For Libertarian leaning folks

[JWBooth]

The first rule of those opposed to libertarian ideas:
Ask not why your government takes your money without your consent. Ask why you're not willingly giving your government more of your money!

 

[JWBooth]

 

[Curried Goats]

View attachment 916099

Libertarians not understanding that we don't have a flat tax and why is just one of the reasons no one takes your lot seriously.

 

[dblack]

My conception of libertarianism is concisely described by the following: Government should be the referee for society, not the coach.

 

[JWBooth]

I guess I understand your argument, and respectfully disagree. Government is force and it's edicts are enforced by men with guns. It is not capable of being a referee. It writes the rules based on which group has currently seized the reins of power.

 

[YoursTruly]

Is the purpose of a libertarian government to end violence and theft at any means or to ensure liberty and freedom and especially to ensure that legal force isn't used to usurp individual freedom?

If, as Bastiat says, the Law is the collective organization of the individual right to self defense then the only question is whether you would have a right to do as an individual what you propose to do by law. So... as an individual, do you have the right to use force to stop other people from putting substances in their own bodies?

I've never seen anyone arrested for ingesting drugs. Only for being in possession of, dealing and manufacturing.

 

[YoursTruly]

Socialist libertarIan?
Rothbard spins in his grave.

I think that's code for progressive.
Libertarians are completely against socialism.

Libertarian socialist.... That's like being trans and supporting Hamas.

 

[Curried Goats]

I've never seen anyone arrested for ingesting drugs. Only for being in possession of, dealing and manufacturing.

Would you argue you have an individual right to stop people from engaging in these activities?

 

[YoursTruly]

Would you argue you have an individual right to stop people from engaging in these activities?

Druggies pose no benefit to society. They create a lot of victims. I care more about their victims than some druggies civil liberties.

 

[Curried Goats]

Druggies pose no benefit to society.

Do individuals have to qualify their worth to society? Wouldn't that make rights conditional rather than inalienable?

They create a lot of victims. I care more about their victims than some druggies civil liberties.

Don't we already have laws against victimizing people? I mean it's easier to argue that you have an individual right to self defense and to protect others from harm and thus scaling upwards a collective right to do the same. But if you don't have an individual right to use force to stop someone from using drugs then how could you have a collective one?

 

[dblack]

I guess I understand your argument, and respectfully disagree. Government is force and it's edicts are enforced by men with guns. It is not capable of being a referee. It writes the rules based on which group has currently seized the reins of power.

I'm not sure you do understand my argument. I'm saying the government should enforce rules that accommodate peaceful interactions, but otherwise leave people free to live the way they want. It's not there to decide the right way to live and force us to comply.

This, to me, is the key distinction between statists and libertarians.

 

[dblack]

Druggies pose no benefit to society.

Is that a requirement?

They create a lot of victims.

If and when they do they should be held accountable. But most of them don't.

I care more about their victims than some druggies civil liberties.

We can care about both.

 

[YoursTruly]

Is that a requirement?

It should be. But it's not anymore because most druggies have no concern for the wellbeing of decent folks. Society is worse off with druggies. Just look at George Floyd. He made society worse off just from his existence. Even before he got high, drove amongst the decent citizens and tried to pass fake money.

Society is ours to protect. To make better so that other law abiding citizens and businesses can flourish. So that we can travel, shop and go about our day without the threat of becoming a victim.

If and when they do they should be held accountable. But most of them don't.

Legalizing drugs and pot makes it much MUCH easier for those who are NOT fit for society, to remain in society.

We can care about both.

Why? Because if they take away the criminals civil liberties, they'll take away ours? FFS, the MAIN reason why we have less civil liberties today is because of druggy criminals. If druggy they weren't such a detriment to society, LEO's and the justice system could concentrate on the more violent criminals.

If pot was legal in this state, this guy would've gotten away. But because it's not legal, it gave the officer pc to search his vehicle.
I care about the innocent victims. The libertarians seem to care more about the druggies than the victims they create.

 

[YoursTruly]

I'm not sure you do understand my argument. I'm saying the government should enforce rules that accommodate peaceful interactions, but otherwise leave people free to live the way they want. It's not there to decide the right way to live and force us to comply.

This, to me, is the key distinction between statists and libertarians.

The whole reason why we have LEO's is because we the people demanded it. We want & need police to catch criminals and get them out of society. Once a person commits a crime, regardless if he's been found guilty in court, but the moment the crime has been committed, that person has proven he/she isn't fit for society.

In fact, the moment a person seriously decides to commit a crime, then he/she isn't fit.

 

[dblack]

It should be.

Well, I can't agree with that at all. Are you suggesting that anything that offers no benefit to society should be illegal??

