Libertarians-how to spread libertarianism. (was : Libertarians - why so few?)

Originally posted by Amuk
You are wrong about Libertarians giving big business to much power.

We do not believe in corporate welfare and protecvtion from law suits like the Republicans do.

I have been a Libertarian almost from the start of the party and I think part of the problem is people today are scared of freedom. They want someone telling them how to think and what to do. I think the LP is the last chance we have to remain not just a free country but a country of free men.

The two arent always the same thing

It is good to see level headed people now and then on this forum!

Originally posted by Esoterica
I would say that the problem with Libertarians is that they aren't a compromise of moderation, they're a compromise of extremes. They have views that are really to the extreme right or left, and stick them together. This really throws people off, because all they see is a party that is all over the place.

As a liberal, this is why they don't appeal to me. I'm in favor of gun control and the ones I've met are survivalist-oriented gun-owning semi-extremist people. This, philosophically and politically is something I'm uncomfortable with. I looked at Badnarik's platform and had the same disjunct feeling... there's everything there for white males and nothing for women or minorities.

Nor do I agree with the "back to the constitution" stance. We have those amendments for good reason; they addressed inequalities in our government. Knock those over, and we could easily go back to the days when you were "guilty until proved innocent" or it was legal to own someone as a slave and minorities could be hauled off and stuck in ghettos... or reservations.

The constitution is not and was not a perfect document. I want to see us moving forward. I see nothing in the Libertarian ideologies to attract me.

Originally posted by electric squid carpet
There is a war on Liberalism, the neo-conservatives in power today deem that liberalism plants the seeds of decay in society because of its laxed morals, they claim that liberalism has failed.

I believe that there is a big difference between liberalism and libertarianism

When the Libertarians picked NH for a "free state" I did look over their web site. I probably need to refresh my memory, but at that time I welcomed them to NH and felt that these people would be an asset to the state of NH. Course that was back before the election when we were a "red" state.

Ok Straussism 101 (thankyou google for the details, i'll list sources at the end of this post):

"Many neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz are disciples of a philosopher who believed that the elite should use deception, religious fervor and perpetual war to control the ignorant masses. "

"Strauss was born and educated in Germany, relocated to the UK in 1934, then emigrated to the U.S. in 1937. After lecturing for several years at the New School for Social Research in New York, in 1948 he accepted a post at the University of Chicago, where he spent most of the rest of his career. A charismatic teacher, he attracted a coterie of brilliant students, many of whom became prominent neoconservative thinkers and polemicists; a sizable number of Strauss devotees have served in Republican administrations, starting with Reagan and continuing through Bushes I and II. (Abram Shulsky, the apparatchik you mention, works for the Office of Special Plans, currently under fire for cherry-picking intelligence during the buildup to the Iraq war. And maybe the name Paul Wolfowitz rings a bell?) Strauss's best-known protege is probably Allan Bloom, author of a best-selling critique of U.S. higher education, The Closing of the American Mind (1987)."

Strausse also took a bizzare interest in ancient estrotic texts.

His philosophy can be summed up in 3 major principles:

Rule One: Deception

It's hardly surprising then why Strauss is so popular in an administration obsessed with secrecy, especially when it comes to matters of foreign policy. Not only did Strauss have few qualms about using deception in politics, he saw it as a necessity. While professing deep respect for American democracy, Strauss believed that societies should be hierarchical � divided between an elite who should lead, and the masses who should follow. But unlike fellow elitists like Plato, he was less concerned with the moral character of these leaders. According to Shadia Drury, who teaches politics at the University of Calgary, Strauss believed that "those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right � the right of the superior to rule over the inferior."

This dichotomy requires "perpetual deception" between the rulers and the ruled, according to Drury. Robert Locke, another Strauss analyst says,"The people are told what they need to know and no more." While the elite few are capable of absorbing the absence of any moral truth, Strauss thought, the masses could not cope. If exposed to the absence of absolute truth, they would quickly fall into nihilism or anarchy, according to Drury, author of 'Leo Strauss and the American Right' (St. Martin's 1999).

