's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

You MIGHT be a LIBERTARIAN if. . .(5 posts)

You MIGHT be a LIBERTARIAN if. . .js5280
Jan 10, 2003 11:44 AM
Though I'd get some equal time here since the Federal Election Committee isn't involved. . .

Original Work. . .

You realize that passing a larger Federal/State budget than the previous year does not make government smaller.

You recognize that only politicians and criminals use force to get what they want, the rest of us voluntarily agree on transfers of property.

You know that Campaign Finance Reform will permanently secure the Republican and Democrats as the ONLY two parties (or is it just one BIG Government party now?) and disadvantage any challenges to incumbents.

You know that while corporate monopolies are bad, government monopolies are even worse.

You know that in the Bill of Rights, there is no phrase; "Pick less than ten. . ."

You know that even the best run government program will never perform as efficiently as a private organization. There is no reason it should.

You know that Social Security is what used to be called a Ponzi scheme.

You know that a government "War on {Insert Problem Here}" will only exacerbate the problem.

You know that Enron most likely learned all it's book cooking tricks from the politicians but the politicians still use them.

You know that federal politicians do not know what this sentence means. . ."The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"

When watching politicians speak in the media, you have to look at a caption to figure out which party the politician belongs to.

You know that prohibitions end up hurting more people than helping.

You know the difference between supporting one's "right to speech" vs. supporting someone's "speech"

You know that murder, rape, and other violence against any individual is automatically a hate crime.

You know that both Republican's and Democrat's idea of hell is having to mind their own business and not meddle in other people's lives.

You know that the "The only power that politicians can never abuse is the power they don't possess."

You rather have Warren Buffett in the boardroom and Laetitia Casta in the bedroom than a Republican and a Democrat.

You do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.

You know your vote counts and isn't thrown away on the lesser of two evils.

And couple I found on the Net. . .

If you think 99 percent of politicians give the rest of them a bad name, then you might be a Libertarian.

If you think that politicians should be limited to two terms. . . one term in office and then one in jail, then you might be a Libertarian.

If they ask you to take a urine test at work and tell them you'll only give them a taste test, then you might be a Libertarian.

If you really want to know if you're a Libertarian, take this quiz. . .

If you want to want to stop the tide from APATHY to DEPENDENCY, read this except. . .

"A democracy can not exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves a largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority will always vote for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy and is always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:

From BONDAGE to SPIRITUAL FAITH, From Spiritual Faith to GREAT COURAGE, from Great Courage to ABUNDANCE, from Abundance to SELFISHNESS, from
Cut off. . .here's the rest. . .js5280
Jan 10, 2003 11:45 AM
. . .Selfishness to COMPLACENCY, from Complacency to APATHY, from Apathy to DEPENDENCY and finally back again into BONDAGE."

-Written by Professor Alexander Tyler more than 200 years ago about the fall of Athenian Republic 2,000 years earlier.
re: You MIGHT be a LIBERTARIAN if. . .Alpedhuez55
Jan 10, 2003 12:28 PM
These are pretty good JS. I love the Urine Taste Test & Ponzi Scheme ones. I actually voted for a couple of Libertarians this year. I think many of the principals are great and I would like to see a much smaller government. I do disagree on some points such as legalizing drugs. But I disagree with a lot of Rebulican positions too.

I would also recommend the CATO Institute Website too:

I find it funny where you find Libertarian Literature. You go into a gun, porn or head shop and you will often see a display. The libertarian candidate in Massachusetts spent a lot of time campaingning in I guess that makes Libertarians the Party Party!!!

Mike Y.
On legalizing drugs. . .js5280
Jan 11, 2003 12:23 PM
That's great you vote your conscience. I wish more people did. Elections are about voicing your opinion, not picking a winner or a loser. Why pick the slower road to hell when there is an alternative? If more people (voters and non-voters) did, I think we'd be a viable party. I think the reason you see Libertarian literature in head shops, adult stores, gun shops, etc. is that we realize that some people enjoy these outlets just as some people like yoga, cheese, floral photography, fishing, or football, but we don't cast judgments upon them as a political party. Whatever consenting adults do in the own privacy should not be the domain of politics, period. Republicans and Democrats think they know what's best for you, we don't.

I understand that the drug legalization is a tough issue for people to accept. Drugs are dangerous and can destroy lives. However, it boils down to this premise. There are two risks with drug prohibition. First is the risks of prohibition, second is the risks of drug use. The libertarian line of thinking is that the risks of prohibition are much greater than that of actual drug usage. While some of this is speculative, there is growing research that supports these ideas. Drug legalization is gaining legitimacy, and not just from drug users.

Alcohol prohibition is probably the best example of prohibition risks. When made illegal, it became the domain of the underground which is unregulated. Turf wars erupted, dangerous forms of alcohol were produced, there was an increased profit motive to get people to drink, etc. We see much of the same now days with currently illegal drugs. However with drugs like alcohol and tobacco, we don't have drive-by shootings of competing liquor stores and smoke shops. Prohibition without a doubt has its risk and its cost. I'd much rather see the money we waste on drug interdiction used to help addicts and prevention. We will never eradicate the supply and we can only hope to minimize demand and promote responsible use.

The second half of the equation is the impact of drug use. Well, some drugs CAN be bad; alcohol kills and destroys lives regularly, tobacco is great way to get cancer, etc.
Drug use is not necessarily bad, they can be used responsibly. However some hard drugs, like heroin, meth amphetamine, PCP, etc. it's hard to argue they could be used responsibly because of their highly addictive and destructive qualities. However, if look at flip side of this, most people would steer away from these drugs because of these facts. I would venture that people that use these drugs are deceived or highly influenced by drug dealers to use these drugs because the dealers can hook a customer and exploit them.

Look at the people who are at risk. Some people will always be predisposition to drug abuse, that will never change and hopefully we can help these people through awareness and treatment programs.

The second group are those that are persuaded by others to use harder drugs or abuse a drug. Again a black market increase the profits to be made by this activity much greater than the free market, it is totally unregulated and promotes recruiting of new users. Violence and exploitation abound because users have no legal recourse.

The final group is responsible users. I have plenty of friends, some very responsible, successful, and intelligent, that use illegal drugs responsibly. My drug of choice happens to be alcohol and endorphins. I don't have a vested interested in legalizing other drugs because I doubt I would use them. I understand the real risks of their use, they don't do much for me, so they aren't worth my attention.

Since we cannot eliminate supply or demand of illegal drugs, we should try to manage the risks, not stick our head in the sand. I don't believe we are sending the wrong message to our kids, the message won't change. Drugs are dange
And here's the rest of the story. . .js5280
Jan 11, 2003 12:57 PM
. . .Drugs are dangerous if used irresponsibly and some drugs can't be used responsibly at all. I think our current anti-drug campaigns do more to obscure real issues and promote fear rather than knowledge. Drugs will continue to destroy some people's lives, but does so regardless of legality. I think legalization would minimize that.

Removing the prohibition risks and incentive to exploit illegal users is a much better option than our current one of drug prohibition. I think, and most Libertarians would probably agree, this is a road we should go down carefully. While we would probably release non-violent drug offenders (i.e. those convicted only of possession, no violence, theft, etc.) almost immediately. Legalization would, and should be, explored and implemented carefully. I believe this will ultimately happen regardless if done by Libertarians or another party.

Here's a link to a testimony given to the The House Government Reform And Oversight Committee. It is a more academic look at the subject: