And we need to stop equating Libertarianism to Conservatism for those very reasons. Libertarians are not for the same kind of small government that conservatives are. They are for big government dedicated to protecting them from any possibility that they might in any way be affected by anyone else.

Those Libertarians that argue that everyone should be free to do as they wish, are the first ones to scream when they believe someone has infringed on their freedoms, by others exercising their own. How do they argue or justify that their freedom is correct, while claiming another’s to be incorrect. Without a moral compass, steeped in the religious tradition of defining right from wrong, which Libertarians seem to have abandoned, how do they condemn one’s freedom as incorrect or wrong?

The Libertarian belief with respect to illegal drugs, that if someone wants to kill themselves they have a right to do it, misses the fact that too often, those drugged people can and do injure and/or kill others. How many families and friends have been torn apart by a drug addict, willing to steal from their own, in order to get the next fix. Freedom to do mind altering drugs knows no limits. When you find a drug addict in the gutter, what do Libertarians suggest you do- walk away from them, because they are only exercsing their rights, even if it kills them? And, don’t dare put a drug pusher in jail.

The Libertarians believe that a woman has the right and freedom to do anything with their bodies that they choose. Does that mean that prostitution should be legal as well?. While they could not be considered pro-abortion, they are not pro-life either. When there is no respect for the sanctity of life, from conception, but rather a view of “it’s a woman’s right to choose”, they have made their case for abortion, and, they can’t rationalize away that fact.

As someone who has a more libertarian bent than most here, my views come from a total distrust of govenment, and believe the smaller the government that better. On the drug legalization thing, my main problem with the current law is that it took a Constitutional Amendment (18th) to prohibit alcohol, and then took the 22nd to finally repeal that stupidity that only made folks like Al Capone, and Joe Kennedy richer than anyone could imagine at that time, with other drugs (like marijuana), all it took was legislative fiat of 50% +1 to make it illegal, my personal belief, is what is good for the goose (alcohol pre 1920′s) is good for the gander (marijuana today). Where I differ from some Libertarian Party folks is that I personally believe that it is hard to have freedom when a missle or an airplane is giving you a rectal exam.

My point is not to totally dismiss all of us that have libertarian views, some of us have them because so far this govenment under rule from both sides of the Democrat/Republican paradigm has not served many people well, just look at how much unrest it took to realize that blacks deserved the same rights as any other American citizen.

Now, I think that the argument that an individual represents a massive investment on the part of many others around him, and that it’s always a shame when that investment is squandered; the question is, is that enough cause for the government to use the power of force to intervene? The answer to that question is, in my opinion, no. There have already been several Constitutional abuses, and abuses of personal liberties, as a result of the “War on Drugs” (interesting how the name of the conflict references fascist nomenclature), such as violations of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 10th, for starters. Beyond that, can the government do anything to ameliorate this situation? To some extent, probably, but not to a level that would be considered acceptable or appropriate by those looking to “solve” the problem, and probably at a greater cost than it would seem upfront.

I’d also warn against conflating society with government: the debt owed by malcontents to society is not one that should be government’s concern; indeed, society can be quite harsh with those people, either through ostracization, reduced opportunities, or other means.

Thanks for the thoughtful post, however.

really just shows you to be particularly ignorant about the actual arguments given by those who have decided that the war on drugs is an unwinnable war against ourselves.

If you really peruse the current literature on both sides, IMO the anti drug warriors have far far better, more cogent, more numerous, and more well researched arguments than the drug warriors.

There are also other areas that you would no doubt call Libertine, that are actually not. Like when the local yokels raid nudy bars one month before election and then let them do whatever they want the rest of the year, or when some idiots get a local bar to shut down because they opened their church within 200 yards, even though the bar was there first.

These things are attacks against our rights, and just because they are attacks on a local or small scale, and just because they might be directed at seedy individuals that makes no difference they are still contrary to freedom.

How “free and independent” can an individual be if they have accumulated a “debt” with “interest” that you “contend” they must “spend the rest of their life returning, with interest.” Kinda sounds like slavery to me. It really does take a village to raise an idiot. Oh, and if my folks leave me something in their will it becomes my property and ceases to be theirs (they’re dead, right?) and never was yours to tell me what you “contend” I should do with it. If I am a danger to my property it should be seized? This diary is goofy.