Possible Democratic and Libertarian Teamwork to End Drug War?

Congress is polarized, unpopular, and gets nothing done.
But watching the DHS shutdown fight, I saw an opportunity. The tea party and libertarian movement has brought 60 or so congressman and several senators that don't tow the party line. Both parties are working to trim the deficit, we just have different priorities. So little gets accomplished.



Here are some areas the progressive base and libertarian base could cut some government.
1. Drug war- it costs between $60k-$80k to lock someone up for a year. A $9 hr job pays $18,500 a year.
2. Police militarization/ prison for profit.
3. Inflated defense budget. $1 Trillion dollars a year pentagon budget, without the NSA
Over 5000 nukes when only 100 would ruin the earth, buying tanks the army itself said it didn't need.
4. Immigration- Senate passed a bipartisan bill that included border security, house could bring it to the floor make amendments.

Anyway the bigger question is what do you think COULD get passed and signed by the prez.

Ideas?

a reply to: HighFive

It's interesting how many TRUE Libertarian ideals align with Progressive ideas. Of course, Libertarianism got its start as a liberal ideology (hence the name LIBERtarian). Consequently, this is why many right wing people on these forums think I'm a Progressive or Democrat. What they fail to see is that my values may align there, but my solutions probably don't.

As for your OP, I agree. The drug war is a GREAT source of government spending that can be trimmed to cut back. Especially since the drug war is unconstitutional.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Liberals and libertarians should be in line on all social and personal issues.

I tell democrats I'm libertarian and republicans I'm half libertarian. I've voted for D's and R's locally cuz Michigan wasn't always as polarized as it is now. I don't classify my self as either, but I don't think who gets to go to kindergarten or who gets medical treatment should be left to the free market.

Ok ATS... What COULD get passed in this congress?

The money spent on the drug war alone could probably fund all the social programs those on the left think we need. The drug war is unwinnable. At this point, I'd say just legalize all drugs and then use the money saved to fund rehab. I rather get rid of the violence associated with drug sales / use with the gangs and just warehouse the addicted losers in huge rehab centers and help them get their lives together.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: HighFive

It's interesting how many TRUE Libertarian ideals align with Progressive ideas. Of course, Libertarianism got its start as a liberal ideology (hence the name LIBERtarian). Consequently, this is why many right wing people on these forums think I'm a Progressive or Democrat. What they fail to see is that my values may align there, but my solutions probably don't.

As for your OP, I agree. The drug war is a GREAT source of government spending that can be trimmed to cut back. Especially since the drug war is unconstitutional.

I don't want you to think I am stalking you here, lol.

I think this is a great opportunity to flesh out these issues for everyone's benefit.

We completely agree on this issue but, by no means do Democrats agree (nor do Republicans, obviously). Indeed, I have a lot of coinciding views with Jeffersonian Democrats.

The term libertarian was coined to have a recognizable moniker once the term liberal had been taken over and redefined by the progressive socialists early last century.

In general though, at least in terms of rhetoric, the presumed principals of constitutional republicanism more closely align with libertarianism. This is why I am so disappointed with the 'right' these days. I do get the impression that republicans are beginning to question their leaders and realizing their inconsistency with the ideals of freedom and individual liberty. I am regularly inspired by the near libertarian views of self-described republican voters (as opposed to politicians).

a reply to: HighFive

Agreed. Studying Libertarian philosophy has illuminated the same thing to me.

a reply to: Edumakated

Great point! Instead of spending $60,000 to lock someone up for a year, how bout $1000 for job training, or rehab.

a reply to: greencmp

This the best way I can sum up Libertarianism and Progressivism.

Libertarians want equality for all through minimal government intervention.
Progressives want equality for all through maximum government intervention.

At the end of the day though, they BOTH want equality for all. Their solutions are what actually differ. Back during the days when Obama was trying to restrict the 2nd Amendment, I slowly realized that Libertarian ideals align with both Republican and Democrat ideals pretty much equally.

As a consequence I realized I was going to lose the respect of a lot of right wing posters when they started attacking Libertarian ideals that aligned with Democrat ideals. I, of course, was right since most of the right wing posters think I'm a Progressive now even though I stood side by side with them in the past against Democrat encroachment of liberty.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

This the best way I can sum up Libertarianism and Progressivism.

Libertarians want equality for all through minimal government intervention.
Progressives want equality for all through maximum government intervention.

At the end of the day though, they BOTH want equality for all. Their solutions are what actually differ. Back during the days when Obama was trying to restrict the 2nd Amendment, I slowly realized that Libertarian ideals align with both Republican and Democrat ideals pretty much equally. As a consequence I realized I was going to lose the respect of a lot of right wing posters when they started attacking Libertarian ideals that aligned with Democrat ideals. I, of course, was right.

That is all true so far as it describes the emotional aspect of equality of opportunity (not results).

I actually see the Republicans beginning to embrace libertarianism and Democrats beginning to recognize the threat that libertarianism poses to their socialist agenda.

As the truth begins to be understood and people make their choice between totalitarian managed economies and truly free markets, libertarianism is in my opinion, is the only sensible choice.

originally posted by: greencmp
That is all true so far as it describes the emotional aspect of equality of opportunity (not results).

I actually see the Republicans beginning to embrace libertarianism and Democrats beginning to recognize the threat that libertarianism poses to their socialist agenda.

I don't see that at all. I see Republicans embracing the Tea Party which is a bastardized version of real Libertarianism, but I certainly don't see them embracing the whole philosophy. The religious aspect of the Tea Party doesn't align with Libertarian values since the Constitution calls for separation of church and state. Nor do I see Democrats outright rejecting Libertarianism. Democrats and Libertarians align currently on issues regarding gay marriage, marijuana, and isolationism in regards to not being war hawks.

As the truth begins to be understood and people make their choice between totalitarian managed economies and truly free markets, libertarianism is in my opinion, is the only sensible choice.

I agree. That is why I am a Libertarian. HOWEVER, I also recognize that Libertarianism is likely to not ever be implemented in this country. Therefore when I analyze and issue, I make the most Libertarian based decision I can. Unfortunately that means that sometimes I have to side with government intervention to provide freedom for a minority of people. For example: Gay marriage. I would prefer that government not be involved in gay marriage at all (I believe I've told you that before), BUT it is, so because this is so my Libertarian values force me to say that gay marriage should be available to all groups.

This is why ideology is killing America.
If your absolutely against redistribution of income, then even modest defense or building of roads is impossible.
I feel a TRUE free market would look like medieval times, castles and the homeless.
We all need to remember: Your spending is my income, my spending is your income

I keep hearing ideology, not ideas that could pass in congress.
Heres one .. infrastructure. How do my lib friends feel about that?

a reply to: HighFive

I'm all for improving our infrastructure. Improving our infrastructure means construction which means jobs. Sure those jobs may be ultimately temporary, but the income from those jobs could be used to transfer over to other jobs once those projects end.

originally posted by: HighFive
This is why ideology is killing America.
If your absolutely against redistribution of income, then even modest defense or building of roads is impossible.
I feel a TRUE free market would look like medieval times, castles and the homeless.
We all need to remember: Your spending is my income, my spending is your income

I keep hearing ideology, not ideas that could pass in congress.
Heres one .. infrastructure. How do my lib friends feel about that?

I don't know of any libertarian or conservative for that matter who is against modest taxes and having essential government services. Anything less than that is anarchy. A lot of the things that the federal government gets involved with is best left to the States, counties, and cities.

I have no problem paying taxes, I have a problem paying damn near half my income in taxes. If the tax rate were something like 10-15% and everybody paid something, then most people would probably be content. The problem we have now with taxes is that we have a smaller and smaller group carrying the burden for everyone else.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: HighFive

I'm all for improving our infrastructure. Improving our infrastructure means construction which means jobs. Sure those jobs may be ultimately temporary, but the income from those jobs could be used to transfer over to other jobs once those projects end.

See all libertarians have to pick and choose when to drop their ideology. And lately billionaires rights and polluters rights are the rights that libertarians scream loudest to protect.

Rand Paul is the only repub candidate I could support because he perfectly matches my views on social issues and war. Also I know he will never be able to accomplish the things I disagree with: ending dept of education, ending environmental protection agency, etc

Thx I've always enjoyed your posts

While there are some things that libertarians and progressives agree on, I don't think progressives are as honest about their intentions.

Prime example. There was a thread discussing how Bernie Sanders wants to eliminate some tax loopholes that primarily affect some large corporations. I don't have a problem with this, but my point was why only focus on these six loopholes? Why not go big and propose eliminating the IRS and getting rid of ALL TAX LOOP HOLES (deductions) with a flat tax? I'm sure both sides of the aisle can get behind a ground breaking proposal that would in effect remove the lobbying power from politicians by making it impossible for them to use our convoluted tax code to dole out favors to special interest.

