Libertarians Unite

[Racetyme]

I just decided to split this off from another post because I didn't want to deviate that whole discussion. Anyway, I will probably never vote libertarian for the sole reason that they cant win. But I always feel as if we are getting the better of two evils when an election roles around. Democrats and Republicans don't make sense. Democrats are left wing socially, and right wing economically. Republicans are left wing economically and right wing socially. Is anyone else stunned and disgusted with this?

[formerly known as hf]

I don't know enough about the Democratic/Republican split in the US to comment - as far as I'm concerned, I've not been pleased with most of the US policies over the past half-century.

As for Libertarians - I do know about them. A lot of what I have heard scares me, and is deeply against what I believe.

I'm a deep liberal - I think the state should be heavily involved in the economy, in trade, in business practices (although I am currently very much against the way the states in the UK, US and EU get involved in the world economy - especially trade and business practice - they are supporting the businesses that would otherwise happily support themselves - not the ones that need state support...).
It should be especially involved in welfare provision - unemployment allowances, disability allowances, pensions etc. - there should also be a widening of public services - health, transport, housing, community etc.

The state should uphold private liberties though - no ID cards, free access to recreational drug use (and extended help for addiction to them), especially leave realtionships alone, stop giving police liberties beyond the 'innocent until proven guilty' stance that used to be a core value etc. etc.

And, yes, I am for higher taxes. And I'm not just a spotty student who hasn't work. I work for six months of the year - I see the chunk of my money that wings its way over to the government. I'm happy with that. I would give more happilly. I'm glad I can walk into any NHS hospital and get the treatment I need without paying, I'm glad I will get a state pension if I get screwed over by a company pension (as many in the UK have) I'm glad if I become disabled the state will provide for me, I'm glad that if things turn out really bad, I probably won't be homeless as I can always turn to state provided housing.

[Stan]

Racetyme, I agree with some of what you say and am very disappointed with the crazy spending I see from the Republican (aka the conservatives) lately.

There are some cases that I would be considered liberal.

First, I see the value of Labor Unions. But, I don't agree with government controlling business. I say let organized labor provide the checks and balance.

I agree with taking care of the poor and providing retirement for those too old to work. I don't agree with allowing people to drug themselves into a stupor and expect others to pay for it. That being said, I DO agree with government sponsored rehab program, though my experience is that faith based programs work just as well and in some cases better.

I agree with government staying out of relationships of human beings. As such, I see no reason for government to recognize same sex relationships. I believe it will open the door for other alternative lifestyles such as multiple partners, etc. Now, as far as people being in those relationships, to each his own. I agree my position on this is controversial and is highly determined on my faith so I'm willing to say I just disagree with government sponsorship of this, but I don't condemn those who do it.

I truly dislike the government making me carry an ID (except a driver's license, of course) and all incursions on my rights as a free citizen (including my right to own a gun if I wish). My disagreement with legalized drugs and expansion of gambling stems from the belief that there are people who are very susceptible to addiction to these substances. I have seen families, including my own, that have been destroyed or damaged by drugs and alcohol. I'm fine with people ruining their own lives, but addiction is a strong thing and it is usually children who will pay the price.

I believe there are tradeoffs to living in a society. There is safety and comfort in living in a society. The tradeoffs are that we give up what may theoretically ok (like letting someone use drugs if they want) in order to maintain a society.

I've gone on, but in short, I do relate to the Libertarians more than I might want to (for the reasons you've stated).

[formerly known as hf]

I agree with government staying out of relationships of human beings. As such, I see no reason for government to recognize same sex relationships.

But - by recognising heterosexual relationships, by refusing to equally recognise other realtionships - the government are interfering - they are making the situation unequal - they are retaining the status quo that gives respect to heterosexual realtionships and which view homosexual relationships as something 'other' and somehow different...

[Racetyme]

Stan, your position on the government controlling relationships makes absolutely no sense. Nuff said. On the other points, why are drugs illegal at all, people can do what they want. Then the government wouldn't need to fund any rehab programs. I'll let the rest lie, it is too confusing to argue a lot of topics in one post.

[formerly known as hf]

The police are there to help victims?
If victims are to be helped by the state - why make an exception for victims of drug addiction (including, most certainly, tobacco and alcohol addiction) - it is very naive to assume that 'it was the persons choice that they got addicted' - people turn to drugs for all manner of reasons - pressure, depression - support needs to be given to those people - the same way support is given to ill people and victims of crime.

I had a friend commit suicide from heavy heroin use. I'm still very much for totally legal drug use - as I don't feel the best support comes from criminalising the activity. Neither do I feel it is best provided by faith groups or charity - neither do I think would have the funding to provide adequate coverage.