Second Principle: Power of Religion

According to Drury, Strauss had a "huge contempt" for secular democracy. Nazism, he believed, was a nihilistic reaction to the irreligious and liberal nature of the Weimar Republic. Among other neoconservatives, Irving Kristol has long argued for a much greater role for religion in the public sphere, even suggesting that the Founding Fathers of the American Republic made a major mistake by insisting on the separation of church and state. And why? Because Strauss viewed religion as absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control.

At the same time, he stressed that religion was for the masses alone; the rulers need not be bound by it. Indeed, it would be absurd if they were, since the truths proclaimed by religion were "a pious fraud." As Ronald Bailey, science correspondent for Reason magazine points out, "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers."

"Secular society in their view is the worst possible thing,'' Drury says, because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats. Bailey argues that it is this firm belief in the political utility of religion as an "opiate of the masses" that helps explain why secular Jews like Kristol in 'Commentary' magazine and other neoconservative journals have allied themselves with the Christian Right and even taken on Darwin's theory of evolution.

Third Principle: Aggressive Nationalism

Like Thomas Hobbes, Strauss believed that the inherently aggressive nature of human beings could only be restrained by a powerful nationalistic state. "Because mankind is intrinsically wicked, he has to be governed," he once wrote. "Such governance can only be established, however, when men are united � and they can only be united against other people."

Not surprisingly, Strauss' attitude toward foreign policy was distinctly Machiavellian. "Strauss thinks that a political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat," Drury wrote in her book. "Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured (emphases added)."

"Perpetual war, not perpetual peace, is what Straussians believe in," says Drury. The idea easily translates into, in her words, an "aggressive, belligerent foreign policy," of the kind that has been advocated by neocon groups like PNAC and AEI scholars � not to mention Wolfowitz and other administration hawks who have called for a world order dominated by U.S. military power. Strauss' neoconservative students see foreign policy as a means to fulfill a "national destiny" � as Irving Kristol defined it already in 1983 � that goes far beyond the narrow confines of a " myopic national security."

As to what a Straussian world order might look like, the analogy was best captured by the philosopher himself in one of his � and student Allen Bloom's � many allusions to Gulliver's Travels. In Drury's words, "When Lilliput was on fire, Gulliver urinated over the city, including the palace. In so doing, he saved all of Lilliput from catastrophe, but the Lilliputians were outraged and appalled by such a show of disrespect."

The image encapsulates the neoconservative vision of the United States' relationship with the rest of the world � as well as the relationship between their relationship as a ruling elite with the masses. "They really have no use for liberalism and democracy, but they're conquering the world in the name of liberalism and democracy," Drury says.

-------

We live in crazy times, these principals have not been exaggerated, this is what he taught, and this is what Bush's followers in the white house study, respect and live by. A kind "tough love" like policy of political ideology.

www.alternet.org...
www.straightdope.com...

google Leo Strauss for more info on him, he is the father of the neoconservative movement.

What supprises me more though, is that the people in America are aware that people by the name of "neoconservatives" are running the current administration, but have no idea...or take any interest in what they believe in, and who the founders of the movement were.

[edit on 8-11-2004 by electric squid carpet]

very interesting I didn't know Strauss... I knew the goals of the pnac group and bush's admin coming together for this anything but diplomatic foreign policy...

It's amazing that right wing participator's see what their foreign policy is, and they advocate it... They were taught to be patriotic or else your not really American, so perhaps with this nationalistic attitude it's helping them agree to this foreign policy. That's what it sound like to me.

I guess now, as people are easily forgetting the constitution and our founding fathers and American's foundation, it's alot easier to just go along with current partisan politics... Nobody seems to give a #...

They only show respect to their partisan party and will easily bend over and adhere to their party... That strauss guy is good... very good... How devious...

So how the hell do you handle that??

Does anybody else see a circular problem here??

Originally posted by jsobecky
Who can supply the name of one existing Libertarian country?

How many free countries were they before the USA?

Originally posted by TrueLies
So how the hell do you handle that??

That is the million dollar question. Everyone seems to know the direction we are headed its just nobody seems to care.

Originally posted by Byrd

As a liberal, this is why they don't appeal to me. I'm in favor of gun control and the ones I've met are survivalist-oriented gun-owning semi-extremist people.

I own guns but couild hardly be called a survivalist, how many Libertarians here are hiding in the woods sitting on a pile of can goods and ammo waith=ing for the world to end? come on now speak up.....LOL

This, philosophically and politically is something I'm uncomfortable with. I looked at Badnarik's platform and had the same disjunct feeling... there's everything there for white males and nothing for women or minorities.

Please show me anything is his platform that would be holding them back?
We believe in a completly level playing field are you saying that they can not compete in a equal and fair manner?

While you are at it show me where he gives preferential treatment to white males? We believe woman and minorities canm compete in an open market and do not believe in giving ANYONE an advantage.

As for Libertarians rounding up people and putting them in gehttos and reservations I have never heard of this could you point it out for me? We arent trying to remove any protections in the constituion we merely wish the government to follow it.

[edit on 8-11-2004 by Amuk]

Originally posted by Amuk
As for Libertarians rounding up people and putting them in gehttos and reservations I have never heard of this could you point it out for me? We arent trying to remove any protections in the constituion we merely wish the government to follow it.

Also you dont see libertarian's trying to social engineer, like democrats and republican's have done so many times...

With the quick integration of black's and white's that created social upheaval and destruction of property and destruction of the inner cities.

Take Detroit for example, remember the riots??

Remember the banning of native indian traditions, pow wows, drumming, literature, ect. That wasn't all that long ago either.

Making them go classes where they learned the white man's way of life and tradition??

I don't think i've ever seen Libertarian's trying to do that...

Originally posted by Amuk
I own guns but couild hardly be called a survivalist, how many Libertarians here are hiding in the woods sitting on a pile of can goods and ammo waith=ing for the world to end? come on now speak up.....LOL

(g) As I said, it was a "sample of few" (including a modestly famous science fiction writer, L. Neil Smith) that gave me the impression...but that's an important point. They were so extreme that I was UNinterested in any followup.

While you are at it show me where he gives preferential treatment to white males? We believe woman and minorities canm compete in an open market and do not believe in giving ANYONE an advantage.

Eh, badly stated and based on meeting a few. After Badnarki showed up, I did look at the website and found things that I didn't agree on:

(2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government

I do oppose people printing things like Boiled Angel (WARNING: LINK IS NOT FOR THE SENSITIVE (women in particular may have problems with the violence and mysogyny mentioned.) (I could list other things... this was the LEAST offensive of the material I think should not be published.)

I have problems with this as well:

we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals.

...because without the government to say "This is a scam" or "this is a pyramid scam" there's a whole bunch of folks who can cheat and harm others and get off scott-free. Now, I realize that the platform also says "that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships," but frankly there's no indication of how to go about detecting and banishing it. Great concept, but unless you're doing some heavy government oversight it's impossible to achieve.

I *absolutly* oppose this one:

We call for an end to "hate crime" laws that punish people for their thoughts and speech, distract us from real crimes, and foster resentment by giving some individuals special status under the law.

It would mean that defacing Jewish synagogues by White Supremecists was no longer a crime ("They're just exercising freedom of speech and the Jews should grow up and learn to deal with it." Yeah, right. It's okay for the GodHatesFags site to recruit people to stand around and depict scenes of gays burning in hell at any funeral they choose. )

They can't allow this freedom of speech and still protect the people that they say they're going to protect.

And this one was a nightmare:

A. the repeal of all laws prohibiting the production, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and of all medicinal prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs, and similar substances;

I admit to being biased, since a friend's daughter is hooked on meth and I've seen the violence level that the child brings to the family (when she goes back on it, she goes into rages and steals things and will destroy family property. But this is a "victimless crime"? The family sure thinks that THEY are victims.)

And, having dealt with some of the people who have psychiatric problems, this is just terribly naive, IMHO. It also means that religious fundamentalists have the right to deny medical treatment (involving drugs) for their children and that no court can take the child away and give them the drugs they need (such as insulin) to survive:

Medication must be voluntary.

Solutions: We oppose the involuntary commitment of any person to or involuntary treatment in a mental institution. We strongly condemn Involuntary Outpatient Commitment (IOC), where the patient is ordered to accept treatment, or else be committed to a mental institution and forcibly treated.

There's more, but that would be an overload.

I can't support that. I really can't.

[edit on 8-11-2004 by Byrd]

Originally posted by Byrd
I do oppose people printing things like Boiled Angel (WARNING: LINK IS NOT FOR THE SENSITIVE (women in particular may have problems with the violence and mysogyny mentioned.) (I could list other things... this was the LEAST offensive of the material I think should not be published.)

This is legal now right? so how would the LP be any different? Worse things would be posted no doubt but you dont HAVE to go there.

...because without the government to say "This is a scam" or "this is a pyramid scam" there's a whole bunch of folks who can cheat and harm others and get off scott-free.

You would be free to sue for damages in court whereas not the Government becomes the victim and the money goes to them. I would rather have my money back+, then see the court reap a huge profit from my troubles

I *absolutly* oppose this one:

We call for an end to "hate crime" laws that punish people for their thoughts and speech, distract us from real crimes, and foster resentment by giving some individuals special status under the law.

It would mean that defacing Jewish synagogues by White Supremecists was no longer a crime

How is that? is vandlism not a crime? Does it matter if the victim is jewish?
As for the gays we are the ONLY party pushing for COMPLETE rights for Gays.

A. the repeal of all laws prohibiting the production, sale, possession, or use of drugs, and of all medicinal prescription requirements for the purchase of vitamins, drugs, and similar substances;
I admit to being biased, since a friend's daughter is hooked on meth and I've seen the violence level that the child brings to the family (when she goes back on it, she goes into rages and steals things and will destroy family property. But this is a "victimless crime"? The family sure thinks that THEY are victims.)

And think god she cant get any drugs now, right? We just believe it should be handled like adiction to booze. Do you know how much could go into rehab if we quit puting pot smokers in prision for longer than murderers and rapists? They would be a lot more room for violent criminals too.


You have to look at the entire platform not just the sound bites, unlike the other two parties we are offering a different path than the quick fixes that they offer.

Of course you are free to support or not that is the beauty of our country

Originally posted by Amuk
This is legal now right? so how would the LP be any different? Worse things would be posted no doubt but you dont HAVE to go there.

In fact, it's not. The artist/author was slapped with an obscenity charge (a subsequent issue after he was jailed was an interview with an inmate on how to stalk, kill, and eat little boys with recommendations on barbeque sauce (and the inmate was in prison for that particular crime.)

You would be free to sue for damages in court whereas not the Government becomes the victim and the money goes to them. I would rather have my money back+, then see the court reap a huge profit from my troubles

That's been tried. It doesn't work. I don't know if you've ever tried to pursue a civil case for damages, but it's not a very happy experience.

How is that? is vandlism not a crime? Does it matter if the victim is jewish?

If you support "free speech" then it's "free speech." In fact, they can assemble a mob outside your house to picket and protest "go away dirty jew" and there's nothing in the laws you mention to protect the person. There's nothing to protect them in an environment where there may be a lot of people who don't like Jews and they have to constantly listen at work (or at their doctor's) to nasty remarks directed at them.

And think god she cant get any drugs now, right? We just believe it should be handled like adiction to booze.

Guess what... that's how it's being handled NOW. And it's not working. This kid has been in and out of these rehabs 3 times already (including the Betty Ford clinic.) The last time she was in, I asked her mom to collect some data for me.

In the sample she got, the average number of times that people had been in treatment was 4. One had been in 7 times. I think that the platform was created by people who have not had to deal with drug users and abusers in their family.

You have to look at the entire platform not just the sound bites, unlike the other two parties we are offering a different path than the quick fixes that they offer.

The devil, as they say, is in the details. While I might not like the others completely, they're not advocating a complete overthrow of systems. There's a lot of idealism in the party, but the idealism doesn't seem to be based on long and horrible experience with some of these issues. And they are defending some of the things that the Libertarians want to overturn... things that frankly I think need to stay in place until we as a society ...grow up... just a little more.

[edit on 8-11-2004 by Byrd]

Originally posted by Byrd

How is that? is vandlism not a crime? Does it matter if the victim is jewish?

If you support "free speech" then it's "free speech."

when has destroying some ones elses property been protected as free speech? You know as well as I do that it has NEVER been considered free speech. Name me ONE example where destroying anothers property has been protected as free speech.

We are not gonna allow it either.

As for calling people names where is it against the law to call someone "dirty Jew"? that is protected under the free speech laws NOW so how would that change? Getting a mob outside your house is harrasment and again not protected under free speech laws now nor would it be protected under our laws.

As far as your neice goes since we have laws saying drugs are illegal she is unable to get them right? Do you think legalizing it would change that?

If you believe that 10 or 15 years in prision would help her more than rehab turn her in. There are more drugs IN the prision than on the outside. She will come out still a drug addict and they will have taught her all kinds of new things she will no doubt be more than happy to show society.

And lastly we are not calling for an overthrow of the systemn just a return to the constitution.

[edit on 8-11-2004 by Amuk]

Originally posted by clearmind
i think that it is ..first and foremost) because the current political system will not let a 3rd party let its position be known to the masses..
and 2) libertarian sounds to much like libral....and there are too many conotations to that word.

i think if more people knew the positions of the libertarian party, the rep and dem would be worried....hmmmmmm ANOTHER conspiracy.......

yes the conspiracy to call socalism liberalism... its not liberalism if you can do whaterver u want except with your own money. however libertarians should also call themseleves Miniarchists. Libertarian has a nicer ring to it though.

Originally posted by electric squid carpet
Strauss's ideologies closly resemble Marixm,

Wow, a neo conservative Marxist, there�s a gigantic contradiction if I've ever heard one.

To further this lets look at simply the titles of the three points in Strauss�s philosophy�

1) Rule One: Deception- Under Marxism all is controlled by and through the workers who distribute evenly according to ability and need. There is no ruling or ruled seeing as to how it is a classless society and as such there can be no hierarchy.

2) Second Principle: Power of Religion- Marxism says that religion is merely another tool used by the ruling class to give hold over the population and will die out once all aspects of the superstructure are removed. Remember the whole �Religion is the opiate of the masses� thing?

3) Third Principle: Aggressive Nationalism- Marxism might as well be considered anti-nationalist seeing as how it proposes to dissolve all barriers between nations and form a worker controlled system.

It seems that with any political party, you'll never find a perfect match, unless of course, you invented the party.

My family and surrounding areas are strong Republicans, so consequently, this was the first party I researched, and then discarded. I turned to the democrats, and found them to be Republicans from a different state (republicrat, anyone?). Thus, I stumbled uponr 3rd parties. The Libertarian party happens to be my current pet which I am the most interested in and support more than other 3rd parties. But of course, there are areas of this party which I do not agree with, unclear on, or would like to modify for my own beliefs. As I said before, there's no perfect politcal party for you, unless you invented it. And then, a miracle occured. I discovered....

the Scatterrian Party.

Mission Statement: Bring peace, prosperity, hope, joy, and any synonym for the word "goodness" to the world. To stop hating each other, because everyone agrees that hating is lame. To get complaining, nagging, power-hungry, pro-censorship conservatives/liberals, evangelists/athiests, rednecks/corporate hippes, white powers/black powers, over-the-top soccer mom-hopefuls to stop, read a book, and come back in half an hour with a bulleted list of organzied, thought provoking, and intellectual pieces of advice for our nation....oh yeah, and to get a Frank Sinatra version of the "Star-Spangled Banner" to become the new anthem.

Platform:

Education-
When teachers are not given the freedom to teach, students will not take advantage of the freedom to learn. The Scatterian party does not request, but DEMANDS an immediate raise in teacher salary and freedom. These people are educating our future revolutionaries, how about we treat them like it? We also support involvment in the School Board not only from elected school board officials, but an equal amount of input from parents, teachers and students. Seperate but equal, all 4 groups should be allowed time to speak raise issues, and VOTE on how a district needs to be run. The era has ended in which the only opinions voiced are those claiming that public schools aren't important enough for a tax raise, that a school which is supposed to hold 1500 students had a student population of over 4000 on the first day of classes doesnt need funding, or how our students dont need a new building, when their school has been standing for over 40 years. PTSA will actually mean Parents, Teachers, AND Students. Students will be more educated on colleges and technical schools and cities will PLAN FOR THE FUTURE.

The lives of American youth are sculpted, characterized, and dependent on their education, how about we start thinking about that.

Environment-
The Scatterian Party gives two big thumbs up towards alternate sources of power. Captain Planet and the popular rock band REM agree, the environment is awesome! Not only do Scatterians promote alternate, safer, cleaner fuel sources for cars and busses, these radicals also muse on a revolutionary concept: walking. Too many government officials speak about pollution and bad health as two entirely different subjects, but alas, we shall kill two birds with one stone, or should I say, cut two pounds with one less mercedes!

War/Foreign Policy:

Scatterians are against this:


That's all that needs to be said.

Moral Issues/Ethics:
If one was to learn that Scat, the Scatterian Party founder, originated from Texas, one would probably assume a. anti gay, b. anti abortion, c. anti rock and roll, d. PRO JESUS.

This is not the case.

You might have seen Scat's...ahem..."spitfire" directed at the intolerant, those who drag their God into their politics in n ATS Political ideology thread. The First Ammendment guarantees freedom of religion, so why are our leaders basing their platforms off a Christian God, or, for that matter, any God whatsoever. I will be the first to admit that the words "separation of church and state" are not written in the Constitution, but the word "freedom" is. The moment our nation's two controlling parties base their views on a specific God is the moment our politicians have failed to find a stance. To take an issue and decide on what is right as our nation says it should be. They quote the Bible on matters of abortion and gay marriage, yet Iknow of another passage...a passage in which a man is absent from services on the Sabbath because he is in the forest collecting food for his family. Thus, God tells the people to stone him to death. I know of another passage claiming that anyone born to unmarried parents is not fit for the kingdom of God. Yet, I remember America being based on equality...for all its people. Gay, athiest, pro-life, pro-choice, does it matter? If I wrote before you a thousand names, would you wonder care what massiah they prayed to, would you care who they loved, would you care if they were black or white, rich or poor, republican or democrat?

If our law is not willing to look upon all its people equally, how will our people look upon themselves?

********************************

I love 3rd parties, I think I have a bias towards them more than towards the two major parties. In my opinion, the Libertarians are closer the substance of America than the major parties but I can certainly understand Byrd's position on the drug-issue. However, on the issue of the Boiled Angel, I can't say I agree. I find it shocking that American women find it disgusting, immoral, and sexist, yet womanizing music still stands at number 1 on the Billboard charts. We're drawn to the controversy, we can't stand being apart from it too long. But censorship is something I am wholeheartedly against. Now- there is a difference between public censorhip and private filtering, though it may sound like I'm just changing the terminology. If a parent wishes to buy a filter for their TV, let them do it. But if my writings are being edited without my consent before put into print, and eventually banned all together, there's something wrong.

I've said too much.

Go Libertarians! (sometimes)

Originally posted by Scat
It seems that with any political party, you'll never find a perfect match, unless of course, you invented the party.
Go Libertarians! (sometimes)

I agree, I dont believe in EVERYTHING on the Libertarians platform they jusat are closer than any other

Originally posted by Amuk
when has destroying some ones elses property been protected as free speech? You know as well as I do that it has NEVER been considered free speech. Name me ONE example where destroying anothers property has been protected as free speech.

Did you grow up in the South, perhaps during the Civil Rights era? I did. History's full of examples.

As for calling people names where is it against the law to call someone "dirty Jew"? that is protected under the free speech laws NOW so how would that change?

Actually, within certain contexts it isn't allowed. If someone does that at work, for instance, that would be hate speech. So would shouting it at someone on a subway. It can be used with implied threats to attempt to intimidate someone or frighten them away. Wearing a tee shirt with the words, "Kill All The F*ing Jews" and the image of a dead body with bullet wounds on it isn't allowed... but with no reins on free speech, it would be.

And that's the Rule of the Bully. I don't care for it and that's why I think it should be enforced.

Getting a mob outside your house is harrasment and again not protected under free speech laws now nor would it be protected under our laws.

But that's a government thing and a recent law.

As far as your neice goes since we have laws saying drugs are illegal she is unable to get them right? Do you think legalizing it would change that?

(she's not my niece)

Heck yes. Meth would be cheap, easy, and readily available since it's one of the easiest drugs to manufacture. It's addictive, and it destroys the dopamine receptors in the brain, aggravating depression and bipolar conditions and causing psychotic episodes. I don't see that legalizing it is going to address that.

If you believe that 10 or 15 years in prision would help her more than rehab turn her in. There are more drugs IN the prision than on the outside. She will come out still a drug addict and they will have taught her all kinds of new things she will no doubt be more than happy to show society.

She nearly got prison ... not for drug use but for violence and theft. She got off because she was a first time offender, but the second time they're not going to be that lenient. I would also like to see the guy who's selling her the drugs put away for a very very long time.

But if drugs are legalized, that won't happen. If you don't need prescriptions for drugs, what's to prevent you from taking (or giving to someone) the wrong thing? What's to prevent me from wandering down to the drugstore and dosing myself to the gills on Valium?

I don't think this is a good idea.

And lastly we are not calling for an overthrow of the systemn just a return to the constitution.

Actually, you're calling for your interpretation of the constitution... and many are suggesting that some bills and laws be done away with. I don't think you'd enjoy a return to the original form, where only free, white, landowning males could vote and where a lot of our hard-won rights would no longer exist.

Law is a living thing, as is government. It MUST move forward with the time and the culture. You wouldn't really like living under (say) the laws and constitution that King John gave the nobility in 1215.

While I agree that we do have unnecessary laws all around, I don't think the current interpretations of the Constitution are unnecessary or invalid. Perhaps you could explain exactly what you mean by "return to the constitution" since I've seen it mean everything from "return to Biblical times" to "Gun Nuts United."

The varieties are confusing. Would you care to enlighten me?

Originally posted by Byrd
The varieties are confusing. Would you care to enlighten me?

Basically it just means the FEDERAL government being cut back to its original powers, protecting us from outside enimies and such.

Where a lot of people go wrong is, take the drug issue, the federal government would but out and it would be left to the states to decide if they want pot legal or illegal or meth or whatever. This would allow states to learn from each others mistakes.

The states powers could not upsurp the constitution like legalizing slavery or something like that. Most of this is pretty much spelled out in the constitution right now its just the Federal government ignores it. We are not talking about going back to slavery burning witches crap like that is propaganda from the big Two and some of our more wako followers, yall have them too.

What we mainly mean is what part of the Constitution gives the federal government the right to protect another country? How about invade a country that has not attacked us? Where does it say we should support other governments?

These are just a couple examples where the Federal Government has oversteped its bounds.

How many Libertarians do you know? I have been active in the party for over 20 years and have heard NO ONE wanting to go back to slavery and only white men being allowed to vote and crap like that we dont want to change the Constitution just make the Government follow it.

Our party does not advocate mobs hunting down Blacks and Jews OR allowing anyone else too, where do you get this info from?

I think you are getting us mixed up with the Neo-Nazis or White supremists

[edit on 8-11-2004 by Amuk]

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Amuk
when has destroying some ones elses property been protected as free speech? You know as well as I do that it has NEVER been considered free speech. Name me ONE example where destroying anothers property has been protected as free speech.

Did you grow up in the South, perhaps during the Civil Rights era? I did. History's full of examples.

I would like to hear one, when has it been legal to attack someone and destroy there property as a form of freedom of speech?

Oh I almost forgot Meth is ALREADY cheap and easy to get. I live in the rural south and could get all you want in half an hour. Are you saying that since its against the law its hard for her to find it? It COULDNT get any easier, its for sell at work and in every bar hell I could make a couple calls and get you a Pound and I dont even do it.

As for it being illegal to wear a shirt saying kill the Jews I havent seen it but I see "Kill Whitey" t-shirts fairly often and nobody gets arrested for them.

[edit on 8-11-2004 by Amuk]