TAP: Libetarians Angry With Bush, Looking Hard at Dean

[stickdog]

http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/shachtman-n-10-07.html

Liberty Island

Libertarians are increasingly isolated in the GOP. Will they bolt in 2004?

By Noah Shachtman
Web Exclusive: 10.7.03

Alina Stefanescu is in the middle of a crisis. The Romanian-born, Alabama-raised 25-year-old has been a libertarian since the 10th grade. A hardcore one. An activist. An academic. A brainiac foot soldier in the broad conservative movement so committed to the cause, she used to wear an Ollie North T-shirt to class in her Tuscaloosa high school. So when there's been a choice between a Democrat and a Republican, Stefanescu has gone with the GOP just about every time.

But all that seems to be changing. The Bush White House's heavy-handed approach to the war on terrorism, its spendthrift fiscal plan and its adventures overseas have soured Stefanescu on the GOP. And she's not the only one. Libertarians across the country are slowly beginning to question their Republican loyalties. And if they break with the GOP -- or even decide to sit out the 2004 election -- it could be as bad for George W. Bush as the alienation of the religious right was for his dad in 1992.

"When Bush won, I was very hopeful," says Stefanescu, who runs fellowship programs at the Institute for Humane Studies, a libertarian foundation. "He sounded like he was going to do some very libertarian things: a less interventionist approach , school choice, free trade. He says all the right things. He just didn't do them.

"Normally, I wouldn't consider it," she adds, "but if I had to vote today, I'd vote for Dean."

[silverweb]

1. Hell, YEAH!!

While I have serious conflicts with the Libertarians on some issues (fiscal), we are in complete accord on other issues (social).

It's time to put our differences aside and join together on the one matter that affects us all - ditching the BFEE/PNAC gang!!!

:bounce:

[blm]

65. Libertarian Dems are the ones who pulled the DLC to the right.

Will many of the same people who loathe the DLC see sunshine in Libertarian support?

[calm_blue_ocean]

68. What!?!?

What evidence is there that Libertarian Dems have any meaningful voice in the DLC, let alone pushed it rightwards?

If libertarian dems (all 3 or 4 of them) were asked to choose between Lieberman and Dean in a straw poll, who do you think would win?

[blm]

70. Dean governed more to the right than Lieberman.

And he was one of the DLC's shining examples as governor.

Dean even pushed for deregulating electricity. He finally backed off when the legislature couldn't be swayed. Deregulation is a staple issue for Libertarians.


http://timesargus.nybor.com/Legislature/Story/43125.html


Dean raises money from energy sources

February 27, 2002

By David Gram

ASSOCIATED PRESS

MONTPELIER — When Gov. Howard Dean wanted to raise money for a possible presidential bid, he followed the example of a former governor of Texas and called on his friends in the energy industry.

>>>>>>>
“Administration actions going back some years betray an inappropriate coziness with the utilities,” said Paul Burns, executive director of the Vermont Public Service Research Group. “I am not prepared to say it’s a result of contributions given. But these contributions present the appearance of impropriety or appearance of influence that it probably would have been better to avoid.”

Dean’s close relationship with utility representatives dates back to the day he became governor in 1991. A lobbyist for Green Mountain Power and a GMP employee were among the first people Dean called in to help his transition.

A list of the Governor’s Council of Economic Advisers includes Green Mountain Power Corp.’s chairman, two company board members and a vice president, all of whom made donations to the Fund For A Healthy America. It also includes two longtime utility lobbyists.

Over the years, the governor has sided with the utilities on many of the most pressing issues, including the push for deregulation of the electric industry, and later backing away from that as a goal. Among other major decisions:

— After years of pushing for the companies to absorb the excess costs of their expensive contract with Hydro-Quebec, Dean’s Department of Public Service agreed to let ratepayers be billed for more than 90 percent of what those excess costs are expected to be in the coming years. The extra costs will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
>>>>>>>

[calm_blue_ocean]

72. Oh, so the DLC prefers Dean to Lieberman

(Carson voice:) I did not know that.

[bloom]

2. One reason why we shouldn't alienate potential voters....

People like Rush, etc. have done such a good job of demonizing liberals - they just make it less likely for me to vote for Republicans.

Even making the rhetoric anti-Bush is probably not as effective as targeting what Bush has done. To insist on what an idiot he is (even though WE know) - could make it more difficult to bring those people over who identified with him in the past. As if we are saying THEY are/were idiots, also.

[bryant69]

6. Well yes

We need to focus on the issues; focus on what is really happening in America, and saying that President Bush has failed America. I mean, I'm not sure we can eliminate all the anger against him (nor should we) but that shouldn't translate into an attack on all who voted for him.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[el_gato]

3. why were these people so stupid to begin with?

These fools never looked beyond the bullshit rhetoric and
as far as I'm concerned they deserve part of the blame.

It's good to see them waking up but geez what took 'em so long?

[Nederland]

7. Think about it

It's good to see them waking up but geez what took 'em so long?

Perhaps they are reluctant to join a party filled with extremely condescending people...

[Spider Jerusalem]

51. ???

If they were reluctant to join a party "filled with extremely condescending people"..they wouldn't be Libertarians. Have you ever talked to a Libertarian for any length of time? They're some of the most obnoxiously condescending individuals you can find. Especially the really hardcore Randites.

[JaneQPublic]

4. Libertarians blogging for Dean

It's a pretty good read, with further insight to how Dean appeals to folks across the board:

http://libertariansfordean.blogspot.com/2003_09_01_libertariansfordean_archive.html#106412028530963700

[John_H]

5. Been saying this for months

This is huge. We should keep hitting them on civil liberties. This could make the difference in states like NM,WV, AZ, NV, MO, and MN. If support among libertarian leaning Rethugs softens and we can get labor to help get out the votewe can steal these states right from under chimpy's nose.

[rucky]

15. Michigan, too (n/t)

[The Backlash Cometh]

8. Don't let them co-opt the Democratic party.

They obviously couldn't get their way with the Republicans, and now that they've destroyed it, they're going to try the same with the left.

[Character Assassin]

13. You have absolutely nothing to worry about

They obviously couldn't get their way with the Republicans, and now that they've destroyed it, they're going to try the same with the left.

A. Libertarians never have had 'their way' with Republicans. That's why they're leaving. Duh.
B. Please support the contention that they've somehow destroyed the Republicans.
C. It is patently absurd to maintain that they would try to join the Democratic party.

I see that some things never change.

[The Backlash Cometh]

16. Co-opt, not join.

*

[Character Assassin]

17. Equally as absurd

Libertarians have not co-opted the Republicans and will not do so with the Democrats.

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. That's your opinion.

You're just disappointed they didn't succeed.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Backlash Cometh]

40. But I have supported it.

On two previous occasions I have pointed out the DiIulio letter. It's not my fault you have a short attention span.

By the way, aren't you late for the bus to New Hampshire?

[Character Assassin]

44. You delude yourself into thinking several things.

Among them:

A. That the letter is somehow, magically, some sort of authoratative holy writ describing libertarians or libertarianism. It isn't.

B. That the individuals or actions described in it are relevant to other individuals that subscribe to libertarianism.

C. That the policies/positions described in it are actually libertarian at all.

It's not my fault if you purposefully mischaracterize something as 'A' when it is clearly 'B'.

BTW, aren't you late for the short, yellow bus?

[The Backlash Cometh]

46. Again, just your opinion. This is a Democratic newsgroup and the

DiIulio Letter is authoritative literature.

The "short, yellow bus?" Do you kick handicapped children too?

[Character Assassin]

53. Again, you are deluding yourself, and transparently so

DiIulio Letter is authoritative literature.

'Authoritative' literature? Only in your mind.

The "short, yellow bus?" Do you kick handicapped children too?

No, just obviously partisan interpretations that read conspiracy into every contingency.

[The Backlash Cometh]

56. Again, just your opinion, which as a Libertarian, isn't all that objective

in this case.

[Character Assassin]

57. Same bumbling error as always, I see.

Sorry, I've never been a Libertarian, but I've always been a libertarian.

The only constant here is your continual dishonesty in mischaracterizing this position.

[The Backlash Cometh]

58. Totally intentional, old chap. Just to be sure you don't slip in under

the radar. You're not all that different from them, which may be something difficult for you to accept, but for Democratic purposes, needs to be pointed out.

[Character Assassin]

59. Intentional dishonesty serves Democratic purposes?

That's news to me.

You may be a republican in democrat's clothing, which is quite easy for me to accept.

[The Backlash Cometh]

60. So now you're calling DU dishonest?

The Democrats already are convinced in the merits of the DiIulio letter. You seem to be having difficulty understanding that you are the minority opinion here. Would you like us to start a new post so we can find out just how few people would support your position regarding the merits of that letter?

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Backlash Cometh]

62. Show me threads where other Democrats have agreed with you on the

DiIulio Letter. Come on, put up Character Assassin. Take a look at the thread I started elsewhere and read the posts. Which one agrees with you that Libertarianism/libertarianism hasn't caused damage, particularly where it comes to free market trade?

You aren't going to find anyone to support you. Let's see if you have the gumption to start your own thread and find Democrats who would agree with your absurd arguement.

[Character Assassin]

64. I have never made the claim that other Democrats agree with me

in regards to the letter. What I said was I believed that the ones I know are too intelligent to think that it's a universal, definitive deconstruction of libertarianism, and that they're too honest to try and represent it as something that it clearly is not.

Take a look at the thread I started elsewhere and read the posts. Which one agrees with you that Libertarianism/libertarianism hasn't caused damage, particularly where it comes to free market trade?

Now you're changing the topic.

That other thread, as you may have noticed, hasn't exactly brought the walls tumbling down with other Democrats rushing breathlessly to support your 'position'.

Golly, I can't imagine why.

[The Backlash Cometh]

66. I'm calling your bluff

"believed that the ones I know are too intelligent to think that it's a universal, definitive deconstruction of libertarianism, and that they're too honest to try and represent it as something that it clearly is not."

Why don't we ask your pretend posse if they don't believe that Libertarian/libertarian principles are behind the free market rage that is killing this country. G'head. I'm waiting.

[Character Assassin]

67. Again and again and again you fail to see what is clearly before you.

You can't call any bluff since (a) there isn't one and (b) you refuse to recognize that you are comparing apples to oranges.

Why don't we ask your pretend posse if they don't believe that Libertarian/libertarian principles are behind the free market rage that is killing this country. G'head. I'm waiting.

A. I have no 'posse', pretend or otherwise.
B. It is up to you to demonstrate that the principles behind current economic policies actually are libertarian. You claim that they are, but you never, ever substantiate this claim. It is up to the one making the claim in the positive to supply proof. You never have, and, I believe, you never will.

[The Backlash Cometh]

69. I've cited sources to support my position. Where are your cites?

I've not only listed the DiIulio Letter for you, but I've also shown you that other Democrats believe his comments are valid and they quote from it. (See response in other thread) You, on the other hand, claim that no intelligent, honest Democrat would claim it was valid. Which is no argument at all, of course. The truth is, that you couldn't produce a Democrat on this newsgroup if you wanted to, to support your position. The truth is that you have to disbelieve the DiIulio letter, because it blows your argument out of the water and you can't stand losing, especially to me.

Here, for anyone who is following this argument, is yet another Democratic web source that cites the letter:

"But one subtlety in DiIulio's observations is that it is Rove's relationship to Republican base constituencies ("including beltway libertarian policy elites and religious right leaders"), rather than Rove himself, that governs the policy process DiIulio outlines ("reducing every issue to its simplest, black-and-white terms for public consumption, then steering legislative initiatives or policy proposals as far right as possible").

http://www.thedubyareport.com/nopolicies.html

DiIulio, by the way, is a Centrist Democrat. Don't that beat all? I have a Democrat I can cite, and you have ... what? N-O-T-H-I-N-G

[Character Assassin]

73. Wrong again.

I've cited sources to support my position. Where are your cites?

You've cited, and continue to cite ad nauseum, the same quotation from the same letter that does absolutely nothing, zero, to substantiate your claims.

Which libertarian policies have they implemented?
How are the policies that they've implemented libertarian?

DiIulio, by the way, is a Centrist Democrat. Don't that beat all? I have a Democrat I can cite, and you have ... what? N-O-T-H-I-N-G

I don't have to cite anything because I've not made a claim in the positive.

You have. You cannot support it except for citing others who also make the claim, but do not support it.

That isn't proof. It's sophistry, and I refuse to play your silly game.

[SlavesandBulldozers]

9. Libs

The Republican assault on civil liberties represents a shift in Republican policy (at least the overt policy), and thus the Libertarian leftward migration does not represent a change in Libertarian thought but rather a reaction to the assault on Civil liberties by Ashcroft. Understanding this is very important. Most Libertarians are independent, and shift with the political wind - but this shift is a consistent and predictable shift - it is a constant repositioning, almost a institutionalized cynicism. It is not surprising, this Libertarian shift to the left in support of Dean, because Dean is a "Fiscal Conservative" (his words) yet Socially Liberal. The Libertarians have more in common with Liberals than with Conservatives, believe it or not.

[Liberal Classic]

10. Institionalized cynicism

I like it! :)

I would't characterize Howard Dean as fiscally conservative, because he seems to be in favor of increased taxes instead of reduced spending. However, I support his position to require genotype testing in all capital offenses. I believe this position reflects libertarians in general.

One of the reasons I am here is to reach common ground with Democrats and others on the political left.

[calm_blue_ocean]

11. My politics have always been more libertarian than anything else . . .

Yet today I will vote for a Democrat for governor for the first time in my life. I really relate to the woman quoted in the article.

Good analysis, Soundgarden1.

Candidate Dean is advocating a relatively isolationist foreign policy and a relatively balanced budget. Odd for a Democrat, but he seems to be succeeding pretty well. Go Dean! Not all of your supporters are registered Democrats.

[dorktv]

50. Democrats generally are good when it comes to

handling money. Even Johnson was good with it. Repukes have a tendency to go in the red. At least the last few ones have been doing so.

[JNelson6563]

29. Very good points Soundgarden

and a belated Welcome to DU! :hi:

Julie

[Cha]

12. It's called "Lying"....

" He says all the right things. He just didn't do them."

bush is a Big Fat Liar!

[gully]

14. But, but but....Dean is Unelectable?!

:eyes:

Go Dean...!!!!!!!!


Interesting to note when they poll Democratic Primary voters, they are not polling many of Deans new supporters?

I live in MN and Jesse Ventura was greatly underestimated in the polls because he drew so many young voters who were new to the process.

I hold out hope that no matter the polls, Dean will squeek ahead for the same reason.

Not comparing Jesse and Howard 'politically' ;)

[kwolf68]

19. LMAO

Do you folks know what Libertarians want?

Every single environmental law done, no more Public Lands, even more cost externalization by corporations, fair housing laws, job discrimination laws, truth in advertising laws, etc., etc.

We had Libertarian government in the late 1800s...Go check that out if you think its such a wise idea.

Will these freaking Libertarians repeal the Court Case granting "personhood" to the corporation? They DEFEND the "rights" of corporations...and they say they are "strict" interpreters of the Constitution….

I got away from that confounded ideology because I learned that it was a shell game, all theories, nothing practical.

I’ll be goddamned if I become a progressive just so I can vote Libertarian again.

[w4rma]

20. Democrats *agree* with Libertarians on many things, also

Libertarians agree with Democrats, in most all cases, on civil liberties and civil rights.

Most Libertarians don't want to see big corporations running the economic show, either (although, IMHO, their deregulatory policies lead to that).

Democrats don't have to change. Democrats should treat them well and emphasize what we *agree* on.

[Liberal Classic]

21. Thank you very much, w4rma

I believe that rational people may politely disagree, and I greatly appreciate the sentiment that there actually are things where we do agree.

Though it doesn't seem like it, if you corner a libertarian chances are you'll find even some economic talking points in common. Particularly, ask a libertarian about the concept of perpetual existance and limited liability for corporations. I think you'll find most of the sceptical of the concept. Though we're pretty solidly laizzes faire we don't think corprations are actually people and should have all the rights as such.

[w4rma]

23. You're welcome, Liberal Classic (n/t)

[kwolf68]

22. Civil Rights?

Like the government has No business telling a business who to hire and fire?

Like Fair Housing Laws where the government tells people they may not reject selling a house to a certain type of person?

YES...and how about the legalization of drugs? This is NOT a freaking "victimless" crime. If someone is whacked on smack and runs you over in the street, Im sure your Libertarian theology won't help you, because YOU AREN'T covered by insurance....Better take up a hat and ask your church or synagogue to help you out.

Yea, I'll agree...There are SOME things we can agree on, but the general belief that government is completely and totally inept and has no value in our society is delusional.

[Liberal Classic]

26. Drinking is a victimless crime, drunk driving is not.

The same idea applies to drug use. I never say that drug-use is good, only that the 'cure' is worse than the disease. Producing and owning alcohol was once a crime, as you know and in fact, the prohibition is probably one area in which libertarians and left-liberals have the most in common.

The alcohol prohibition ostensibly was to protect society from the ills of drinking. What did it do? Created the mafia, and the black market. The bootleggers today may dress differently and have different nicknames than the bootleggers of yesteryear, but they're the same animal.

Edit: fix sentence

[kwolf68]

28. OK

Alcohol and drugs are different, because narcotics and hard drugs like that have always been illegal.

We just arbitrarily decided to ban the booze during prohibition.

Trouble with your legalization concept can be viewed through the concept of cigarette smoking. How many people do you think are dead now because this product was legal? OK, it’s their choice whether or not they want to smoke, but problem is because so much money was made off the sale of this product, the information consumers was getting was misleading.

Now you toss dope into the mix. General Mills or ConAgra will now be on the R&D program to make the most kick-ass dope that will f**** us up w/o the hangovers often induced from hitting the bottle all night.

After 70 million people are addicted and health costs are rising, we will then have the same debate about the “new wonder drug” that is enriching some corporation who sells it. After 40% are addicted, we will then have a debate for the next 25 years on the merits of new-found evidence of the drugs danger.

Finally, after every reputable scientist in the world agrees with the drugs deleterious effects on the user (not to mention the 2nd hand issues) then we can figure out a way to “de-tox” the same people who were taken on a ride.

I honestly don’t much care if you want to do dope and yes, the drug war is an issue, but products that can cause harm to individual members of society through “normal” usage should not be legal.

[Liberal Classic]

32. Actually, narcotics were not always illegal

In fact, until the 1920s you could walk into any chemist or drug store and get laudanum, which is cocaine, and patent medicines which contained opiates. All of these were available via mail order, and incidentially so were firearms. Before the 1920s you could also get a Thomson machine gun in a plain brown wrapper, along with all the syringes you could afford.

Crime associated with drug use was low and the biggest problem was with drunkards, which is what prompted the alcohol prohibition in the first place. In fact, alcoholism was considered a *worse* social disease than opium addiction, for the practical reason that the drunkard became violent while the opium smoker was passive.

The last thing I'd like to say is that the slang term "cancer stick" also dates from this time period, which suggests that people actually knew cigarettes were bad for you back then. Go figure.

[charlie]

33. Small nit

Laudanum contains opiates. Coca-cola and Vin Mariani contained cocaine.

Edit: misspelling

[Liberal Classic]

36. I stand corrected.

You're right. Laudanum was an opiate. But there were "patent" medicines that contained cocaine, and some that contained opiates. Thanks for the correction. :)

[kwolf68]

34. People knew cigs were bad for them?

They just knew it?

Especially those who said, "George Burns smoked until he was 90" clan?

And yes I am aware that Coke was in...Ahh, Coke at one time.

And at one time people didn't bathe but twice a month either.

[Liberal Classic]

39. Yes, people knew that cigarettes were a bad habit before now

I'm suprised when people claim that there was no common knowledge of tobacco's harmful side effects before the government got in the business of telling people it's bad. It was commonly known that there was a connection beween cancer of the mouth and chewing tobacco during the 18th c. The first widely published modern scientific paper on the connection between tobacco and cancer was in 1939!

[Character Assassin]

35. Wrong.

Alcohol and drugs are different, because narcotics and hard drugs like that have always been illegal.

Absolutely incorrect. 'Drugs', as in opiates, first became illegal with the Harrison Narcotic Act in 1914.

We just arbitrarily decided to ban the booze during prohibition.

Oh, I see. A Consitutional amendement, and the massive, coordinated effort necessary to create and pass one, is somehow 'arbitrary'. Were it's sponsors just acting on a whim? Was it a passing fancy?

Trouble with your legalization concept can be viewed through the concept of cigarette smoking. How many people do you think are dead now because this product was legal? OK, it’s their choice whether or not they want to smoke, but problem is because so much money was made off the sale of this product, the information consumers was getting was misleading.

And yet vastly more people don't smoke and and never began smoking than ever smoked.

Now you toss dope into the mix.

The same applies to drugs.

General Mills or ConAgra will now be on the R&D program to make the most kick-ass dope that will f**** us up w/o the hangovers often induced from hitting the bottle all night.

Which type of dope? In terms of marijuana, there are already are strains that powerful, if one is interested in them.

After 70 million people are addicted and health costs are rising, we will then have the same debate about the “new wonder drug” that is enriching some corporation who sells it.

Why do you think the addiction rate would suddenly rise? If heroin were legalized tonight, would you rush out to try it tomorrow?

After 40% are addicted, we will then have a debate for the next 25 years on the merits of new-found evidence of the drugs danger.

See above.

Finally, after every reputable scientist in the world agrees with the drugs deleterious effects on the user (not to mention the 2nd hand issues) then we can figure out a way to “de-tox” the same people who were taken on a ride.

See above. Your scenario is wild speculation, ungrounded in historical and demographic data.

I honestly don’t much care if you want to do dope and yes, the drug war is an issue, but products that can cause harm to individual members of society through “normal” usage should not be legal.

Like automobiles?

[kwolf68]

38. WRONG

Trouble with your legalization concept can be viewed through the concept of cigarette smoking. How many people do you think are dead now because this product was legal? OK, it’s their choice whether or not they want to smoke, but problem is because so much money was made off the sale of this product, the information consumers was getting was misleading.

And yet vastly more people don't smoke and and never began smoking than ever smoked.

>>>So.



General Mills or ConAgra will now be on the R&D program to make the most kick-ass dope that will f**** us up w/o the hangovers often induced from hitting the bottle all night.

Which type of dope? In terms of marijuana, there are already are strains that powerful, if one is interested in them.

>>>If we legalize all drugs then the type of dope produced, sold and marketed will be that which costs the least, is patented and renders the greatest profit.


After 70 million people are addicted and health costs are rising, we will then have the same debate about the “new wonder drug” that is enriching some corporation who sells it.

Why do you think the addiction rate would suddenly rise? If heroin were legalized tonight, would you rush out to try it tomorrow?

An old argument. No I wouldn’t go out and do crack tomorrow, but the possibility of jail time probably is a disincentive for some. I don’t eat salt either (at least that I know of).


After 40% are addicted, we will then have a debate for the next 25 years on the merits of new-found evidence of the drugs danger.

See above.


>>> No not seen above. We have spent the last 30 years debating whether smoking is bad for you or not. Contrary to what Classic says, there has been a deluge of propaganda by corporate ministries.


Finally, after every reputable scientist in the world agrees with the drugs deleterious effects on the user (not to mention the 2nd hand issues) then we can figure out a way to “de-tox” the same people who were taken on a ride.

See above. Your scenario is wild speculation, ungrounded in historical and demographic data.

>>>>Speculation? Just like you “speculate” people wont do drugs? That isn’t speculation, it is what I have seen with cigarettes. It is fairly well known alcohol if used in moderation is not harmful and some studies suggest a glass of red wine after dinner can be helpful. There has NEVER been a study to corroborate the same claims with smoking.


I honestly don’t much care if you want to do dope and yes, the drug war is an issue, but products that can cause harm to individual members of society through “normal” usage should not be legal.

Like automobiles?

>>>>Ahhh, we have laws for cars. I would submit every wreck, every crash ever caused was becomes one or more drivers broke one of the laws.

[Liberal Classic]

43. There have been two tobacco prohibitions in America

One in the late 1600- early 1700 and one before the turn of the 20th century. Both were failures, and during each a profitable profession was squealing on others, peeking in windows looking for outlaw tobacco users.

[Character Assassin]

45. Still quite wrong

Trouble with your legalization concept can be viewed through the concept of cigarette smoking. How many people do you think are dead now because this product was legal? OK, it’s their choice whether or not they want to smoke, but problem is because so much money was made off the sale of this product, the information consumers was getting was misleading.

And yet vastly more people don't smoke and and never began smoking than ever smoked.

So.

So it should be obvious that comparing the legalization 'concept' cannot logically be viewed through the paradigm of smoking cigarettes.

Information about currently illegal drugs and their effect on the body is widely available and it has been for years. It's not something that a producer can somehow falsify or cover up.

General Mills or ConAgra will now be on the R&D program to make the most kick-ass dope that will f**** us up w/o the hangovers often induced from hitting the bottle all night.

Which type of dope? In terms of marijuana, there are already are strains that powerful, if one is interested in them.

If we legalize all drugs then the type of dope produced, sold and marketed will be that which costs the least, is patented and renders the greatest profit.

How is this relevant? That is an obvious and inevitable consequence of economics. It has nothing to do with relative potencies or even maximum potential potencies of any particular drug.

After 70 million people are addicted and health costs are rising, we will then have the same debate about the “new wonder drug” that is enriching some corporation who sells it.

Why do you think the addiction rate would suddenly rise? If heroin were legalized tonight, would you rush out to try it tomorrow?

An old argument. No I wouldn’t go out and do crack tomorrow, but the possibility of jail time probably is a disincentive for some. I don’t eat salt either (at least that I know of).

It is an old argument that dismantles your point.

If you have any empirical data that suggests the illegal status of some substances is a significant disincentive to non-users, please supply it.

Otherwise, your position that there would be massive, wholesale increases in the addiction rates indicates that you don't trust your fellow citizens and consider them weak and/or stupid.

After 40% are addicted, we will then have a debate for the next 25 years on the merits of new-found evidence of the drugs danger.

See above.

No not seen above. We have spent the last 30 years debating whether smoking is bad for you or not. Contrary to what Classic says, there has been a deluge of propaganda by corporate ministries.

You have done nothing to support the contention that cigarettes and illegal drugs have an equitable base for comparsion. There is no conspiracy to cover up the deleterious effects of narcotics, so your point is moot.

Finally, after every reputable scientist in the world agrees with the drugs deleterious effects on the user (not to mention the 2nd hand issues) then we can figure out a way to “de-tox” the same people who were taken on a ride.

See above. Your scenario is wild speculation, ungrounded in historical and demographic data.

Speculation? Just like you “speculate” people wont do drugs?

Historical data bears out that position.

That isn’t speculation, it is what I have seen with cigarettes.

Your personal experience as an individual observer is irrelevant to the entire population and its various statistics and/or consumption data.

It is fairly well known alcohol if used in moderation is not harmful and some studies suggest a glass of red wine after dinner can be helpful. There has NEVER been a study to corroborate the same claims with smoking.

And this is pertinent exactly how to potential abuse rates of currently illegal drugs after legalization?

I honestly don’t much care if you want to do dope and yes, the drug war is an issue, but products that can cause harm to individual members of society through “normal” usage should not be legal.

Like automobiles?

Ahhh, we have laws for cars. I would submit every wreck, every crash ever caused was becomes one or more drivers broke one of the laws.

Are you serious? There are no wrecks from weather conditions, mechanical failure, blown tires, etc.... ?

Get real.

[Character Assassin]

27. It's known as freedom of association, something you seem unfamiliar with

Like the government has No business telling a business who to hire and fire?

Yes.

Like Fair Housing Laws where the government tells people they may not reject selling a house to a certain type of person?

Yes.

YES...and how about the legalization of drugs?

Absolutely.

This is NOT a freaking "victimless" crime. If someone is whacked on smack and runs you over in the street, Im sure your Libertarian theology won't help you, because YOU AREN'T covered by insurance....Better take up a hat and ask your church or synagogue to help you out.

You haven't really bothered to think this through, have you? Nothing in libertarianism prevents one from having insurance, and an individual acting in such a manner as to harm someone on drugs is liable for it, just like they are now.

Taking drugs is a victimless crime. Committing assault, damaging property or otherwise violating someone else's rights, whether intoxicated or not, quite clearly is not victimless.

Yea, I'll agree...There are SOME things we can agree on, but the general belief that government is completely and totally inept and has no value in our society is delusional.


That is not a libertarian position. No wonder you've mischaracterized libertarianism. You don't even know what it is.

[kwolf68]

30. Great then

I have NOT mis-characterized their positions.

*They ARE against hiring laws.
*They ARE against Consumer Protection laws
*They ARE against fair housing laws

They even have some concepts where the government should not even be involved in the military. They are calling for some pseudo-insurance program for this.