But it's not anymore because most druggies have no concern for the wellbeing of decent folks.

I don't buy that. At all. In my experience, some are certainly degenerates who pose a threat. But most aren't.

Legalizing drugs and pot makes it much MUCH easier for those who are NOT fit for society, to remain in society.

The only people who aren't "fit for society" are those who harm others. You're presuming quite a lot in saying that all drug users, or even most, represent that kind of threat.

If pot was legal in this state, this guy would've gotten away. But because it's not legal, it gave the officer pc to search his vehicle.

Well hell, might as well make everything illegal - then officers would always have permission to search us. Think of all the crime that would be prevented!

I care about the innocent victims. The libertarians seem to care more about the druggies than the victims they create.

Nonsense. We care about both. We just don't like overbearing government. As long as "druggies" aren't harming anyone else, leave them alone.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Customers and a market created the cartels.

Big pharma may or may not be worse (they probably are) But that's a separate issue. That's like saying Saturn and Mars are the same because they're both planets.

For what ever reason, the government seems to coddle drug dealers and users. And here comes the left leaning folks trying to push "it's an addiction." Well whoopti friggin do. So they're addicted to meth and going to blame their crime spree on some addiction. They're still not fit for society.

Druggies aren't going to stop until they don't have access to them or they decide on their own to quit. It's a damn shame us tax payers have to foot the bill for all these druggies, their crimes, their rehabilitation, their incarceration's and the things we have to buy ourselves just to protect ourselves and our property.

Get Them Before They Get Us

Poison the supply of hard drugs. The self-indulgent users are a pestilence that must be wiped out mercilessly. Rehab just gives these spoiled brats a vacation.

Lawmakers who treat this humanoid garbage as "victims' are not only weaklings. Just like the junkies, they are vicious misfits who hate responsible citizens.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

What happens if the LP had their way and legalized or decriminalized drugs.

Lizardtarian Economics Does the Same Thing to the Economy

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

That one basic tenent, the underpinning from which all else is built. Do not initiate force and keep your hands to yourself.
You own yourself, not the state, not some collective society, you.

Wall Street is a Paradise for Plutocratic Parasites

Capitalism is collectivist. The employees create the wealth, and the owners collect it from them. Equity (used intelligently, not the Low-IQ media way) is iniquity.

 

[YoursTruly]

Well, I can't agree with that at all. Are you suggesting that anything that offers no benefit to society should be illegal??

No. But things that are bad for society, like druggies, should be gone.

I don't buy that. At all. In my experience, some are certainly degenerates who pose a threat. But most aren't.

And? So since there are some who aren't a threat to others & society, then we should overlook all of those who are? I think not.
FFS, You could give everyone a nuclear weapon, and most people wouldn't set it off. But the ones that do, are going to affect a LOT of people. Just like drugs & druggies. And since there are so many druggy criminals, then there's 100 X more victims.

The only people who aren't "fit for society" are those who harm others. You're presuming quite a lot in saying that all drug users, or even most, represent that kind of threat.

Well, the last time I checked there were probably millions of druggy criminals. Some are free in society. And some will soon be. How many victims does that make?

Well hell, might as well make everything illegal - then officers would always have permission to search us. Think of all the crime that would be prevented!

Because of criminals and the LEO's attempt to get them, almost everything IS illegal. That's the part you're missing. The government doesn't create laws just fuck with decent, law abiding citizens.
The LP is retarded in their opposition to the justice system. And because there's so many lax prosecutors and judges, seems the LP would be praising these scum buckets for letting druggies go so often.

Nonsense. We care about both. We just don't like overbearing government. As long as "druggies" aren't harming anyone else, leave them alone.

BS, the LP defends the druggies every time y'all bring up legalizing drugs. Every POS that get's to walk away from a conviction, is a slap in the face to every victim he/she created.
Imagine, see the same guy who was on meth when he raped your daughter, free on the street in just 5 or 10 years? And high as a kite again.


This drug issue the LP takes is one of THE main reasons why decent folks won't vote for libertarians. Y'all would rather defend a group of people, who probably only produce 1% of the LP's votes (because most druggies don't vote). People like me, are stuck with 3 lame party's to choose from.

 

[YoursTruly]

The LP's leadership should adopt this message for drugs & druggies.

"We don't give a fuck about you or your civil liberties. Druggies have become such a burden to society, and on what government (via taxes) has to spend, that there's no way we're going to try and defend you and your actions."

It cost about $40K per criminal to be in prison. That doesn't count the money it costs to catch him, jail him, feed him, and go through all those court proceeding, just to get him in prison.
Each and every one of them. Then add up all the money it cost for those who got a plea deal and didn't have to go to prison. Then add up all the money it cost their victim.
Criminals cost more than welfare moochers.