Libertarians

[DragonStryk72]

I wish to discuss the very situation you quoted from me. If we legalize all drugs, who has to pay for the eventual fallout from those drugs? I have worked ER and seen the consequences of drug abuse. I work now in a unit that specializes in the care of drug addicts' wounds and illnesses. These are vital answers I am seeking.

Actually, from the Libertarian perspective, legalizing drugs frees up our officers to go after the real problem: Drug dealers. See, no, the individual stoner is likely not harming anyone. Bear in mind that there are drugs that, even by Libertarian standards, should be illegal, such as PCP, and rufies. There is no safe way to use PCP, and it can lead directly to violence against others, not by odd anecdote, but as a direct effect of the drug. Rufies are specifically for use against another person to knock them out, so again, still illegal.

The bigger issue is the dealers, because they are harming people other than themselves. With decrminalized drug use, comes the freed up manpower to focus on the pushers instead of the marks. It would also decrease prison populations significantly, which in turn, since drugs make it in to prison all the time, would actually lower the overall crime rate. Fewer ex-cons means that people who used to get busted for smoking pot or doing some ecstasy will no longer have a bullshit item on their record that can deny them employment, drop their wages, and otherwise push them in the direction of further criminal/drug-related activity.

Another thing starts to go away: Mystique. Plenty of drug use is done out of rebellion, or because it's so "edgy". It's sort of like with guns: If everyone would stop freaking out about them, and treat them like tools, we wouldn't have an issue. Because we make them so fascinating, so taboo, we actually insure their continued draw.

[Drummond]

This thread is a somewhat curious one, at least from my viewpoint.

I suspect that UK sensibilities differ. To me, Libertarianism is identified with the Left far more readily than with Right-wing thinking.

I note that FJ identifies himself as a Libertarian. To me, from my worldview, that's the equivalent of FJ finally admitting he's a Leftie (and if so, I welcome his belated honesty on the subject !!).

Libertarianism, as I say, is surely perceivable as Left wing. Libertarianism is ultimately chaotic. It rails against strong law and order positions. For example, Libertarians would favour drug decriminalisations to take place. I, as a Conservative, instinctively want the exact opposite ... a tightening up of such laws.

Conservatism ... most certainly the British concept of it .. is strong on law and order. Libertarianism, by its nature, is NOT. Therefore, Libertarianism is anti-Conservative in nature.

Who, here, would tell me that Margaret Thatcher was NOT a Conservative ?? Yet ... she believed, when rendered necessary by events, in authoritarian Government. Some could easily argue that Trade Unionists were striking out for 'individual liberty', and using a tool of it, when embarking on their various campaigns. BUT ... Unions are LEFT WING, and usually loyal to a LEFT WING agenda. Margaret Thatcher was unapologetically anti-Union, AND USED AUTHORITARIAN, STATE POWERS, TO CURB THEIR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS.

I've never heard of anyone ever claiming that she was 'defying Conservatism' by doing what she did. Simply: she did what she had to do.

I am clear on this. Libertarianism is far too easily reconcilable with ANTI-Conservative ambition and values to ever be identifiably 'Conservative' in its own right. It's an excuse for chaos. Individualism in itself ... fine. Libertarianism is a form of it, however, which when enacted turns individualism into a destructive force.

[Gunny]

I agree. If someone wants to be self-destructive and he is causing no harm to anyone else, there should be no laws against it.

But, - and I will ask for the last time - who should have to pay for the health consequences of their bad decisions?

They pay or they die. You're being simplistic. Our current government thinks everyone should pay for everyone else. You can't leave that out of the equation.

[Drummond]

Go back and look at what you posted. If it isn't about choice, then what do you call it? Same token, someone chooses to be self destructive -- regardless the means -- what business is it of yours to interfere?

I can tell you the difference in two words: freedom vs fascism. You want to be free? Or tell others how to live?

On drug taking ... you could indeed argue that a drug taker is exercising choice by being self destructive in that way. They may, arguably, be 'at liberty' to do as they choose.

BUT ... two objections surely come from this. One, each such drug taker is helping to perpetuate an 'industry' which exists, not only to make profit, BUT TO DO HARM. And, two .. such drug takers may influence others to do what they themselves do. They spread their harm, and its poison. They act as a societal cancer if left totally to their own devices.

A very strong law and order position on this is the only sensible one to adopt, in my opinion. Snuff out such a cancer by aggressive measures taken to eradicate it .. and NOT to find soft, destructive, LIBERTARIAN, excuses to indulge any of it.

I am a Conservative. That therefore makes me anti-Libertarian. Libertarianism is individualism perverted ... taken to dangerously destructive lengths.

[Drummond]

Actually, from the Libertarian perspective, legalizing drugs frees up our officers to go after the real problem: Drug dealers. See, no, the individual stoner is likely not harming anyone. Bear in mind that there are drugs that, even by Libertarian standards, should be illegal, such as PCP, and rufies. There is no safe way to use PCP, and it can lead directly to violence against others, not by odd anecdote, but as a direct effect of the drug. Rufies are specifically for use against another person to knock them out, so again, still illegal.

The bigger issue is the dealers, because they are harming people other than themselves. With decrminalized drug use, comes the freed up manpower to focus on the pushers instead of the marks. It would also decrease prison populations significantly, which in turn, since drugs make it in to prison all the time, would actually lower the overall crime rate. Fewer ex-cons means that people who used to get busted for smoking pot or doing some ecstasy will no longer have a bullshit item on their record that can deny them employment, drop their wages, and otherwise push them in the direction of further criminal/drug-related activity.

Another thing starts to go away: Mystique. Plenty of drug use is done out of rebellion, or because it's so "edgy". It's sort of like with guns: If everyone would stop freaking out about them, and treat them like tools, we wouldn't have an issue. Because we make them so fascinating, so taboo, we actually insure their continued draw.

Perhaps there's some fundamental flaw in my reasoning I'm unaware of. But, surely .. if drug taking is decriminalised, you legalise the use of those drugs. That means that drug dealers, the ones 'pushing' those drugs, are engaged in a LEGAL activity ??

So on what grounds, in that scenario, could drug dealers be regarded as fair game to 'go after' ?

No: all of this is a total nonsense. Many drugs are known to have harmful effects, so any effort made to decriminalise them is completely counterproductive. That goes for 'hard' drugs .. very obviously. It also goes for 'soft' drugs, since too many of them open gateways to the taking of the 'harder' varieties.

Besides, new discoveries are being made all the time. A previously supposed 'harmless' drug might be belatedly seen to be harmful.

I ask: why take risks ? Why not just tighten up laws on it all, across the board ??

Libertarians would hate that. For my part, I hate Libertarian Leftie destructiveness. Strong and uncompromising laws are the only sensible option.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Seeing as the Libertarians are the true home of conservatism right now... What's your pleasure?



With some exception I'd say I'm a Libertarian.

With some exception I'd say I'm a Libertarian.

^^^^ some exceptions ?

Care to name them?--Tyr

[fj1200]

But, - and I will ask for the last time - who should have to pay for the health consequences of their bad decisions?

In a Libertarian world? No one but themselves.

[fj1200]

^^^^ some exceptions ?

Care to name them?--Tyr

Pay attention.

I would say that illicit drugs is one of those exceptions, along with abortion and national security to some extent.

[fj1200]

To me, Libertarianism is identified with the Left far more readily than with Right-wing thinking.

I note that FJ identifies himself as a Libertarian. To me, from my worldview, that's the equivalent of FJ finally admitting he's a Leftie (and if so, I welcome his belated honesty on the subject !!).

Libertarianism, as I say, is surely perceivable as Left wing.

You should educate yourself.

https://www.lp.org/platform

Go ahead and point out the left-wing positions of the Libertarian Party and how myself, Kathianne, DragonStryk, and Gunny are lefties.

[Drummond]

You should educate yourself.

https://www.lp.org/platform

Go ahead and point out the left-wing positions of the Libertarian Party and how myself, Kathianne, DragonStryk, and Gunny are lefties.

Can you tell me why you migrated this discussion to a thread in the 'Lounge' section of this forum, entitled 'Fear', and added your post about Libertarianism in its post #15 ?

I know that you like to 'thread-jack', FJ, but this is ridiculous .. !! ....

Libertarianism is not Conservative. Conservatives believe in a society where strong law and order predominates, where you do NOT see anarchy and chaos thrive, where decency has a chance, and serves not just the individual, but society in general.

But, as for Libertarianism ? As you posted HERE ...

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...726#post730726

... bafflingly, on another thread entirely, in a different part of the forum ...

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.

This was my reply, in post #21 ...


I invite anyone to consider this in any more depth than total superficiality. The result is highly revealing.

• All individuals are sovereign over their own lives.
• No one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others

.. OK, then ...

All individuals are sovereign over their own lives. Literally translated into the real world .. nobody else, and nothing, has authority over you. Result -- TOTAL CHAOS.

It defies the concept of society. Doesn't it ? Where is law and order, in such a model ? Where is accountability ? Guidance from others ? Indeed, it seems to me that it also defies nationhood. Where would pride in country, or one's nationality, fit into this ?

A criminal would fully identify with this 'value'. Criminals would be delighted not to be accountable to anyone in society. Goodbye, decent values. Hello, doing what YOU want in life, to the exclusion of others. Burglary ? Bank robbing ? Cybercrime ? Such criminals indulging in such things, believing they should be 'sovereign over their own lives', reject accountability to society, to their victims.

Conservatism believes in the opposite. We believe in law and order. We want order from chaos. We want decency.

No one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others. When you say NO ONE, I assume you mean just that ?

OK - try applying that to Pol Pot. Or Stalin, or Hitler. None of these individuals believed in sacrificing their values for the benefit of others, did they ?

Did that make them good Libertarians ?? Seems to me that it SHOULD !! Because it didn't make them 'good Conservatives' !! Yet, apply that yardstick to Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, AND YOU FIND THAT IT FITS.

I say again: Libertarianism is a PERVERSION of individualism, and a highly harmful one. As a Conservative, I oppose it.

If YOU were genuinely Conservative, FJ, then so should you.

But of course, you'd much rather not. Eh, FJ .. ??


Perhaps this discussion should remain where it belongs ? Better that than yet more of your thread-jacking ...

[Kathianne]

So Drummond, you are saying that it's conservative policies for strong government ruling over the individual? So, conservatives really are just arguing for which rulers are better? Nothing about freedoms? Order above freedom. Is that what you're advocating conservativism is about?

That seems to me to be more an argument for a dictator, but one you agree with.

[fj1200]

Can you tell me why you migrated this discussion to a thread in the 'Lounge' section of this forum, entitled 'Fear', and added your post about Libertarianism in its post #15 ?

Because you make ridiculous incongruent statements. On the one hand you state that Libertarians are leftie and then in another thread you state individualism is conservative yet those same Libertarians are advocating for individualism. It makes no sense no matter the intellectual gymnastics you put yourself through to get there.

The rest of your post is equally ridiculous and based upon your imaginative interpretation.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Pay attention.

In the case mentioned we are dealing with now-the leftists now twisting to push their agenda.
Not one hundred years ago...
Yet even then leftists existed-if you think not you'd better read some history amigo! -Tyr

[Drummond]

So Drummond, you are saying that it's conservative policies for strong government ruling over the individual? So, conservatives really are just arguing for which rulers are better? Nothing about freedoms? Order above freedom. Is that what you're advocating conservativism is about?

That seems to me to be more an argument for a dictator, but one you agree with.

Nope - I'm not saying such a thing.

I'm saying that, in a society, individualism, individual rights, should be served to the best ability of that society to do so.

But Libertarianism seems to me to be seeking to make an individual's 'self sovereignty' so utterly sacrosanct that it trumps everything else. And that's a model which defies even the concept of society as a workable model.

If you're at all familiar with British history, circa 1978-79, I'm sure you'd know that we had something of a battle for survival on our hands. On the one hand, we had Trade Unionists, calling for WAVE after WAVE of strikes, believing all the while that their demands trumped all other considerations in society. Indeed, at roughly around that time, I recall we had the long-running Grunwick dispute .. which saw mob rule trump the rule of law, with Trade Unionists believing they could call entire mobs of people to a business and, through mob rule, use intimidation to win out.

It seems to me that those Unionists could cite Libertarianism as a defence for their disgusting, antisocial behaviour. I mean, why not ? Each Trade Unionist would put his, or her, individual 'rights' above others. And mob rule resulted.

Margaret Thatcher came to power. Her answer was to pass laws to curb Union 'freedoms', since she perceived (as was blindingly obvious) that society needed to be protected from such wrecking behaviour. In other words, because she HAD to, she used State powers to bring proper, decent, LAW AND ORDER back to the streets of Britain.

Kathianne, to my knowledge, Lady Thatcher is celebrated as a great CONSERVATIVE leader. But by no stretch of the imagination did she, nor COULD she, ever apply LIBERTARIANISM to the problems she was charged with solving.

Libertarianism, Kathianne, was the tool of the LEFT throughout that period (though precious few used that word in association with it, Libertarianist 'values' underpinned the Union case).

It couldn't be clearer, Kathianne. Libertarianism has its limits, and when pushed beyond a certain point, defies law and order, and defies the welfare of the majority. Law and order must be maintained - inviolably so. If not, then chaos, anarchy, much suffering, is the result.

This isn't theory with me. I know through certain knowledge that I am right. As did Margaret Thatcher.

It's nonsensical for FJ, as a self-proclaimed 'Ultimate Thatcherite', to also claim that he is an adherent of Libertarianism. If one is true, the other cannot be. I suggest that FJ picks his preferred side, then sticks with it.

[Gunny]

On drug taking ... you could indeed argue that a drug taker is exercising choice by being self destructive in that way. They may, arguably, be 'at liberty' to do as they choose.

BUT ... two objections surely come from this. One, each such drug taker is helping to perpetuate an 'industry' which exists, not only to make profit, BUT TO DO HARM. And, two .. such drug takers may influence others to do what they themselves do. They spread their harm, and its poison. They act as a societal cancer if left totally to their own devices.

A very strong law and order position on this is the only sensible one to adopt, in my opinion. Snuff out such a cancer by aggressive measures taken to eradicate it .. and NOT to find soft, destructive, LIBERTARIAN, excuses to indulge any of it.

I am a Conservative. That therefore makes me anti-Libertarian. Libertarianism is individualism perverted ... taken to dangerously destructive lengths.

Not a good definition. Being Republican or Democrat is being a government stooge. Walking around mindless, believing everything you're told, and doing what you're told. No one wants to look at the words they sling around.

The meaning of "liberal" is not fascist, but they have somehow become the same thing.

Being "conservative" does not mean being a fascist on the other side of the aisle.

I don't even know where the term "libertarian" came from. People sling around names and words they don't even know how to look up. It just depends on which side of an argument a free thinker is on which one they get called. I've been a lib, a rightwinger, a Republican, a libertarian and all kinds of other stuff just for disagreeing and thinking for myself.

Maybe we should use more brain cells and less blind labels?