I've been meaning to do a blog like this for some time now but waited for the right moment to present itself and now it seems I got one. Former ABCer John Stossel has joined the Glenn Beck team. OVERALL I like Stossel though I disagree in a few areas (e.g. drug legalization). So why has a collective movement based solely it would seem on the concept of liberty (libertarianism) never really taken off? the wisdom of libertarianism would seem to be self-evident after all. It's why prostitution is still illegal in this country and we are still suffering under the income tax. Them be funny issues, I always thought the Supreme Court reasoning in Roe applied vastly more to prostitution than feticide and I have always maintained it's no business of the Government's whatsoever if the service you're willing to provide to others involves say painting their house or retiling their roofs for a fee set by YOU. Well maybe the reason is folks still have some social concerns. If a guy on angel dust wreaks havoc against others the libertarian would seem to say the larger issue is his liberty to use a dangerous substance, most others see a greater interest in protecting society at large here. With the whores they cause traffic jamups and other problems in nice residential neighborhoods. Same thing with the strip clubs, there's always some asshole with a grievance who can't just go there to have a good time, has to slash somebody. Now this consenting adults stuff that always gets thrown in your face like if you criticize Letterman, well sure up to a point but that doesn't mean you don't have the right to your private personal views on say adultery. Now let the other ball drop and say it was Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity who had affairs with staffers, why the left-wing bloggers would STILL be talking about it. Hell there are some sexual practices I have definite opinions on, the libertarian would seem to say it's all good, I say if you like somebody to stick a sound in your penis there's something wrong with you, same deal with scatting but I ramble...
Libertarianism, what does it mean to you?
Pretty simple, as long as your rights end where mine begin, we're good.
ReplyDelete"If a guy on angel dust wreaks havoc against others the libertarian would seem to say the larger issue is his liberty to use a dangerous substance, most others see a greater interest in protecting society at large here."
ReplyDeleteThe issue therein is not that the man took Angel Dust. The issue is that of his resulting action of wreaking havoc. That needs to be the primary focus. The war on drugs is and has been a demonstrable failure not unlike the era of prohibition which preceeded it.
Laws criminalizing illicit drug use do not prevent individuals from using them. What they do do is create an underground market of supply and demand; one where drug lords can fill their coffers to the brim.
BUT the man wreaked havoc because he used the angel dust soapie. So what's legalization supposed to do? all it would do is make the dealers on the street perfectly immune to prosecution, drug-related crime would not disappear. Never understood this argument.
ReplyDelete"BUT the man wreaked havoc because he used the angel dust soapie."
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with this premise. It negates the fact that not everyone who's ever been on Angel Dust ends up wreaking havoc. What's more, the argument that I don't understand is the one that portends to curb drug-related crime by enacting stiffer penalties.
By legalization, you remove the fiscal incentive and the resources which are allocated towards a good chunk of the trade which doesn't comprise a criminal element.
I still don't get it. So the drug dealers we have now would simply go out of business and Walgreens would sell the stuff? BTW did some research the last few day on angel dust (PCP or phencyclidine) and suffice to say it's why I'm not libertarian on the matter. Put another way the man would not have wreaked havoc if he had not taken the angel dust. In my view PCP is even MORE dangerous than your LSD. Maybe BB can chime in here when he gets a free moment.
ReplyDeleteI'd also like to say something here and I said it once before. I am first and foremost a constitutionalist, a somewhat libertarian second but as I said for the vast majority of us we have social opinions on whatever, could be abortion, drugs, prostitution, porn. It's why I can still be libertarian and yet say that Giuliani did a great job in cleaning up Times Square, free speech and zoning are not mutual enemies.
ReplyDeleteOnce a vice is legalized it's pretty hard to criminalize it again so do we really need to legalize drugs, we have enough legalized vices already!
ReplyDelete& I'll finish your point here with legal abortion. Abortion rates slowly began to climb after 1973, the year of Roe, and then really took off. The thinking goes like this: "abortion may be wrong but it can't be that wrong else the Supreme Court wouldn't have legalized it." I can only think legalizing drugs sends the same message, it'd be really hard to counteract this with teens when you have the government doing this.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, legalizing gives it social acceptance and over time leads to increased use. Legal, safe and rare, HA! Abortion is neither safe nor rare.
ReplyDeleteBeth that Bluewave link we added at the top of my blogroll is there for a good reason. It's a veritable goldmine of all news pro-life and then some mostly with a Canadian twist but it applies to US as well. It's a site well worth visiting as it really gives insight into how pro-choicers think and there's some real gems like what abortionists say in those rare moments of total honesty. In fact it reminds me of Hannityland for some reason only better.
ReplyDelete