave New World. He wants sex ed to teach children that there is no moral component to the sex act, so they think of sex as a commodity because of immaturity experiment with all the pederasts, mostly Soros’ friends who are all sick and twisted.

Chambers said it best: God or man. Well, our Constitution was Founded on God’s standards of right and wrong....not Soros’ sick, twisted vision of obamabot slaves.

Libertarian drug policies only will work successfully if the rest of the society is free and has limited government. You can not have ONE section be Libertarian and have it work successfully if the other areas of society aren’t based on Libertarian philosophy. It won’t work...it will create a hellhole deeper than the one we are already in.

I think we should have our gun rights returned to us BEFORE any restrictions on drugs be lifted. AND our rights to use them when our property or bodies are threatened. There are so MANY unconstitutional laws and regulations that we need back to become healthy and responsible citizens again. Drug laws are lower than the more essential gun laws, right for parents to choose schools and teachers... etc. etc. We need the ability to get our kids out of the Marxist PC brainwashing institutions-—where we can again teach absolutes and then...Yes...have no drug laws....the kids will be able to make the intellectually right choice because they will have knowledge based on reason and logic. Why would they want to damage their bodies when they have the Truth and a loving family support system.

Responsible, virtuous people need no laws.


45 posted on 06/09/2011 8:21:39 PM PDT by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: sloop

Actually, the war on the constitution wrought by the war on some drugs is an odd thing to ne proud of. Were I a drug warrior, I know I’d be too shamed to show my face... which may well help explain their addiction to ski masks when they bust down doors, kill family pets and terrorize families.


46 posted on 06/09/2011 8:24:34 PM PDT by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie
Right now, YES, I believe in Federal control in the War on Drugs ONLY because we are so unconstitutional now with welfare laws, etc. that people get government money (mine) when they do dysfunctional things, because we are no longer based on God’s Laws and We the People.

Wow! That's some pretty cloudy reasoning. The so-called "War on Drugs" is a mockery of two travesties of a sham.

Having said that, federal and state governments have every right to impose drug testing on welfare recipients.

My own state of Florida recently passed such a law, and I am all for it, while still being staunchly against fascist War on Drugs itself...

47 posted on 06/09/2011 8:29:30 PM PDT by sargon (I don't like the sound of these "boncentration bamps")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie
You are now on record as supporting laws that you believe violate the Constitution.

There is a method for fedgov to deal with national problems without cheating on the Commerce Clause. It's called amending the Constitution. If there's an emergent situation, fedgov is authorized to deal with invasions, rebellions or insurrections.

You, however, advocate fedgov violating the Commerce Clause to inject federal power for your particular cause.

Your display of contempt for the Constitution is an example that would do a Lefty proud.

48 posted on 06/09/2011 8:58:07 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: sargon

We have to eliminate the welfare state....that is the problem and it is so unconstitutional.

The War on Drugs is a fiasco because We the People have had our gun rights and rights to protect our person and property taken away from us. We need a police force to do it NOW....That shouldn’t be necessary. We should be able to protect ourselves.

My point was—since you didn’t read the whole post—is that when we get back to the original intent and meaning of the Constitution...then, yes, we can get rid of the drug laws....IF there is NO welfare state.

Most importantly...we need to get back to local parental control of the schools which bans the DOE and all communist pushing unions. Parents have the fundamental right to control the worldview and information that is given to their children, and this brainwashing into the irrational Postmodern philosophy is destroying the intellectual development of the children. Public schools are putting out “group think” idiots (intentionally-—BK Eakman)

Before we make drugs legal we have to get the kids out of the “group think” indoctrination centers so they will once again, like many decades ago, make really healthy, responsible choices. If they don’t....well, it will be their church and family that pick up the pieces, as it used to be.

Government regulations and interference have made medical care and education go sky high. Get them OUT of the way.. Let the people make the decisions....

Libertarian drug policies will not work when you have an ignorant, uneducated, irresponsible, government-dependent people who are treated like babies by the State— which we have today —thanks to the indoctrination centers Dewey instilled in the 30’s and the fascism/Marxism in our institutions today.


49 posted on 06/09/2011 9:15:06 PM PDT by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

Wrong. Your logic is baffling.

I am talking about the intent and meaning of the Commerce Clause when it was written....that is what the law is. All the courts are allowed to do is interpret that meaning and intent....not change it on a whim (like they have done).

If they amend it....then, yes, it changes. And if they stick to its intent and meaning, then they are within their Constitutional Rights.

So, sorry, I am a strict Constitutionalist, far from a “lefty”. And, unlike so many Holmsian Postmoderns, I do not believe it is a “living, breathing document”. Those lefties believe they can make it mean anything they want....which is what they are doing.....making up law. There is no Rule of Law then....totally unconstitutional.


50 posted on 06/09/2011 9:29:01 PM PDT by savagesusie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson