Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 09/01/2011 9:03:00 AM PDT by 10thAmendmentGuy
I do not understand your line of reason. The conclusions you draw do not seem to based on a comprehensive grasp of the basic premise.
Yes, I'm assuming that if the agencies and federal programs that have been authorized under the substantial effects doctrine were eliminated, the tax burden would be reduced to the point where the current drug war could be fully funded at the state level by the taxpayers. The federal government would obviously no longer be borrowing 43 cents of every dollar. In fact, it wouldn't be borrowing anything, because the budget would be a third the size of what it is today. As you know, I think a war on drugs is flawed and doomed to fail at any level, but yes, if the federal government was only serving its constitutional functions, taxpayers would have more money in their pockets. State legislators could then tax this money away from their citizens to fund drug wars at the state level. I'm not disagreeing with you.
While it's true that the federal government would no longer be borrowing money, states have to balance their budgets. It is easier to scrap failing programs at the state level than it is at the federal level, for a couple of reasons: one is that state governments are typically more accountable to their voters than the federal government is, simply because they are closer to home. The other obvious reason that well-governed states tend to scrap failing programs is what I was saying before: state governments cannot borrow or print money. The federal government can ignore the fact that its policies are failing by borrowing and printing money. States, on the other hand, have to either increase revenue or decrease spending in order to balance their budget. Borrowing options are typically limited. So even if we succeeded in paring the federal government down to its proper constitutional size, I don't think that means that all 50 states would maintain their wars on drugs. Some would experiment with alternatives to a war on drugs.
JUST in case this didn't address your points, what is your basic premise? You haven't really made that clear. If it's that states will have the money to spend on drug wars because the federal government will be substantially reduced in size, I agree. If it's the fact that states will still have the power to wage drugs wars if they want to, I agree.
It is also true that states could not afford to wage a real war on drugs if they didn’t have the help of the Feds in waging it.
When I made this statement, I was assuming that the fed gov had ended its War on Drugs, but was still performing the remainder of its unconstitutional functions. If that was the case, then the states indeed could not afford to wage WODs at the state level. Obviously if the fed gov gets out of every unconstitutional endeavor in which it is currently involved, states will have more than enough revenue to fight drug wars (if they choose to). Hope that helps to clarify it.
Both of those.
And while we agree on some points, I tell you now, without malice, that if you come to me with statements like this:
"It is also true that states could not afford to wage a real war on drugs if they didn’t have the help of the Feds in waging it."
you should be prepared to back them up with facts and well reasoned arguments. If you are not prepared to defend that statement as objectively defensible truth, do not present it to me as such.
Why are you making that assumption? If that's all you're after, and you haven't thought it through any farther than that, then it's all about what YOU want, and I'd expect that once you got it you wouldn't be sticking around to help clean up the rest of the mess. That kind of help, I don't need.
Quote:
Don’t drag me into a semantic mess that’s got drug legalization conflated with ending the federal drug war and where nobody involved understands the difference or cares that there is one.
See? You're the only one that viewed it as a semantic mess. If you're going to engage in two distinct arguments then it's no wonder you are getting confused.
I made the assumption because it's one of the most unpopular aspects of what the federal government did, far more unpopular than other unconstitutional programs like entitlements or the EPA. As I stated in previous posts, ending the federal Drug War is not all that I'm after. I already invited you to look at my profile and see that I have strongly held views about myriad other subjects.
When I engage in discussions regarding restoring the fed govt to constitutional functions, I am typically speaking hypothetically. I have no doubt that this is not going to happen in my lifetime, so it is certainly not going to happen in yours. I try to point out what I see as the more egregious consequences of federal over-reaching, such as the BATFags getting a Border Patrol agent killed, or DEA agents killing young children in raids, to gin up some support for killing off some of these programs. The fact remains, however, that too many people have too much invested in the current system to allow that to happen. We can't do it without the presidency, and someone with these views would never get the nomination from either major party, so they'd have to run as an independent candidate and self-fund their campaign. I see no one willing to do that.
Call me a pessimist if you'd like, but with rare exceptions in our nation's history, the general trend has always been toward a more powerful and larger federal government.
If you don't want my help, don't ping me. If you do, expect to be questioned about exactly what it is I'm supposed to be helping with and be prepared to demonstate that we have enough common ground that I can expect you'll be around for something I might want help with.
Didn't I say in an earlier post that I knew you opposed the legalization of drugs but that you object to the federal government waging one because it violates the Tenth Amendment? I told you that as soon as I entered the thread. I thought that would make it clear to you that I thought it would be a thread of interest. You're one of approximately a dozen people that I pinged to the thread, and I think the others all oppose the WOD (at any level). Naturally, the constitutional arguments and the practical arguments will sometimes run hand in hand. I apologize for any confusion, but I thought I had made this clear to you in my first post to you in this thread after you arrived. I think we have a lot of common ground, considering that there are not many people on here who actually know what the Tenth Amendment is and what it entails.
Anyway, if you don't want me to ping you any more, just say so, and I'll remove you from the list.
See #104 again.
THAT is a GREAT graphic!
Setting and enforcing rules for immigration IS A DELEGATED POWER granted Congress by the Constitution. Making arbitrary laws prohibiting We the People from owning, possessing, ingesting or selling ANYTHING is NOT. No matter how you twist and turn the Constitution, IT’S JUST NOT THERE. And per the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, if power is not specifically granted, FedGov DOESN’T HAVE IT. Remember, the Constitution is a limitation on GOVERNMENT, not on We, the People. We, the People, through the several states, ceded some of OUR authority in order to create FedGov. It’s just not possible to cede something that’s not yours to begin with!
And he ignores it cause he’s skeered.
And all of your statements are what you believe. You can’t show a single country that has legalized drugs and is better off for doing so. That is the problem with your argument. Every country that has had legalization has put laws back in place or they turn into a cesspool of crime and destruction.
History shows us how bad it got in America and Europe when drugs were available via drug stores and to anyone. Yet, people in the liberal libertarian party keep trying to go back to that time thinking that somehow it will make us freer or better and crime will magically go down. Same thinking that the anti-gunners believe when they pass ignorant gun laws thinking that if you just take away the guns criminals will stop being criminals. Your assumptions are based on your belief but not any actual hard facts.
Maybe if you worked in a drug rehab center and saw the destruction it does to people, families and the communities they live in you might get a clue. I worked in one for 5 years.
Take your libertarian crap someplace you can shovel it. Free Republic is not liberal or libertarian friendly. You guys are fools. Good luck with Ron Paul. He’s the Ralph Nader of the Republican party. He should go back to the libertarians and fade away, and the whole party should go with him.
That’s all these libertarian fools have is assumptions. They base their statements on what they believe will happen and ignore what history has already shown us. This whole argument is an exercise wasted time.
Teaching a libertarian or liberal to use logic is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
I notice you tend to make broad-brush (and consistently perjorative) statements about libertarians and libertarianism.
From where I stand, you're not any closer to being right than he is.
Exactly where in the Constitution can I find what you seem to want to see, that is, the authority granted government to prohibit We, the People, from owning, possessing, selling or ingesting anything we so desire? Please enlighten me. Because if, per the Ninth and tenth Amendments, it’s not specifically enumerated, GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE THAT AUTHORITY. Unless you’re talking the same emanations and penumbras that gave us Roe v Wade. In which case you are not one whit better than Hairy Reid, Nancy Pel-lousy or Barak H. Obummer. So which is it? Are we a LIMITED GOVERNMENT CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, resting on the authority originating with and loaned by We, the People, or are we whatever suits your control freak purposes at this moment?
From what I understand the feds can step in and deal with anything involving interstate commerce. And since drugs come across our border from other countries and cross state lines in their distribution paths it is first up to the federal government to deal with and enact laws controlling the interstate commerce of such. If the feds don’t do their jobs in this capacity then it falls to the states to deal with them as in the case of illegal immigration. Since the feds refuse to enforce the laws on immigration, then it is left to the states to deal with it as AZ has been doing.
The entire reason for the federal government is military and to control interstate commerce.
From all the libertarians I have dealt with on FR, they have all fit the same mold. Correct me if I am wrong, but according to the Libertarian web site they believe in: Gay Marrage, abortion on demand, legalization of all drugs, open borders, pro gun (I agree with them on this one), and they support Ron Paul for president.
I know they pick and choose from the constitution like it’s some salad bar and often twist its words to make it read as they want to interpret it. Just like liberals do to the constitution and the bible.
Every libertarian I’ve dealt with has been just as foaming at the mouth in support of the same things every liberal I dealt with is.
They appear to be a little left of liberals and in my book that makes them nuts.
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.