I am not an anarchist, nor are most “libertarians” in the United States. The term “libertarian” in the United States generally applies to minarchist libertarians (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchism) or classical liberals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism). Again, you are attacking a straw man. Nobody here is advocating anarchy. We are arguing for federalism. The federal government should be constrained to the 17 specific powers it is empowered by Article I, Section 8 to legislate regarding (and nothing else) as reinforced by the 10th amendment. Drug laws, if they exist at all, should be done on the state level.
“It “begs the question” because we don’t accept the premise that federal roads are necessarily constitutional.”
This doesn’t beg the question. If your radical ideology clouds your ability to see what is clear and evident...fine.
But you don’t get to create your own reality. Federal roads are constitutional as are drug laws written by both state and federal governments.
It is reality. For goodness sakes, look around you. If it weren’t the case, there would be cases proving your point on constitutional grounds.
Your interpretation of the Constitution is inept and not accepted in the mainstream. Your claim to have the “correct” interpretation is of course, ludicrous. Your interpretation is rejected and laughed at, much like Ron Paul when he is in public.
In fact, your perspective is not unlike the communist cell members who want to think for the masses and “know” the “correct” interpretation or path.
Coffee...reality...get some.