Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

An Open Letter to Libertarians
The BIDINOTTO BLOG ^ | 10/25/04 | John Hospers

Posted on 10/25/2004 8:41:19 AM PDT by Dr. Free Market

When the stakes are not high it is sometimes acceptable, even desirable, to vote for a "minor party" candidate who cannot possibly win, just to "get the word out" and to promote the ideals for which that candidate stands. But when the stakes are high, as they are in this election, it becomes imperative that one should choose, not the candidate one considers philosophically ideal, but the best one available who has the most favorable chance of winning. The forthcoming election will determine whether it is the Republicans or the Democrats that win the presidency. That is an undeniable reality. If the election is as close as it was in 2000, libertarian voters may make the difference as to who wins in various critical "Battle Ground" states and therefore the presidency itself. That is the situation in which we find ourselves in 2004. And that is why I believe voting for George W. Bush is the most libertarian thing we can do.

(Excerpt) Read more at bidinotto.journalspace.com ...


TOPICS: Candidates; General Discussion
KEYWORDS: bidinotto; hospers; libertarianism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last
Where have we heard this before?
1 posted on 10/25/2004 8:41:19 AM PDT by Dr. Free Market
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dr. Free Market

It's too bad the GOP has been saying this year after year after year, because finally, for the first time, it is possibly true.

As a libertarian I am voting for Bush, not because I agree with his governing philosophy as a whole, but because I agree that defending the country is the paramount concern to which the government needs to be directed. Without effective defense, what other liberty can survive?


2 posted on 10/25/2004 8:45:19 AM PDT by thoughtomator ("!Allahu Snackbar" - the war cry of the pajamadeen - Let's stop VOTE FRAUD NOW! Write your reps!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Free Market

It has been my hope that the libertarians will take over the democratic party. Do you think it will happen in my lifetime?


3 posted on 10/25/2004 8:51:00 AM PDT by Taggart_D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Free Market

Same old canard - vote Republican because we can win. . . BAH! The lesser of two evils is still evil.


4 posted on 10/25/2004 10:07:16 AM PDT by kjvail (Judica me Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Taggart_D

No. The Democrat Party is closer to extinction than rebirth.


5 posted on 10/25/2004 10:26:52 AM PDT by Dr. Free Market
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kjvail
Same old canard - vote Republican because we can win. . . BAH! The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Always better to use trite catchphrases than to really think about the issues, isn't it?

If you're given the choice between being shot in the head or punched in the shoulder, are you indifferent between the two? Why? After all, the lesser of two evils is still evil, right?

The canard isn't "Vote for Bush because we can win." It's "Vote for Bush because he's infinitely better than Kerry."


6 posted on 10/25/2004 12:08:08 PM PDT by Politicalities (http://www.politicalities.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kjvail

Bottom line:

Even if you think government intervention and spending is a wash between Democrats and Republicans, I ask you,
"Do you want Pres. Kerry defending our country and laughing at Libertarians, while Badnarik teaches skydiving, but your conscience is pure; or a Pres. Bush defending our country, beholden to Libertarians, while Badnarik teaches skydiving, and you swallowing your pride for a day."

You choose.

And I submit that this is an accurate description of the reality.


7 posted on 10/25/2004 12:28:02 PM PDT by Dr. Free Market
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Free Market; Cultural Jihad; Mudboy Slim; speekinout; Tensgrrl; FrPR; familyop; tpaine

An Open Letter to Libertarians - From one of the sane few.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/1256242/posts


8 posted on 10/25/2004 7:57:01 PM PDT by ClintonBeGone (Take the first step in the war on terror - defeat John Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClintonBeGone
"I believe voting for George W. Bush is the most libertarian thing we can do."

No argument here...Dubyuh may be have been too big a spender in his first term, but Kerry would set back libertarianism a country mile. Hell, Kerry's the NumberOne Most-Lib'ral Senator in a very Lib'ral Senate!! You don't get those sorta awards without being a damned Socialist Dweeb!!

FReegards...MUD

9 posted on 10/25/2004 8:02:20 PM PDT by Mudboy Slim (Girleymen HATE Bush!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: ClintonBeGone
My Open Letter to Liberaltarians:

"Our candidate's red hot! Yo' B____ ain't doodly squat!"


11 posted on 10/25/2004 9:03:31 PM PDT by familyop (Receive, adhere, listen, dissolve, entice and launch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ClintonBeGone; All

...think I was too rough with that, ClintonBeGone? Maybe...

C'mon, folks, we can't afford to let Kerry into that Office! Libertarians can't afford that, either, unless they want the Clintonistas behind Kerry to confiscate a lot of private properties for the government.


12 posted on 10/25/2004 9:07:32 PM PDT by familyop (Receive, adhere, listen, dissolve, entice and launch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Free Market

And it's way late for any who present themselves as conservatives of any kind to be campaigning against President Bush.

Do some research on "gradualism" and "incrementalism" along with "socialism." ...one yard at a time for now, friends.


13 posted on 10/25/2004 9:12:04 PM PDT by familyop (Receive, adhere, listen, dissolve, entice and launch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Free Market
The stakes are too high to reward the GOP with another four years.

The GOP is using Kerry to blackmail freedom-lovers into voting for more GOP radical-extreme left socialism.

It's like Napoleon warning the animals that they must support his tyranny, lest Farmer Jones return.

14 posted on 10/26/2004 11:16:07 PM PDT by Commie Basher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Free Market
The stakes are too high to reward the GOP with another four years.

The GOP is using Kerry to blackmail freedom-lovers into voting for more GOP radical-extreme left socialism.

It's like Napoleon warning the animals that they must support his tyranny, lest Farmer Jones return.

15 posted on 10/26/2004 11:16:38 PM PDT by Commie Basher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Commie Basher

Got medication?

I didn't realize LaRouche was on the ballot this year.


16 posted on 10/27/2004 6:03:18 AM PDT by Dr. Free Market
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Politicalities
"Always better to use trite catchphrases than to really think about the issues, isn't it?...If you're given the choice between being shot in the head or punched in the shoulder, are you indifferent between the two? Why? After all, the lesser of two evils is still evil, right?...The canard isn't "Vote for Bush because we can win." It's "Vote for Bush because he's infinitely better than Kerry.'"

Well, I HAVE thought about it, trite catchphrase or not. I will not let the threat of terrorism cause me to abandon my principles. I will never vote for a president who singlehandedly did more damage to the Constitution than any other president in our nation's history by signing Campaign Finance Reform. Never before have we ever seen such a blatant attack on the First Amendment of the Constitution, and for that, I will NEVER forgive him.

Bush is "Infinitely" better than Kerry? Let's see: There's virtually no differences with their plans in Iraq. Kerry's not going to abandon the hunt for Al Queda. They both are against gay marriage. They both wanted government coverage for prescription drugs -- and got it. Both came out against free speech with respect to 527 groups. Both have no interest in securing the borders. Both want to grow the size of the federal government, and have absolutely no plans to diminish it. And both candidates LOVE to spend our money. So tell me, what is so "infinitely" better about Bush?

Your analogy between getting shot in the head and punched in the shoulder is severely flawed. I know we're talking semantics here but, being shot in the head is murder -- which is evil. Being punched in the shoulder can be playful, or a mere annoyance. Huge distinction there. The differences between Bush and Kerry are no further than the difference between Coke and Pepsi.

Badnarik is the only clear choice for a return to constitutional government.
17 posted on 10/28/2004 2:23:35 PM PDT by Beemnseven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Politicalities
"Always better to use trite catchphrases than to really think about the issues, isn't it?...If you're given the choice between being shot in the head or punched in the shoulder, are you indifferent between the two? Why? After all, the lesser of two evils is still evil, right?...The canard isn't "Vote for Bush because we can win." It's "Vote for Bush because he's infinitely better than Kerry.'"

Well, I HAVE thought about it, trite catchphrase or not. I will not let the threat of terrorism cause me to abandon my principles. I will never vote for a president who singlehandedly did more damage to the Constitution than any other president in our nation's history by signing Campaign Finance Reform. Never before have we ever seen such a blatant attack on the First Amendment of the Constitution, and for that, I will NEVER forgive him.

Bush is "Infinitely" better than Kerry? Let's see: There's virtually no differences with their plans in Iraq. Kerry's not going to abandon the hunt for Al Queda. They both are against gay marriage. They both wanted government coverage for prescription drugs -- and got it. Both came out against free speech with respect to 527 groups. Both have no interest in securing the borders. Both want to grow the size of the federal government, and have absolutely no plans to diminish it. And both candidates LOVE to spend our money. So tell me, what is so "infinitely" better about Bush?

Your analogy between getting shot in the head and punched in the shoulder is severely flawed. I know we're talking semantics here but, being shot in the head is murder -- which is evil. Being punched in the shoulder can be playful, or a mere annoyance. Huge distinction there. The differences between Bush and Kerry are no further than the difference between Coke and Pepsi.

Badnarik is the only clear choice for a return to constitutional government.
18 posted on 10/28/2004 2:24:21 PM PDT by Beemnseven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Free Market

19 posted on 10/28/2004 2:35:00 PM PDT by rightwingreligiousfanatic (Bush/Cheney: Hope is here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beemnseven
So good you had to post it twice, eh?
Bush is "Infinitely" better than Kerry? Let's see: There's virtually no differences with their plans in Iraq. Kerry's not going to abandon the hunt for Al Queda.

Gotta disagree with you on that, friend. Bush believes that we were right to go into Iraq, and his goal is to build a democracy there, thus providing a beacon to the other despotisms in the Middle East. Kerry's first goal will be to get American troops home as quickly as possible. How can Kerry handle Iraq effectively if he doesn't believe in the cause?

So tell me, what is so "infinitely" better about Bush?

Badnarik is the only clear choice for a return to constitutional government.

There is only one person on this planet with whose views I agree 100%, and that is myself. Nevertheless, I do not write my own name in for President, because my vote would be totally wasted and would have zero chance of affecting the outcome. So will your vote for Badnarik.

But even if Badarik actually stood a chance, I would not vote for him because of his disastrous position on the War on Terror, including the battle in Iraq.

20 posted on 10/28/2004 6:18:25 PM PDT by Politicalities (http://www.politicalities.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #21 Removed by Moderator

To: Politicalities
There's no edit or delete button that I'm aware of. That's why you saw my reply twice.

Now, your point that Bush believes we were right to go into Iraq is academic now that we're already there. While I am no fan of John Kerry, his position on Iraq is virtually identical to Bush's, and frankly, his goal to get the troops out as soon as possible is the right position as opposed to one that admits there's no end in sight, with no clear objective as to the final withdrawal of our armed forces cited. Will this be another Germany and Japan or Korea where are troops are stationed there for another 60 plus years? That ought to improve the way we're looked at by the people of the middle east!

Just because Bush has sent the military after the terrorists doesn't mean he deserves a free pass to another 4 years. People who support the president simply because of those three little words "War on Terror" I think tend to cite that without much thought, and use it as an easy way to weasel out of defending his decidedly nonconservative ways and in some cases outright incompetence. They should spend more time investigating just how effective Bush has been fighting it. Recruitment for Al Queda is reportedly up. Reckless and ill-advised planning on Iraq, thumbing our noses at our allies, and emboldening the anti-American sentiment throughout the middle east isn't what I'd call a passing job for the War on Terror.

There are basically two differences between republicans and democrats. The "R's" like to throw us a nickel every now and then, while the "D's" want to tax us into oblivion. Abortion is the other difference. But like the Cato Institute put it so well, giving Bush a pass for the tax cuts he has proposed is kind of like thanking a thief for returning $10 of the hundred that he stole from you. The president, with his "oh, just charge it" mentality on the deficit and failing to veto one single spending bill from Congress is counterproductive to the cycle that forces the hardworking taxpayers to repay the bill that these two 'party animals' have run up. If you're a libertarian, (which I highly doubt) you cannot carelessly dismiss these facts, blindly support George Bush, and wake up tomorrow morning without feeling just a tad intellectually dishonest.

Affirmative Action? What good is Bush's opposition to it when the Supreme Court whose majority was appointed by republicans rules the way they do? You're grasping here, friend.

George Bush has had the luxury of 4 years in office, and a good portion of it with a Congress that will rubber stamp practically anything he does. What accomplishments has he made against the "Constitutional abomination" of Roe vs. Wade? Abortion is the rallying cry of every conservative during each election cycle yet they go home dejected and unhappy every single time with no positive results to speak of. When are you people just going to drop that useless issue? The majority of Americans are against you on that anyway.

In closing, I will continue to vote my beliefs, my ideals and my philosophies, whether my candidate loses the election or not. You can continue to vote republican if you wish, and walk away yet again with that familiar sinking feeling in your stomach, when you realize that the candidate you voted for will do nothing to reduce government, return us to liberty and the Constitution, and carry us further into the socialist abyss to which this country is inevitably headed.

I sincerely hope you're happy about that.
22 posted on 10/29/2004 2:33:05 PM PDT by Beemnseven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

This open letter would be worth reading if the Republican incumbent was, say, Barry Goldwater, Robert Taft, or perhaps even Ronald Reagan. Instead, it is George Walker Bush, who has dramatically increased the size and scope of the federal government and aggressively invaded another country. No thanks. If anything, a Kerry win would be beneficial, because it might purge the neoconservative movement from the Republican Party.