I do know what this party stands. I got the freaking handbook from 1992.

[Character Assassin]

37. Quite correct.

They ARE against hiring laws.
They ARE against Consumer Protection laws
They ARE against fair housing laws

Yes.

They even have some concepts where the government should not even be involved in the military. They are calling for some pseudo-insurance program for this.

Absolutely incorrect. Please cite specific sources for this claim.

I do know what this party stands. I got the freaking handbook from 1992.

You are confusing Libertarians with libertarians.

[kwolf68]

41. Hold on...

The source for the military came directly from the Libertarian Party Book/Program (it was a light blue and white book w/ the Statue of Liberty on it). The book came out the year Andre Moreou (sp) ran for President.

Maybe they have changed that position.

[kwolf68]

42. Do me a favor

Since this thread appeared to be discussing Libertarians as a voting block I was thinking the political party.

“Civil Libertarians” I know are great. No, I don’t agree w/ them on drugs, but on a cadre of other issues we have common ground.

I rarely agree w/ the political party.

What are we arguing about here

[kwolf68]

31. Lemme ask you

In your response were you saying you were against “Fair Housing” and “Hiring Laws”?

[stickdog]

49. Get real.

Go ask any high school freshman what's easier to get from his buddies at school, a bag of weed or a case of beer.

Legalizing pot isn't gonna get many more people addicted to it than their already are addicted to it. And the "addiction" is as mild as it gets. It's like getting "addicted" to Motrin. In addition, pot is completely harmless compared to booze, cigarettes and dozens of pharmies that most doctors will give to anyone who asks correctly.

Finally, hemp is an incredible resource that grows like a weed almost anywhere and has more uses than almost any plant.

[kwolf68]

24. You said it Wilma

Most Libertarians don't want to see big corporations running the economic show, either (although, IMHO, their deregulatory policies lead to that).

This is a fact. The Dean clan is quite comical...Now they are espousing the virtues of an ideology that is completely hostile toward a great measure of our progressive thought processes simply because Libertarians like them.

I used to be a member of that Party and a large percentage of them are gun freaks. I will admit they have more principles than the hypocritical right-wing, but most of their ideas are not workable. Although it sure is fun to sit around the backyard shooting your gun, smoking dope talking about the theories and HOW a Libertarian utopia can give us everything our little materialistic hearts desire.

[JackRiddler]

52. Get your terms and history straight!

The late 1800s governments were Republican and heavily business-oriented.

The term libertarian was to my knowledge (Emma Goldman's biography) first coined in the late 1800s, at the time to describe ANARCHISTS. This is still used by the political anarchists in Europe, who are a pretty socialist-green bunch actually.

The term has been perverted in the U.S. so that it usually refers to Randian-style total economic libertarians.

But the libertarian impulse (i.e., among people who may not even know the word) is much bigger than that and mainly progressive. It accurately describes many people who (perhaps ironically) vote Democratic because they are anti-statist, pro-civil rights.

The Republicans talk the libertarian talk, of course, but it only applies to letting the corporations loose. Again, a perversion. There are plenty of libertarians (outside the party) who would would agree that corporate personhood must be revoked. They are radical individualists.

My litmus test of libertarians applies to possibly the most essential issue in American politics: is decriminalizing drugs at the top of their list? Then they are the real thing!

This one issue would do so much good, at the top in terms of freeing our society from the rule of political drug barons like the Bushistas and their money-laundering sponsors, and improving the lives of individuals like about half of all those imprisoned (all for crime related to the drug-trade), and also eliminate one of our most important fear drivers.

[0rganism]

47. Whatever else may be said, this bodes well for Dean in New Hampshire

Dean's going to be one tough mofo to beat in the NE primaries.

[leesa]

48. Ollie North??!!! What does that RW monster have to do with libertarians?

Or is she just a fascist worshipper?

[TheDonkey]

54. Libertarians are dangerous, let them vote for rethugs

Or let them read books on economics so they can see thier laisez-fare approach to EVERYTHING cannot work.

[Liberal Classic]

55. Woohoo!

Smack my ass and call me Sally, I'm dangerous. :)

[gully]

63. Sally

:spank: Consider yo ass smacked!

[Liberal Classic]

71. Yow!

:loveya: