The GOP is the Party of Freedom of Choice: The Party that Believes in Your Right to Direct Your Life
Charles Manson stole this song from the Beatles – now, we’re stealing it back.
By The Directors Posted in Republicans — Comments (284) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Editor's Note: Over the past several months, RedState contributors have debated a platform of ideas that we think the Republican Party should advocate. This is the end result. From this, we intend to seek Members of Congress and State Legislatures to begin pushing legislative initiatives based on the idea of expanding the freedom of individuals to choose their own path in life. — Erick.
The Republican Party has always embraced a wide range of ideological beliefs – and this diversity of thought has sometimes inspired conflict, as it has also led to great achievement. Yet through all debates, despite all regional or political concerns, the foundation of Republicanism has been the same since its inception: the freedom of the individual, and the value of every human life.
These principles have guided the party from its origin as a political force to destroy slavery, to the long fight against communism, to the ongoing battle for the sanctity of the unborn, to the present war against the forces of Islamism. Those principles will guide the Republican Party through the twenty-first century, and beyond. And we believe the GOP must rededicate itself to the idea of individual freedom – of being the party that believes not in government mandated parity, which wields the power of the bureaucracy to force a false equality of outcome, but in a level playing field for all Americans regardless of race, class, or creed – ensuring an equal opportunity to compete, succeed, and thrive.
The Republican Party must reclaim its rightful mantle as the leading champion of Freedom of Choice.
People must be free to decide how to direct their lives for themselves, and then be responsible for their choices.
Read on . . .
On education, Republicans believe you must be free to choose how you want to educate your children. Government should not stand in the way of your choice, whether in the form of home schooling, government schooling, charter schools, vouchers to leave a failing school for a thriving school, or other opportunities.
On healthcare, Republicans should embrace an end to regulatory regimes that prevent citizens from buying healthcare across state lines. Republicans should embrace reforms that allow the free market to play a greater role in health care, not a lesser role. Republicans should embrace total portability of health insurance so workers can be free to choose a new job without fear of losing their insurance.
On taxes, Republicans should embrace the Republican Study Committee plan for an alternate flat tax. If you want to go through the regular 1040 process with itemized deductions, etc., do it. If you want to bypass that route, file a postcard return based on a flat tax — the taxpayer’s choice.
On energy, Republicans, including our Presidential nominee, should embrace every option. You want nuclear power? Republicans should favor that choice. You want to use the resources we have instead of buying it from our enemies? Republicans support legislation to allow us to drill here and now. You want methanol and other biofuels? Republicans should break down trade barriers that prevent the importation of ethanol and Republicans should break down subsidies that raise the price of food stuffs in the name of producing corn based ethanol and other biofuels. Republicans should be in favor of letting consumers choose which type of lightbulb they prefer for their own home.
On Social Security, Republicans should favor greater investment options for individuals’ retirements. If an individual wants to keep the current social security regime, we should let them. If an individual wants greater control investing their social security, we should let them have it. And above all else, because the government has already made certain choices regarding social security and medicare withholdings, Republicans should not use FICA/FUTA revenues for anything but social security and medicare/Medicaid payments respectively, in the current year.
When individuals are allowed to choose for themselves, they take an ownership interest in their choices. One of the greatest failures of the present administration has been not aggressively communicating and supporting the President’s idea of an ownership society, which contains at its core the revolutionary undercurrent that motivated America’s founding: that each individual holds within themselves the capacity and right to self-government.
This is an enormous contrast with the Democrats. In almost every area of their agenda, they are opposed to self-government. They advocate less freedom for the individual to direct their lives – they remove the Freedom of Choice from the American citizen, and give it instead to bureacracies and agencies and the many eddies and tidepools of the federal government, all managed with the efficiency and responsibility of your local Department of Motor Vehicles.
RedState friend Jon Henke reminded us a few days ago about the left’s agenda — or at least, the agenda the left is willing to blog about. You can take a gander here. On the whole, their cause includes:
- crippling a worker’s right to decide whether or not to join a union
- crippling a business’s right to decide what salary an employee should be paid
- crippling an individual’s right to decide on healthcare options outside the government
- crippling the ability of the military to defend the country abroad
- crippling free speech in radio
- crippling rights to own a gun and defend yourself
- crippling the freedom to practice your religion without government interference
- crippling the ability of the United States to grow economically outside of government mandates.
In fact, just days ago, Democrat Rep. Maurice Hinchley announced his favored solution to America’s energy problems: nationalizing the refinery sector. Forget the free market – forget the capitalist economy that made the country the envy of the world – in this area as in all others, the Democrats oppose the Freedom of Choice in directing your life.
Well, all areas but one. The only significant choice the Democrats will defend for an individual is to have the power to determine whether or not to destroy the life of their unborn child.
This is their only claim to the language of choice. It is a false claim. We do not believe this is a valid choice to be made, nor ever has in the course of human history, because it enables the purposeful destruction of innocent life. Where once the pro-abortion left could make their argument based on ignorance of the process of human development, we now know the only choice the Democrats advocate is one that in almost every case kills a feeling, thinking American at its youngest and most vulnerable stage of life, whose only crime is one of inconvenience.
We believe in Individual Freedom of Choice – preserving the individual’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – where the Left’s agenda is to cripple the individual’s freedom to choose, and replace it with dependence on government.
This is not new, but it is what we will have should the Democrats get to sixty seats in the Senate. The Republican Party should not be shy about fighting to give people choices, regardless of whether the Democrats claim to be the “pro-choice” party when they are, in fact, only supporting choices made for death, and state control of everything else of importance.
It is time for the GOP to push forward expanding choices for individuals and families to give them a greater stake in their lives and provide them ownership of their life as a whole. It is time to pose this question to the American people: who should have the power to choose the path for your life, for your family? To choose where you receive health care, where your children learn, and where your tax dollars go? Should it be the self-appointed elite, intent on building a perfect society, because they know what is best for the communal citizenry? Or should it be you, with your own goals in mind, for the simple reason that you are an American?
This nation is at a tipping point. We will either go toward more government control of our lives, which is what the Left wants, or less government control of our lives. When people have the power to direct their own lives, government will shrink – and it will be hard, once an individual has control of his own life, to cede this control back to Washington. We believe that Republicans in government should fight to expand our choices, so we can take greater control of our lives. We believe in Freedom of Choice.
« Burn the Witch — Comments (18) | Glenn McCall Wins — Comments (1) »
The GOP is the Party of Freedom of Choice: The Party that Believes in Your Right to Direct Your Life 284 Comments (0 topical, 284 editorial, 6 hidden) Post a comment »
Although there are some differences, this commentary essentially defined libertarianism. In order to adopt these guiding principles you defined, the GOP would have to " clean house " of most of if not all of the currently elected GOP politicians. Starting at the White House and Congress. I won't hold my breath waiting.
Am I correct in translating this as "we need to redouble our efforts in the War On Drugs for The Children"?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
But, sure, I'll open the question to everybody.
Is the War On Drugs something that ought to be left to the states?
Is the War On Drugs something that involves Interstate Commerce and General Welfare to the point where, darn it, Congress has every right to not leave it to The States?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
drug trafficking is an interstate/international issue and therefore Congress take supremacy on the issue over the states.
The question becomes, is it rational and moral to continue it. That is a debate worth having. I think there are some here who would say yes and some who would say no.
I think it should continue.
Your original choice of language suggests that you didn't want to have a policy discussion on this; you were instead giving the impression that you wanted us to have a policy capitulation on this.
Which is your privilege, of course. And there's nothing wrong with that. But neither are we going to just let you define your terms.
Moe
PS: About the actual topic for discussion I'm probably closer to your side than the mainstream GOP's. Which is my way of cheerily waving, saying "Good luck!" and walking away.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Wow. And the Election is only 19 weeks away. Through all of this VP business, there is one weekly online poll that stands out. http://www.votenic.com hosts a 2008 VP weekly poll, and just started a political talk forum. Check it out, start your own political polls, and help get the forum up and running.
-votenic dot com
If you want to promote your own web site on RS...buy ad space
I'm not a Moderator or and administrator but I'm sick of seeing people jumping into a thread and saying nothing other than...hey look at my site!
Your post has nothing to do with the subject of the article we're discussing or the comments of the thread you posted to it was just selfless promotion.
"A political party cannot be all things to all men."--Ronald Wilson Reagan
I have this website where I'm selling Beanie Babies, which I think is very relevant to this discussion.
I think everyone should go to my website and buy the Beanie Babies to show your support of my wallet.
Ok, I do not have a website selling Beanie Babies.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
"A political party cannot be all things to all men."--Ronald Wilson Reagan
After a (quite stirring) essay discussing the importance of the freedom of choice, Erick pointed out how the "rational must be balanced with moral."
Which, it seems to me, neatly undercuts a great deal of the (quite stirring) essay.
See, watch what I do here:
When it comes to the issue of the health care system we have now vs. Single-Payer Health Care, the rational must be balanced with the moral and we have to look at how the greatest number of people will experience the greatest good.
When it comes to the issue of "school choice", we also have to look at what that would do to the funding of inner city schools (surely the most needy and voiceless of all of us!) and, as such, the rational must be balanced with the moral.
When it comes to the issue of the ability of a private citizen to own a stockpile of handguns, the rational must be balanced with the moral.
When it comes to the issue of (talking point wrt Iraq) and (talking point wrt Afghanistan) and (body count), surely you agree that the rational must be balanced with the moral.
Can you see how Progressives could write the above sentences without irony?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
let's take the rational first and then decide is this in accord with our sense of morality.
On the issue of single payer health care: it is not rational. We know it is not rational because we can look to every other country that has tried it. So we don't get to the "is it moral" question.
Note: we are not going for is it moral first and then is it rational, but the other way.
Same with the others.
A nation cannot exist without some sentiment of national morality. When we lose that sense, we lose the nation. Just look at Europe. But it is that second part, the morality, that differentiates conservatives from libertarians.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
Lotta stuff in that phrase, there.
Does "our" sense of morality allow for States to pass medicinal marijuana laws or does "our" sense of morality know that that is just the nose of the camel before people are selling PCP in schools?
Does "our" sense of morality say that taxes should be raised in order to provide more services for the poorest among us or does "our" sense of morality say that taxes should be lowered in order to stop the burning of cultural capital that Johnson's War On Poverty started?
Does "our" sense of morality say that "the war on drugs is a lot like prohibition and is failing for many of the same reasons" or does "our" sense of morality tell us that we merely don't have enough policemen with enough armored vehicles and enough warrants to make the streets safe for The Children?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
I can't speak for them, but I would suggest that their point appears to be that we take a list of what works, then run it past a filter of what our society feels is not just workable, but also morally sound.
Example.
Out on the west coast (WA state or OR, I forget now) there was a person with cancer. The state wouldn't pay for their cancer treatments, but would pay for physician assisted suicide.
That is using rationality of 'what works to lower healthcare costs in a state-paid system' but not checking it with what is morally sound.
Those of us who oppose legalization of drugs (or, at least... me) agree with the idea that it would require MUCH less money to be spent by the government on this 'war on drugs' and could even (if all drugs were legalized) reduce the power and success of the cartels.
however, for those of us who oppose legalization of drugs (or, at least... me), such an act fails the moral test.
while 'What Works' is a test for rationality and truth, it is not the only test a plan must be subjected to before it is employed, or else we end up doing much worse things than suggesting suicide for cancer patients. (another example would be how the Nazis dealt with the handicapped..... sure, it cut down healthcare costs, but no one could argue that mass slaughter was ethical or moral.)
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
If you say that you want a government strong enough to make sure that issues of morality are suitably legislated against... what out what might happen if a Barack Obama finds himself in the White House.
You may be shocked at what ends up where when the rational and the moral are sorted out.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
At no point in this drug debate have I discussed morality.
I think you're confusing me with someone else.
And, as for a President Obama...
Eh, he can try. Frankly, my fear is that there is no viable conservative, who is ACTUALLY Conservative, and that this may be a pattern.
In which case, we're up a certain creek without a paddle... it just depends on if we choose the fast canoe or the slow one.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Disregard my last post, thought you were someone else for some reason. I apologize... I need sleep.
My point in morality after reason is seperate from the drug debate.
morality is defined by the masses (or, as a religious gun nut that I am, God), and even if it is a President, one man can only go AGAINST morality, they cannot own it.
Even a President Obama.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
And I am speaking of life long Republicans, believe the rational is the moral. It is not inherently rational to increase personal freedom, it is moral to do so. Certainly it would have not been rational for a Japanese Emporer to give all his power to the people right?
The reality is the GENERAL libertarian philosophy of "live and let live" is the most rational and the most moral. The reason for this is that it is immoral to harm another human being and it is immoral to take away freedom from citizens.
It seems this debate always hinges on abortion. Those who think it is black and white just don't get the issue. There IS a reason it has always been a hot button issue, there is a reason why even Republicans and some Democrats are split on this. The question is whether the government has a right to intervene and stop a mother who would be a would be killer.
At this point does the government take responsibility for the child? What if adobtion demand did not meet supply? And at what point does the word Moral get its original definition and be based on choice and the decisions of God?
Overall I support the Director's platform. I think it is too legalistic and could be stronger, but it would certainly be a step in the right direction.
I do tend to wonder how a government could handle an issue as sticky and elastic as morality, when we all agree they can handle few issues well.
___________________________________________________________
Molon Labe!
I'm not an expert on illegal drugs, but I did stay at a holiday inn express once....
heh.
I believe it is both a state and federal issue.
Drugs coming in from Mexico via armored vehicle (with armed men) crossing illegally into our country.... that is a federal issue.
I understand that in the last year or two, 6,000 people have died along the border in this war that is being kept quiet.
That is an issue in which we need a strong military showing. Now, that military can be National Guard, or federal troops.
Drugs being sold on the streets, in my opinion, ought to be a state issue, with possible support from the feds, especially when establishing the drug trail from street to suppliers.
Frankly, the best way to keep kids off drugs is to educate them and be a good role model.
Though, at times, I do have this built in desire to take back our streets.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
We sell liquor to people who pass it on to kids who drive their new car into the lake or some unsuspecting driver on prom night.
You don't stop the sell and production of a harmful substance, you regulate the actions of those using it. Many people drink without ever causing anyone any problem. Plus making it legal stops the black market trade of mobsters.
If you make drugs legal and regulate the activity of those using it you eliminate the drug dealer with guns on the street. You eliminate the need to smuggle it in across the border with armed guards.
This is really so simple as to not be able to escape people's grasp.
If, indeed, we are about liberty and people suffering the consequences for their free choices, then legalize drugs and enforce legal consequences for those that make bad choices under the influence. It has worked for beer and liquor.
What doesn't make sense is the constant drip of taxpayer money to catch, rehabilitate, house, and feed these nonviolent drug offenders. We spend billions in foreign lands under the guise of fighting our drug war. We spend billions in the prison and legal system. We expand the government under the guise of protecting people from themselves. That is liberalism.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
Of course, that's to say nothing of your breathtaking ignorance of the secondary crime caused by drug use, even the part that isn't caused by the acquisition of those drugs.
Other than that, I also need to point out that "libertarianism" isn't "conservatism" and "conservatism" isn't "liberalism." Try to educate yourself on the distinctions before pontificating further, especially in a manner that casts aspersions on the conservatism of other posters on this site.
------------
You made a pretty sophomoric argument yourself. Or perhaps you think that people like Milton Friedman and William Buckley were also ignorant.
I don't have a problem with any one's stance on the war on Drugs either pro or con. What I do have a problem with, and what I have seen often is:
(1) casual dismissal of any decriminalization arguments
(2) comparing vices with theft, rape, and murder
(3) saying that those who favor changing the drug laws just "want to get high". Or are closet liberals. Or worse, crazy libertarians.
(4) A very big lack in research and reading of the literature on the subject pro or con, and yet a very strong opinion notwithstanding. (I can recommend several books to start with)
Come on you are better than that.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
1.) suggesting that cocaine and Meth be legal is pretty much something that I have no problem dismissing casually.
2.) The sugestion is that if we made drugs legal, crime would go down. People who steal to do drugs will steal to do drugs, no matter how inexpensive it is. So ten it becomes about having 'one less crime on the books' . . . well, if we made things legal so as to cut down on crime caused by the ilegal nature of the action, then that is also used in support to make rape legal, as it would cut down on the rapists that murder their victims so they don't talk. Yes, it is an exaggeration, but the same 'logic' is used. . .. and it shows the irrational nature of such a suggestion.
3.) I can count on one finger the 'Let's legalize drugs' people I've met who were balanced and seemed to be on the ball. I can't count with a calculator the number I've met who looked like they were either high at that moment, or had been recently, or had admitted to having done drugs. If you don't like the pattern, perhaps you should rethink the policy, as those you are surrounded with are often of that ilk.
4.) Eh, having something written in a book does not make it more valid. That is the same thinking that people use when they believe a print newspaper over the rational argument from someone, or over their own memories of events. Being written does not make something 'truthier'
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
"A political party cannot be all things to all men."--Ronald Wilson Reagan
Heh,I don't know, but it sounds like it could be.
It just seemed to be a shorter way of saying "filled with truthy goodness"
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
(1) Ok, YOU casually dismiss those arguments and many other very intelligent and learned people do not. In fact, most people who have studied the issue feel that some change is needed in our approach to drugs.
(2) Do you have any evidence for your argument? No, because you haven't even perused the literature on the issue.
(3) DO you even realize how much that is like a liberal argument. "oh I don't know anyone who is an ickypoo conservative so they must all be creeps". The truth is that almost no one I have ever met who agrees that there is something wrong with the war on drugs are themselves drug addicts or "crazy" people.
(4) Once again, a liberal style of thinking. You don't care about research, studies, or reasoned arguments, No indeed those things might get in the way of how you FEEL about the issue.
Really guy, don't give a snot if you are for or against it, what I care about is, on this one issue, it is more often conservatives who make arguments based on emotion and ignorance.
My offer still stands, if you would like to read some good books on the subject I can recommend them.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
(1) Ok, YOU casually dismiss those arguments and many other very intelligent and learned people do not. In fact, most people who have studied the issue feel that some change is needed in our approach to drugs.
I'm sure many do, however that doesn't mean that 'most people' who ahve studied the issue agree with you. However, I might put forth that you may be falling into the trap that unless someone agrees with you, they just haven't 'studied the issue enough' . . . .
(2) Do you have any evidence for your argument? No, because you haven't even perused the literature on the issue.
The Nazis had literature, does that make their cause more valid? I think not. Having a brochure or a book does not make your argument more accurate or more correct. It is rather silly to suggest so.
(3) DO you even realize how much that is like a liberal argument. "oh I don't know anyone who is an ickypoo conservative so they must all be creeps". The truth is that almost no one I have ever met who agrees that there is something wrong with the war on drugs are themselves drug addicts or "crazy" people.
Again with the vague language. I believe there is something wrong with the war on drugs, but I don't advocate just giving in and making it all legal. There is a difference between thinking that things are not being run well and saying that drugs should be legal.
That's like saying that people who don't like how the war is being handled want to pull out. That is a vague generalization being twisted to give support to a kind of irrational view.
(4) Once again, a liberal style of thinking. You don't care about research, studies, or reasoned arguments, No indeed those things might get in the way of how you FEEL about the issue.
A third time you assume that I just don't 'know' enough, or else I'd be on your side. I don't care about your research, studies or 'reasoned' arguments (though I havent' seen any from you, just calls for me to 'read more'). . . Just because you can hand me a piece of paper or a link to someone's writings doesn't make them right.
Looking for information that agrees with you doesn't pass muster as a form of Reasoned and Critical Thinking.
If you notice, I don't suggest that you just "don't know enough" about drugs, or that you profit from drugs. I did say that the 'legalize drugs' people I've met were all drug users, so I pretty much ignore their calls for legalized drugs.
Online people can say "No, I've never done drugs, and I support legalized drugs!" but given the amount of lies on the internet, I don't believe such calls. Personal Experience has told me otherwise.
The truth is, the Federal and State governments have a right to make drugs illegal. Prohibition was a Constitutional Amendment, which required all of the Congressional approvals and such.... not because they were making something illegal, but because they were Amending the Constitution.
You do not have a right to snort coke.
If you feel so strongly that you have a right to snort coke or do meth, there are parts of the world in which such action is legal. Nothing is stopping you.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
the literature on the subject because your arguments show me that you do not.
I have read lots about the subject both pro and con.
You again do exactly the thing I accused you of at the beginning, insinuating that if a person is against he war on drugs it is because they are a drug user.
You also make the assumption that anyone who is critical of the war on drugs wants total decriminalization of all drugs immediately. Of course there are middle positions but you cannot discuss them when one side wants only to rant in an incoherent fashion.
And this argument:The truth is, the Federal and State governments have a right to make drugs illegal. Prohibition was a Constitutional Amendment, which required all of the Congressional approvals and such.... not because they were making something illegal, but because they were Amending the Constitution.
Wait, what? an amendment was needed to make alcohol illegal so we don't need an amendment? What does that have to do with anything?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I make the assumption that you do not know any of the literature on the subject because your arguments show me that you do not.
No, my arguments just do not agree with you. You take that for ignorance as you believe that if someone doesn't agree with you, they're just not educated enough. It is one of the most common traps people fall into when discussing issues upon which they disagree.
You again do exactly the thing I accused you of at the beginning, insinuating that if a person is against he war on drugs it is because they are a drug user.
No, I related my personal experience with people who support legalized drugs. I am against a formalized "War on Drugs" unless it means that, as a war, we get to use violence in stopping drugs on the streets. There is no more of a "War on drugs" than there is a "War on Theft" . . . it is just arresting those who commit crimes.
You also make the assumption that anyone who is critical of the war on drugs wants total decriminalization of all drugs immediately.
No, you made that reference when you said that there were many who had a problem with the war on drugs who are not drug users. I said that there is a difference between people who feel that the war on drugs is not being handled correctly and those who want drugs legalized.
Of course there are middle positions but you cannot discuss them when one side wants only to rant in an incoherent fashion.
Yes, that is the problem I often face when discussing this with people who rant about the evils of alcohol and rave about the joys of pot all in an argument to legalize crack and meth.
Wait, what? an amendment was needed to make alcohol illegal so we don't need an amendment? What does that have to do with anything?
An amendment is not needed. They wanted to make it prohibition a part of the Constitution.... Amending the Constitution takes gobs of approvals. Listing Coke as a banned substance does not. You have... read the Constitution, right?
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
it is a more serious constitutional issue than you say. Where in the Constitution is the federal government anywhere given the power to ban coke (or any other particular item) without an amendment? You can possibly make an argument for interstate commerce if drugs cross state lines, but what if they don't?
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
Stop meth from coming in from Mexico with stronger border protection.
And then let all the junkies start their own meth kitchens to feed their habits. They'll blow themselves up in a couple of years and the problem will have solved itself.
to leave a lengthy comment in response to the same Libertarian tripe I have encountered 10,000 times before for either a lack of information or a failure to consider these arguments before. Also, please note that I referred to the "secondary crimes" associated with drug use - I am not equating drug use with other crimes, I am saying that drug use causes these other crimes, and it's empirically and demonstrably false to state (as S_L does) that all the crime caused by drugs is caused by drug users having to go through illegal channels to obtain drugs.
Also, there's a marked difference between Buckley and Friedman and the arguments made by modern Libertarians. Don't have time to get into the historical argument with you now. I, too, have books to recommend for you.
------------
I never said that all crime related to drug use was due to getting around laws to acquire drugs. Never. I said you could eliminate the violence on the streets by gangs and cartels if you made drugs legal and that is true.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
You could also get rid of the violence by gangs and cartels by making our streets a place they don't want to be.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
I read both sides of the argument.
My arguments are not dissimilar to Buckley they are about the same.
The War on Drugs is an abysmal failure.
Different things should be tried.
Marijuana should not be treated the same as other narcotics
decentralization is better than federalization of this matter.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Theft is the taking of other people's property. We make selling and using drugs illegal even when they harm no one in the process. To make it simple, theft by definition strips other citizens of rights, selling and/or taking drugs in and of itself does none of thise. In fact many people can take and sell drugs without ever harming anyone, much like beer and liquor drinkers and sellers.
Being a drunk can have secondary problems like theft or drunk driving, but that is due to individuals who are irresponsible NOT the substance.
When I said it eliminates crime, I meant, as I am sure you know, that it takes away the drug dealers and the drug violence. Legalizing drugs can't take away bad individual choices just as beer brings out some bad individual choices. We can and should regulate those. However, making drugs illegal creates more crime on the blackmarket than allowing the free market to work its magic.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
when someones heart stops because they drank a beer, or had a gimlet, then you can talk about drugs and alcohol together.
And this BS about legalizing drugs would get rid of the drug crime....crap. The pheneom about drugs is the way it makes you feel...and more than often, those using seek out a better feeling, more enhanced. " Controlling" the making or dist of drugs will not end drug crime...there will always be those out there making or developing a better high, a better drug, that is not "controlled".... hello to the crime yoou THOUGHT you got rid of..
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
Meet some parents who lost children from drunk driving. Go to some hospitals and see some career drunk with no liver left. The effects are the same as any drug if not used wisely.
-------------------------------------------------------------
I am a Positivist Pastafarian for the alliteration alone.
I've done that...
I'e also held a friend who lost his freaking daughter (16 yoa)to a first time smoking H...
Give that a try and tell me drugs should be legalized
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
when someones heart stops because they drank a beer, or had a gimlet, then you can talk about drugs and alcohol together.
I challenge you to find any study anywhere that states that consumption of alcohol is less dangerous than, say, consumption of marijuana.
Every year you hear of some college student with a BAC level way too high dying from alcohol poisoning. There hasn't been a single instance of someone dying from an overdose of marijuana in all of the recorded history of humanity.
You should read this old CATO article from 1989 about what effect legalization would have. I'll take their 175 references over your opinion on the matter, thank you very much.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
your hat on pot...
Are you saying that's all you want to legalize?...if so, tell me how you will do that...and not other drugs.
It's all crap...I'll tell you and every other legalize drugs type the same thing...I'll stand outside your home on 2 differnet occcasions, both time with your kids around..
One day I'll drink one beer and head to the car to fire it up.
The next I'll take one hit off the crack pipe, and head to the car...
Still want to make drugs legal?
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
Read the url I've been quoting repeatedly in this thread, in particular the appendix. Tobacco and alcohol have higher death rates than cocaine and heroin, when the effects of illegality on death rates of the latter are removed:
One of the many myths underlying the policy of prohibition is the belief that the prohibited drugs are much more dangerous than non-prohibited drugs. In reality, however, the main legal drugs--tobacco and alcohol--are more deadly than either heroin or cocaine would be if legally available, and infinitely more deadly than marijuana, which apparently has caused no deaths at all.
I've got scientific studies on my side that I can quote. You have handwaving and emotional appeals. I'll stick with my facts, thank you very much.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Cause if you did, your side of this would have already been effective. And let me tell you Fin, I've been hearing this crap for 30+ years, and you still haven't gotten anywhere.
Oh, wait, medical pot...huge victory. Let's see, any problems with that yet?..Anyone takeing advantage of that yet?...
Stick to the drawing board...nothing speaks louder than success, and you're side is no where near it. Hey, I'm open minded...show me that the majority of Americans think this is a valid dream to chase and I'll take it seriously.
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
The content not the derission
"A political party cannot be all things to all men."--Ronald Wilson Reagan
that crime would not be reduced if we had some sort of decriminalization. Where is your evidence?
By the way, alcohol has killed many many times more people than all other drugs combined.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I made about wanting to seek an enhanced high?...reality is my evidence.
Tell you what, assure me that after the new drug store pops out their legal crack, it's existance won't tempt others to create a more powerful, or better, illegal crack.
Or is the government going to "keep up with the Jones", and make me better crack , or better hash...cause I just got back from Holland, and man, this Gov hash sucks compared to that Holland stuff.
Get reall Kyle, isn't going to happen
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
If we were to have any sort of decriminalization, (I grant you that it's a long way off, people seem to like shooting themselves in the foot) it would not matter what sort of designer drug anyone cooked up because they would all be treated the same. People who were addicts would be able to get their drugs for little or no money and have access to rehabilitation with no worries that they would go to prison.
Would there be problems with this? Sure, but compared to the problems that the war on drugs brings to everyone it would be nothing.
If it resulted in slightly more addicts this would be only a short term phenomenon and would represent people turning toward the now easier to obtain drugs who were hooked on alcohol or prescription drugs anyway.
At any rate, the laws are not now doing much of anything to stop drug use and the more we try enforcement, the more we give power to the government, the more we give money to organized crime, and the more money corrupts our government officials and law enforcement.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Look at the crime in Amsterdam.
Look at the corruption and crime in most of the countries in Central America that supply the drugs.
You don't really care about the crime, you just want to be able to smoke pot or snort coke without having uncle sam looking over your shoulder.
If you really cared about the crime, your response would be to fight crime, not make criminal acts legal.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
" Got to love the Lord for making things like that."
Morally Compromised
Why is marijuana illegal in the first place? I was not illegal for the first one hundred and fifty years of our nation's existence and it didn't seem to be a problem. Again you are equating drug use which is a vice with real crimes.
By the way, the drug war makes fighting other crimes much more difficult. It brings huge amounts of money and corruption, and organized crime into the system.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Nothing you said dealt with my point.
You did, however, move to the predictable position.
Drugs should be legal because pot is not bad for you.
I'd take the "Let's legalize drugs" idea a LITTLE more seriously if you expanded your points beyond defending pot.
That really only makes me wonder if your drug of choice is pot, which is why it is such a hot issue for you that it is illegal.
No discussion of crack or meth... just that we should legalize drugs because pot is safer than alcohol.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
That's not just a rejoinder, it's also the name of Penn & Teller's show on Showtime (whose name I can't completely spell out here thanks to obscenity rules) where they take on all kinds of myths; they did a show a couple of years ago about the War on Drugs. Needless to say, they're strongly against it.
You don't really care about the crime, you just want to be able to smoke pot or snort coke without having uncle sam looking over your shoulder.
Doesn't work against them. They don't even drink alcohol, much less any drugs. Sorry, but your strawman is down on the ground, out for the count.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
And one again you don't respond to any of my points....
You can't hold an exception up as the rule. Really doesn't work that way.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
I think the better take on this is provided down thread by a certain Fog (no not pot)horn (no, not a bong)Leghorn. Strictly enforce burglary and robbery if one legalizes drugs.
I have recently, for the first time in my life (14 years of which was as a criminal defense atty, some 6 years ago) tipped in favor of legalization thanks to my own observations of the failures of the war on drugs seeming to me to be worse than legalization.
I fully admit that at least in the short run there would be an increase in addicts and crime.
Buckley's death caused me to read his arguments and our own Bat Masterson here at redstate has been persuasive.
But it is a close call.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." - The Chief Justice
Are you saying there is NO negative health effects from alcohol?
Mickey Mantle would be surprised to hear that the liver he destroyed from alcohol was all in his imagination.
I've come to the conclusion that conservatives act just like liberals when it comes to drugs.
- They want to use government to prohibit people from doing it.
- They argue from emotions, not reason.
- They think that if the government waves its hand and decrees "no one will use drugs" *poof* suddenly the world is magically free of drugs.
- They can't seem to understand that alcohol and marijuana equally harmful, but get pissed that because of the Nanny State, they risk jail for having a beer with their son at their graduation party (oh, the irony).
- They have no problem with the government spending hundreds of millions in war against a substance no more harmful than alcohol.
I could go on all night, but it never ceases to amaze me how some conservatives act exactly like liberals on some issues.
Have you added to the population of the McCain 2008 minicity yet today?
I drive a car powered by hydrogen - C8H18 to be exact.
When I said it eliminates crime, I meant, as I am sure you know, that it takes away the drug dealers and the drug violence. Legalizing drugs can't take away bad individual choices just as beer brings out some bad individual choices. We can and should regulate those. However, making drugs illegal creates more crime on the blackmarket than allowing the free market to work its magic.
Where do you draw the line? Should I be allowed to own a nuclear weapon? Should I be allowed to own VX gas?
Those only hurt others if I use them with poor judgement.
No, the Government has the ability to make illegal things like drugs. It really does. Yes, there was a time that cocaine was legal and often used. However, it was discovered how deadly it is, and it was made illegal.
It isn't a case of a nanny-state... Every society that has let drugs run rampant without fighting them has fallen into a slimehole. There is no exception.
You want to reduce drug-related crime? Make severe punishments for the drug dealers and suppliers.
Then, apply them.
When the drug cartels try to push their drugs across the border, let their vehicles be met by attack choppers. When they don't stop, toast them.
Yes, there will always be people who do illegal drugs, and there will always be people pushing them.
However, that they will always exist is not due reason to just open the gates and let it all be legal.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Are you on drugs right now?
Comparing pot to a nuclear weapon? Just. Like. A. Liberal.
You have to go to the extreme to come anywhere close to an argument supporting you position.
Do you really mean to tell me that if someone is smoking pot in the house next you, you are under any harm, of any sort? That you are under just as much of a physical threat as would if you neighbor was making nuclear weapons?
If you misuse VX nerve gas, or a nuclear weapon, they only limit to the number of people you will harm is the the number of people in range.
If you misuse pot, or cocaine, you die (at the very extreme).
Reading you stuff, you seemed like a smart guy, but now I'm not so sure.
Have you added to the population of the McCain 2008 minicity yet today?
I drive a car powered by hydrogen - C8H18 to be exact.
Once again, to justifiy legalizing drugs, you talk about pot.
Is that your drug of choice? Are you really that upset that when you do pot, you get busted?
Do you really mean to tell me that if someone is smoking pot in the house next you, you are under any harm, of any sort? That you are under just as much of a physical threat as would if you neighbor was making nuclear weapons?
The point, bonehead, is that the argument is "who cares if it is deadly, you have a right to it without government regulation!"
The government clearly has an ability to regulate many things. Now, while I feel the FEDERAL government is taking too much power in the current form, that does not mean that we ought to have anarchy.
The comparison to VX and nukes was to show that there are, indeed, reasonable restrictions to any right.
Even the right you apparently believe exists to shoot heroin and snort cocaine. . .
If you misuse pot, or cocaine, you die (at the very extreme).
Again with the pot. Can you say one trick pony? Good, I knew you could.
Reading you stuff, you seemed like a smart guy, but now I'm not so sure.
Yeah.... I'm not the one whining because shooting heroin is illegal.
You want to see the damage drugs does, spend time at a drug rehab clinic. Watch people detox. Go to prison and jail, look at the people who's lives went down the crapper due to illegal drugs. Then tell me that it doesn't harm people.
And don't even START with the "But.. but... but... Alcohol is worse!"
No, Alcohol is not worse than heroin or cocaine. Anyone who says so either has an agenda or has never seen someone detox from heroin.
You want to be upset with me because I won't conform to your will.... tough.
Go ahead and call me a liberal if you want. I'll just note that California was one of the first states to legalize pot.... Yeah.. California is REALLY known for its Right Wing Slant.
Your "You're just a liberal!" Jedi Mind Tricks won't work on me.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Once again the liberal arguments.
Ad hominen attacks? What if I did smoke pot? Would I be harming you any? No, I wouldn't be.
I have seen the results of substance abuse and addiction. Alcoholism has destroyed the fathers side of my family. If you were ideologically constistant in the least, you would be calling for the return of prohibition.
But don't worry though, I don't upset the balance of the universe by smoking a plant that does no less damage then smoking another plant. I don't even drink. Hey, while you are at though, why don't you tell me that the only reason I support tax cuts is because I'm a greedy, selfish a-hole who just wants to hoard my wealth and hates kids.
"The point, bonehead, is that the argument is "who cares if it is deadly, you have a right to it without government regulation!""
Would I be wrong to assume that are you are opposed to smoking bans on private property (like in bars)? I don't smoke cigarettes either (which are far more addictive, and far more likely to cause an early death, but yet are legal to buy any 7-11), but I am against the smoking ban that was passed here in MN last fall.
"The comparison to VX and nukes was to show that there are, indeed, reasonable restrictions to any right."
Holy s***. Now you really have gone off the deep end. Because nuclear weapons are dangerous, you think the government has the right to restrict ANYTHING? "Of course the government tell what kind of lightbulb to buy, or what kind of car drive, or take away all your guns, because nukes can kill a lot of people."
I'm done arguing with you. It's clear that you think the role of government is stop people from doing things that you don't like, which makes you no better any liberal. Wait - it makes you a hypocrite, which is even worse.
Have you added to the population of the McCain 2008 minicity yet today?
I drive a car powered by hydrogen - C8H18 to be exact.
How typical.
More rants on how evil alcohol is and how good Pot is.
That REALLY is the only case you have..... That's it.
I'd like to tell you what you could go do with yourself, but I don't think such language would be approved on these boards.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
Because I saw the one that talked about giving the government the power to prohibit smoking for your own good and prohibit drinking for your own good.
What habits of yours will be considered harmful to the point where they need to be regulated for your own good, Lance? If not tomorrow, the day after?
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
well, let's see.. they regulate when I can buy alcohol (both by age and also by date.... Oklahoma is dry on sundays), they also regulate firearms.
My desire to have those regulations relaxed does not equate to "Hey, let's make heroin legal, because pot is less dangerous than booze."
or
"Hey, cocaine doesn't really kill THAT many people, let's open it up so that you can get a few ounces while you're shopping for a Father's Day card."
The "Let's Legalize it!" side only talks about pot. That's it. they wholly ignore drugs like cocaine, heroin, lsd, etc.
I found a call to reexamine our current drugs laws to be rational, but I don't support anarchy when it comes to drugs.
If you want to, that's fine. Put up a bill to do so.
Don't condemn me for liking that heroin is illegal. Don't condemn me for liking that lsd is illegal. You want to change it, put up a bill to do so.
----------------------
Dependence is Slavery.
I have never taken an illegal drug. Ever. I have never smoked pot, a cigarette or any other tobacco or chemical. Ever. I do not drink, not even at Communion.
If someone wants to put a drug in their body - that is their choice. If someone wants to smoke that is their choice.
I have NO right to prevent you from doing so because it is bad for you, that it can harm you, that it might kill you. That we have given the government the authority to deprive citizens of their liberty, their right to take drugs shows our willingness to give government the power to force morality (defined as what society determines what is good or bad) on others.
BUT,
There is, in fact, no recognized principle by which the propriety or impropriety of government interference is customarily tested. People decide according to their personal preferences. Some, whenever they see any good to be done, or evil to be remedied, would willingly instigate the government to undertake the business; while others prefer to bear almost any amount of social evil, rather than add one to the departments of human interests amenable to governmental control.
The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
It doesn't matter that pot is less harmful than alcohol is less harmful than heroin. It doesn't matter that heroin kills more frequently than alcohol, but certainly far fewer. People have the right - currently regulated with regard to alcohol, denied with regard to pot or heroin - to put into their bodies whatever they chose.
Self interest would cause most rational people to refrain from doing so, but as a group, humans often fail to protect their self interest. Be it drugs, or government authority.
Protecting people from themselves is not government's mandate. When we go there, there is no stopping that train.
..inalienable rights, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of [their definition of] happiness.
Not yours. Regulate the behavior and punish those that go out of bounds. Tens of thousands kill themselves and others with alcohol. If you believe in preventing drug use, start with the one that kills more than any other - oh, wait...we tried that - it failed because it was WRONG to do so.
Last I checked, none of the 50 states have even begun to make theft illegal.
Many states, however, have voted to make medical marijuana legal, just to take one example. However, federal laws on the subject make that legality mostly irrelevant, so we end up with federal agents throwing sick people in jail because the federal government does not approve of the laws of the state that they're in-- especially since the federal government has its own medical marijuana program. Not only is that hypocritical, that's a mockery of federalism, a bedrock component of conservatism.
If you want to talk about secondary crime caused by drug use, how about 90 percent of the bar fights in the history of the Republic being caused by alcohol, the legal drug? And please explain to me why it took a constitutional amendment to make alcohol illegal, but marijuana and all the rest can be made verboten by a federal executive branch agency, not even by Congress itself? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Perhaps you need some education yourself on this issue.
---
Finrod's First Law of Bandwidth:
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it takes the bandwidth of ten thousand.
Is totally irrelevant to the issue on the merits viz. drug legalization. Also, the point about medical marijuana and legalized theft doesn't address the point I was making in any way. In fact, I can't find anything in this comment that is in any way responsive and relevant to anything I've said, including the part about alcohol (I am shocked - shocked! - to find inconsistent government policy. We should abolish government policy altogether!).
So, moving on.
------------
n/t