23 posted on 11/02/2004 7:17:39 PM PST by Nystrom ("Capitalism is inseperable from freedom." -Milton Friedman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Free Market
Since 1900, Republican rhetoric has been great, its the actions that are appalling. Is gov't smaller? Are taxes lower? Are we on the gold standard? Has any department EVER been cut? Are we out of the filthy organization the U.N.? Are our troops home securing our border? Is the EPA no longer strangling corporate America? Is the tax code simpler? Are gun rights better? Are there fewer laws? Do you feel more free then the citizen of 1900?

So after what, 10(?) Republican administrations since 1900, they've done what exactly? The Libertarian is wasting HIS vote?
24 posted on 11/18/2004 9:31:19 PM PST by Rocky2 (Libertarians ain't fooled.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rocky2

Thank goodness you're marginalized.


25 posted on 11/18/2004 9:35:09 PM PST by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
Thank goodness you're marginalized.

Yeah.

It is more difficult for marginalized individuals to point out the facts and embarrass those of you in the majority.

26 posted on 11/25/2004 1:27:34 PM PST by NMC EXP (Choose one: [a] party [b] principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: NMC EXP

Somehow getting Democrats elected while telling conservatives what is wrong doesn't cut it.


27 posted on 11/25/2004 11:22:34 PM PST by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: A CA Guy
...telling conservatives what is wrong ...

Your premise is wrong. The republican party is no longer conservative.

28 posted on 11/26/2004 5:45:47 AM PST by NMC EXP (Choose one: [a] party [b] principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Beemnseven
In closing, I will continue to vote my beliefs, my ideals and my philosophies, whether my candidate loses the election or not.


29 posted on 11/26/2004 10:22:37 AM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

Same sex marriage
Open borders
legalized cocaine

-- Gay Marriage -- Funny, it was my impression that in a free country, no one should be able to have any say in the private, religious contracts or associations between consenting adults. How do you conservatives get away with calling yourselves in favor of "smaller, less intrusive government" when your stated position is to require people who love each other to bow and beg before the mighty alter of government for its approval to get married?

-- Open Borders -- This is a concern of a Bush supporter ?!? It may surprise you to learn that Michael Badnarik suggested abolishing the Border Patrol and replacing it with the branch of government that is actually responsible for the protection of our borders - the military. What a concept. Think your buddy George will propose anything like that? I don't think so, that would have severely limited his ability to purchase more hispanic votes, don't you think?

-- Cocaine -- Here we go again with that concept of freedom that conservatives find so troublesome when the topic shifts to drugs. Do you own your body? If so, how is it that the government gets to decide what substances it will allow you to put into your body? Are you a sovereign individual? Or are you a slave to the state? Because when the government prohibits you from injesting substances it doesn't like, essentially they are telling you that you are tampering with government property. How does it feel to be property, owned and controlled by the government?

See, it's the ever increasing number of asterisks that conservatives put behind the word 'liberty' that I have a problem with. That's why I vote Libertarian.


30 posted on 11/30/2004 2:31:16 PM PST by Beemnseven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Beemnseven
That's why I vote Libertarian.

That's why Libertarians only get about 0.3 percent of the vote and decreasing.

31 posted on 11/30/2004 2:36:49 PM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Beemnseven
-- Open Borders -- This is a concern of a Bush supporter ?!? It may surprise you to learn that Michael Badnarik suggested abolishing the Border Patrol and replacing it with the branch of government that is actually responsible for the protection of our borders - the military. What a concept. Think your buddy George will propose anything like that? I don't think so, that would have severely limited his ability to purchase more hispanic votes, don't you think?

Uh, you didn't read it all. Badnarik proposes unlimited immigration "subject only to brief vetting to ensure that they are not terrorists" How would that "severly limit" George's Hispanic votes ...

32 posted on 11/30/2004 2:41:40 PM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Beemnseven
-- Cocaine -- Here we go again with that concept of freedom that conservatives find so troublesome when the topic shifts to drugs.

Some see it as freedom not to be attacked by cocaine addicts.

33 posted on 11/30/2004 2:42:49 PM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Some see it as freedom not to be attacked by cocaine addicts.

Non sequitor. I don't want to be attacked by drunks either. In both cases government can and should punish the attackers.

34 posted on 11/30/2004 2:47:07 PM PST by ThinkDifferent (A plan is not a litany of complaints)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ThinkDifferent
Non sequitor. I don't want to be attacked by drunks either. In both cases government can and should punish the attackers.

You cannot compare the effects of a drunk to those of a crack-crazed guy.

35 posted on 11/30/2004 2:55:50 PM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

Looks like YOU didn't read carefully:

Badnarik:

". . . As president, I would work to eliminate the Border Patrol and treat border issues as what they are: defense issues coming under the mission and scope of the armed forces. . ."




36 posted on 12/01/2004 11:04:36 AM PST by Beemnseven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

"You cannot compare the effects of a drunk to those of a crack-crazed guy."

Let's see, there are about 40,000 deaths annually from alcohol related incidents. Contrast that with the deaths attributed to cocaine, around 3000 per year, and you're right -- the comparison is VERY weak.


37 posted on 12/01/2004 11:07:13 AM PST by Beemnseven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Beemnseven
Let's see, there are about 40,000 deaths annually from alcohol related incidents. Contrast that with the deaths attributed to cocaine, around 3000 per year, and you're right -- the comparison is VERY weak.

Legalize cocaine and see that number multiply.

38 posted on 12/01/2004 11:12:05 AM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

"Legalize cocaine and see that number multiply."

Legalize cocaine and watch the black market dry up. Nobody kills for the protection of their 'turf'. Dealers and kingpins no longer reel in such massive profits because the supply of their product is eased and isn't as lucrative as it used to be. Police will be able to concentrate on those who actually infringe upon the life, liberty and property of individuals rather than divert time, money and manpower away on those who only destroy themselves.

Look, we've been through all of these arguments before when the topic was Prohibition. Why would Prohibition work with narcotics when it was such a dismal failure with alcohol?


39 posted on 12/01/2004 1:24:42 PM PST by Beemnseven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Beemnseven
The "number" in my post you pasted was the number of addicts that would multiply if cocaine were legalized.

Legalize cocaine and watch the black market dry up. Nobody kills for the protection of their 'turf'. Dealers and kingpins no longer reel in such massive profits because the supply of their product is eased and isn't as lucrative as it used to be. Police will be able to concentrate on those who actually infringe upon the life, liberty and property of individuals rather than divert time, money and manpower away on those who only destroy themselves. Look, we've been through all of these arguments before when the topic was Prohibition.

Ah, ending alcohol prohibition got rid of all the gangs, turf wars and crime ...

40 posted on 12/01/2004 6:06:30 PM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
You cannot compare the effects of a drunk to those of a crack-crazed guy.

You're right. Alcoholics do far more damage to this country than do coke lovers. There are thousands more folks driving under the influence of alcohol than under the influence of cocaine. Yet this country made a decision that the lives destroyed by alcohol were not worth the cost of keeping it illegal.

41 posted on 12/02/2004 11:01:41 AM PST by A Ruckus of Dogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs
You cannot compare the effects of a drunk to those of a crack-crazed guy.

You're right.

Thank you.

42 posted on 12/02/2004 11:04:05 AM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Ah, ending alcohol prohibition got rid of all the gangs, turf wars and crime ...

It got rid of all those related to the illegal alcohol industry. Now we've got them for the illegal drug industry. Do you know that 70% of crime is drug related?

43 posted on 12/02/2004 11:10:13 AM PST by A Ruckus of Dogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Same sex marriage

You don't need a government license to have children. Why do you feel you need one to get married?

44 posted on 12/02/2004 11:12:18 AM PST by A Ruckus of Dogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs

The fact that we still have gang crime is proof positive that ending prohibition did not end gang crime.


45 posted on 12/02/2004 11:26:38 AM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

Gangs went into drugs. Again, 70% of crime is drug related, not alcohol related. Look, I don't approve of anyone doing drugs but after 40 years of fighting the supply side of the problem at a cost of billions of $, we have no positive results to show for it. It's time to admit that drug prohibition isn't working and look into trying another approach.


46 posted on 12/02/2004 11:41:12 AM PST by A Ruckus of Dogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs
It's time to admit that drug prohibition isn't working and look into trying another approach.

Ah,legalize cocaine and all the drug gangs will become law-abiding, productive citizens and the jails will be empty and our kids drug free ...

47 posted on 12/02/2004 11:46:15 AM PST by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Drug gangs engage in crime because they cannot settle their disputes in court. When was the last time two wineries held a shoot-out in the street?

I reiterate ... after 40 years of fighting the supply side of the problem at a cost of billions of $, we have no positive results to show for it. It's time to admit that drug prohibition isn't working and look into trying another approach.

Refute this.

48 posted on 12/02/2004 11:52:47 AM PST by A Ruckus of Dogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: A Ruckus of Dogs

"I reiterate ... after 40 years of fighting the supply side of the problem at a cost of billions of $, we have no positive results to show for it. It's time to admit that drug prohibition isn't working and look into trying another approach."

What form would that new approach take?


49 posted on 12/07/2004 7:13:00 AM PST by Kelly_2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Kelly_2000

Legalize it to remove the crime, or throw the buyers into rehab.


50 posted on 12/07/2004 7:27:09 AM PST by A Ruckus of Dogs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 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
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

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