If you are against loopholes, then be against all loopholes. But see that is not what they really want. They only want to get rid of loopholes that benefit those who don't necessarily align ideologically. So of course, they remained silent when I pointed out the hypocrisy of their position when they disagreed with a flat tax.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: greencmp
That is all true so far as it describes the emotional aspect of equality of opportunity (not results).

I actually see the Republicans beginning to embrace libertarianism and Democrats beginning to recognize the threat that libertarianism poses to their socialist agenda.

I don't see that at all. I see Republicans embracing the Tea Party which is a bastardized version of real Libertarianism, but I certainly don't see them embracing the whole philosophy. The religious aspect of the Tea Party doesn't align with Libertarian values since the Constitution calls for separation of church and state. Nor do I see Democrats outright rejecting Libertarianism. Democrats and Libertarians align currently on issues regarding gay marriage, marijuana, and isolationism in regards to not being war hawks.

As the truth begins to be understood and people make their choice between totalitarian managed economies and truly free markets, libertarianism is in my opinion, is the only sensible choice.

I agree. That is why I am a Libertarian. HOWEVER, I also recognize that Libertarianism is likely to not ever be implemented in this country. Therefore when I analyze and issue, I make the most Libertarian based decision I can. Unfortunately that means that sometimes I have to side with government intervention to provide freedom for a minority of people. For example: Gay marriage. I would prefer that government not be involved in gay marriage at all (I believe I've told you that before), BUT it is, so because this is so my Libertarian values force me to say that gay marriage should be available to all groups.

I believe that government is the progenitor of strife.

Any federal legislation beyond that which is necessary for the operation of the few responsibilities which are delegated to it under the constitution is pure folly and cannot be reconciled with the principals of libertarianism.

Artificial preference of any kind fosters inequality and therefore unequal treatment under the law. I think that is where we begin to diverge.

Remember that libertarians defend pacifism, they do not endorse it. To use the Rothbardian example, if a citizen is wronged by another citizen, he should have the exclusive right to decide whether to prosecute or not.

While foreign wars are greatly discouraged, even Hayek agreed that he would be "better dead than red".

The only defendable libertarian viewpoint is to completely remove the legal institution of marriage and treat it like any other civil contract with zero benefits or penalties of any kind (such as tax breaks, etc.)

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: HighFive

I'm all for improving our infrastructure. Improving our infrastructure means construction which means jobs. Sure those jobs may be ultimately temporary, but the income from those jobs could be used to transfer over to other jobs once those projects end.

I am totally against artificial credit and its sibling artificial employment.

People who 'work' for the government remove themselves from our economy and can only represent drag and inflation.

The 'stimulus' of their wages washing through a community are destructive and have the very same malinvestment effects as artificial credit.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: HighFive


I have no problem paying taxes, I have a problem paying damn near half my income in taxes. If the tax rate were something like 10-15% and everybody paid something, then most people would probably be content. The problem we have now with taxes is that we have a smaller and smaller group carrying the burden for everyone else.[/quote

I support a flat tax.
Newt Gingrich proposed a 20% flat tax. Let's work from that.
Getting rid of deductions and loopholes or capping tax returns to $15000 ish must be part of that. Or the rich will continue to pay far less than the 20% we would be paying. Basically lowering our rates on the backs of those to used to pay5% , the rich. I'm in.

The holdup in congress is democrats want use the increase on the rich by closing loopholes to lower the deficit.
Republicans want a revenue neutral flat tax so they can say they didn't raise taxes.
But rich people who used to pay little to no taxes would have their taxes increase. They have power in congress and this common sense legislation stalls.

edit on 6-3-2015 by HighFive because: No text

originally posted by: HighFive

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: HighFive

I'm all for improving our infrastructure. Improving our infrastructure means construction which means jobs. Sure those jobs may be ultimately temporary, but the income from those jobs could be used to transfer over to other jobs once those projects end.

See all libertarians have to pick and choose when to drop their ideology. And lately billionaires rights and polluters rights are the rights that libertarians scream loudest to protect.

Rand Paul is the only repub candidate I could support because he perfectly matches my views on social issues and war. Also I know he will never be able to accomplish the things I disagree with: ending dept of education, ending environmental protection agency, etc

Thx I've always enjoyed your posts

I actually see disagreement as a positive indicator of thoughtful analysis.

It is uniformity of philosophy that I find to be the most dangerous.

Rand Paul is not an isolationist, btw.