[Cookie]

Rehab clinics come under the NHS.

[Jimbob]

I'm a deep liberal - I think the state should be heavily involved in the economy, in trade, in business practices (although I am currently very much against the way the states in the UK, US and EU get involved in the world economy - especially trade and business practice - they are supporting the businesses that would otherwise happily support themselves - not the ones that need state support...).
It should be especially involved in welfare provision - unemployment allowances, disability allowances, pensions etc. - there should also be a widening of public services - health, transport, housing, community etc.

The state should uphold private liberties though - no ID cards, free access to recreational drug use (and extended help for addiction to them), especially leave realtionships alone, stop giving police liberties beyond the 'innocent until proven guilty' stance that used to be a core value etc. etc.

State interference in anything terrifies me - and the assumption that state interference is any better than leaving people to make up their own minds more so. I don't think its possible for a state to uphold private liberties, whilst simultaneuosly attacking the freedom of the individual in the economic sense. What really worries me is that for an interventionist state to succeed you've got to assume an organisation/individual/beaurocracy with total power, total knowledge and an unshakable altruism. Sorry, but I find the libertarian starting point of people tending to act in their own best interests, and economic signals too complex for one individual/group to see the whole as far more plausible.

Mind you I'm against concentrating power into the hands of any special interest group (be it the state, unions, multinationals, oil industry) as it will almost certainly get abused - actions of the state become not actions for the public good but for said special interest groups.

And no business needs state support.

[Pie]

I REALLY don't know anything about this stuff.. so i will make this post.. and shut up.

[Stan]

I conceded my position on the relationship issue was based primarily on my faith. However, for my 1 vote that's what I'd vote.

As far as the durg issue, my point is that I realize it is taking away a liberty to disallow some drugs such as heroin, cocaine, etc. But, I believe the tradeoff for giving up that liberty for the good of the overall society is a worthwhile tradeoff.

It's subjective, but that's my feeling on it.

[Racetyme]

Why is it good for society that drugs are illegal? As far as I can see, it just makes everything much, much worse. It costs us millions of dollars a year to fight this rediculous war on drugs, we have rampant gang activity, mostly due to the illegal drug trade, and murder. How are any of those things good for society?

[Jos Elkink]

I conceded my position on the relationship issue was based primarily on my faith. However, for my 1 vote that's what I'd vote.

I still don't understand your point of view as you described it. I understand you are Christian and argue from that perspective - I don't share that view, but that's fine. But I don't understand how you reach your conclusions from your Christian background. You are saying that a government should not intervene in personal relationships, that they should hence not allow same-sex marriage, but that you don't mind what people do in private. I would have thought that 1) no interference means that the government should not determine which types of relationships are allowed and which are not (hence allow all types or none, but don't make a distinction between same-sex and mixed); 2) your religious views would mean you do not agree with people having same-sex relationships, but surprisingly, you do.

[Cookie]

Can't speak for Stan but I don't think Christianity is Black and White. ..there are a lot of grey areas.

[Jos Elkink]

Can't speak for Stan but I don't think Christianity is Black and White. ..there are a lot of grey areas.

?? I don't see how I would have said that?

But Stan is arguing that because 1) he's Christian and 2) he's against state intervention in personal relations, he's a) against same-sex marriages, and b) for leaving people do what they want at home. I don't understand how 1 & 2 can lead to a ... that's all.

[Savanik]

I can see both sides of the drug issue.

On one hand, having drugs be illegal means that you have crime, a black market, etc. Just like with the Prohibition of alcohol - taking away the Supply doesn't reduce Demand - it drives up the price to the point where people can make a lot of money by doing illegal things. And when there's that much money running around... sometimes you'll even have police officers selling drugs on the side.

On the other hand, I can recognize there are some drugs that are so potent and so addicting that even if you did legalize them, people would still commit violent crimes to get their fix. Like heroin. Know what happens if you try to go cold turkey with heroin? You DIE! It's that addictive.

My personal view is that marijuana should be legalized - and regulated - just like alcochol. It still should be illegal to drive under the influence, operate heavy machinery, etc. And there are other countries that have legalized marijuana (to the point where they have bars you can go to and buy joints in) and haven't collapsed into anarchy.

As for harder drugs - there are medical uses for these drugs, certainly. Morphine, for example. Even cocaine had documented medical uses. But these drugs are so powerful, I think they should stay in the hands of professionals qualified to apply them properly.

There's no easy answer to the question. Some people will always abuse drugs - even legal drugs - just as people can ruin their lives with addictions to gambling, online gaming, or even chocolate It doesn't mean those things should be illegal.

Sav