I agree 100% that there is a massive problem with the HUGE number of blacks and minorities that are in prison. I would say that a lot of them are those drug offenders. The next president needs to start a commission to determine what the best way to solve the problems with our prison system are. I can't recall a major effort in our nation's history to assess the state and problems in our prison system, let alone trying to solve them.

While I understand your intentions here, I disagree with the kind of solution I think you are imagining here. Rather than spend a ton of money hiring more bureaucrats to examine the problem and come up with an ineffective solution (or at least potentially ineffective) to the problem, why not just remove the federal drug laws that caused the problem in the first place?

I think that's a good start.

I agree 100% that there is a massive problem with the HUGE number of blacks and minorities that are in prison. I would say that a lot of them are those drug offenders. The next president needs to start a commission to determine what the best way to solve the problems with our prison system are. I can't recall a major effort in our nation's history to assess the state and problems in our prison system, let alone trying to solve them.

While I understand your intentions here, I disagree with the kind of solution I think you are imagining here. Rather than spend a ton of money hiring more bureaucrats to examine the problem and come up with an ineffective solution (or at least potentially ineffective) to the problem, why not just remove the federal drug laws that caused the problem in the first place?

I think that's a good start.

It's the approach that we who consider ourselves Libertarian would like to apply to a great many problems we see as the result of government interference.

I agree 100% that there is a massive problem with the HUGE number of blacks and minorities that are in prison. I would say that a lot of them are those drug offenders. The next president needs to start a commission to determine what the best way to solve the problems with our prison system are. I can't recall a major effort in our nation's history to assess the state and problems in our prison system, let alone trying to solve them.

While I understand your intentions here, I disagree with the kind of solution I think you are imagining here. Rather than spend a ton of money hiring more bureaucrats to examine the problem and come up with an ineffective solution (or at least potentially ineffective) to the problem, why not just remove the federal drug laws that caused the problem in the first place?

I think that's a good start.

It's the approach that we who consider ourselves Libertarian would like to apply to a great many problems we see as the result of government interference.

Yeah, but the only one I agree with of those would be the legalization of (at least marijuana) some drugs. I'm not sold on legalizing cocaine, meth, or heroin.

Yeah, but the only one I agree with of those would be the legalization of (at least marijuana) some drugs. I'm not sold on legalizing cocaine, meth, or heroin.

What is the substantive difference between any addictive and destructive drugs? If you are willing to cut out the insane government costs to all of us by accepting that people are responsible for however they choose to use and or abuse marijuana, why not accept that people are also responsible for their choices to use and/or abuse other drugs?

 

Why should we ever need to protect anyone from themselves?

Why should we ever need to protect anyone from themselves?

Because it's not that simple. I have mentioned before that the production of meth is extremely dangerous, and frequently results in the deaths of those trying to make it.

 

Legalizing heroin would also present a national security problem. Already many terrorist organizations are using the proceeds from heroin sales to fund their operations, since most heroin comes from Asia and the Middle East. That means that US citizens would be indirectly funding terrorists if they start buying heroin legally, and these groups would get a lot more income if it was legalized than under our current situation.

Why should we ever need to protect anyone from themselves?

Because it's not that simple. I have mentioned before that the production of meth is extremely dangerous, and frequently results in the deaths of those trying to make it.

 

Legalizing heroin would also present a national security problem. Already many terrorist organizations are using the proceeds from heroin sales to fund their operations, since most heroin comes from Asia and the Middle East. That means that US citizens would be indirectly funding terrorists if they start buying heroin legally, and these groups would get a lot more income if it was legalized than under our current situation.

I also mentioned before that part of why Meth labs are what they are is because they are illegal. If someone today produces meth (or any drug), their main priority is doing it clandestinely enough so that they're not arrested. If meth were legal, I think the producers could then certainly place a greater emphasis on safety, because like any employer, they would be at liable to some degree for workplace deaths, not to mention the incentive of not damaging and losing your own property. You may disagree, but I see such dangers related to drug production and distribution not as inherent to the nature of the drugs themselves, but as by-products of our prohibition.

 

As for legalizing Heroin, without even getting into what's wrong with this "war on terrorism" mentality, even if you accept that world here's what you're missing:

#1 - If Heroin were legal it could be grown and produced here and we wouldn't need to buy it from those connected to terrorists, cutting them out of profits from our market, rather than increasing them.

#2 - If we could produce a large enough amount we could also cut into their share of the market internationally by exporting it as well.

#3 - Even if we couldn't produce a significant amount here, just legalizing it in the first place will naturally lower the cost and thereby the profits as well.

#4 - While you could possibly argue that it would be the case with more common drugs like marijuana and cocaine, I don't think you can argue that legalizing heroin would increase its demand at all. I don't think there is a single law-abiding citizen you can find who would love to try heroin if only it were legal, for whom the deterrent of prison time is a greater deterrent to using heroin than is it being addictive and the physical damage it does to the human body.

 

Again, I don't see how legalizing heroin would "help the terrorists" by increasing profits. Legalizing it would drive down the cost, it would make domestic production possible to compete, and I don't see any reason to expect there to be any sort of significant increase in demand. Besides, if this were actually the reason we made these drugs illegal (and it's not), then we would make gasoline illegal too, as I'm sure you know which countries are producing that as well.

Prostitution and drugs I put in the same boat. The choice is whether to allow a black market to flourish and the crime associated with it or to try and live with it and (presumably) regulate it. And if you're going to spend money to address these issues, it should be on education or rehabilitation, rather than throwing people in jail and creating a war against questionable morality.

Prostitution and drugs I put in the same boat. The choice is whether to allow a black market to flourish and the crime associated with it or to try and live with it and (presumably) regulate it. And if you're going to spend money to address these issues, it should be on education or rehabilitation, rather than throwing people in jail and creating a war against questionable morality.

 

That's exactly right. It is not and was never intended for Government to control morality. I see a ban on prostitution much like banning sodomy or abortion. It's a woman's right to choose what they do with their own bodies isn't it?? So, why can't they choose to have sex for money, much the same way everyone chooses to have sex for whatever other reason.

 

Al lthe arguments made here for keeping 'hard' drugs illegal can be made to make alcohol illegal. It makes people violent, it affects people's lives etc. Make everything legal, the Government is not my mother or father. Let's cripple the narcoterrorists abroad and flood the market with our own crop of coca and bud.

Out of curiosity, how do you libertarians feel about severe animal abuse such as the activities of Michael Vick. Property right such that he can do what he wants, or do animals have some rights?

Out of curiosity, how do you libertarians feel about severe animal abuse such as the activities of Michael Vick. Property right such that he can do what he wants, or do animals have some rights?

 

 

Not sure if this is the libertarian view and I don't just follow the party line on every single issue but IMO animals do absolutely have rights and deserved to be protected.

I see your points on the heroin issue. I don't know enough about agriculture to say whether or not this country has the environment to grow poppy fields. I assume that we can grow some of it.

 

I believe there would be a temporary increase in demand for what are currently illegal drugs if they were legalized. However, I don't believe it would last more than a few months.

 

Again, I generally support legalizing them, but we have to be cautious.

Out of curiosity, how do you libertarians feel about severe animal abuse such as the activities of Michael Vick. Property right such that he can do what he wants, or do animals have some rights?

I could honestly care less about what Michael Vick did, but that is just me. I suppose it would most legitimately be a state issue, but I think people need to come up with a consistent way of looking at animals. If they are property that we can buy, sell, and kill for food, without any say (or any way to say) in what happens, why should the government get involved in a man destroying his own property for his own entertainment?

Out of curiosity, how do you libertarians feel about severe animal abuse such as the activities of Michael Vick. Property right such that he can do what he wants, or do animals have some rights?

 

 

Not sure if this is the libertarian view and I don't just follow the party line on every single issue but IMO animals do absolutely have rights and deserved to be protected.

What level of rights? State bans animal conspumption based cruelty involved. Is it ok with you?

Out of curiosity, how do you libertarians feel about severe animal abuse such as the activities of Michael Vick. Property right such that he can do what he wants, or do animals have some rights?

Let local governments decide. Animals are not protected under the US Constitution.

 

I'm not speaking for all libertarians here but that would be my take on it.

 

As a state issue ala smoking bans?

Out of curiosity, how do you libertarians feel about severe animal abuse such as the activities of Michael Vick. Property right such that he can do what he wants, or do animals have some rights?

Let local governments decide. Animals are not protected under the US Constitution.

 

I'm not speaking for all libertarians here but that would be my take on it.

 

As a state issue ala smoking bans?

Please be more specific.

 

I don't think federalism has anything to do with it. I agree its a state issue, just as smoking bans are state issues. But what is your opinion of the issue at a state level. Should Mike Vick go to jail? If so, why shouldn't you go to jail for eating a chicken sandwich when chickens are stuffed cruely into cages?

No, he should not go to jail. Mainly for the reasons you mention.

 

There is an absurdity of moral relativism in regard to domestic animal sentimentality. If animals are going to be granted rights (ignoring the fact that they are irrational beings), it would be improper to grant these hypothetical rights only to domesticated animals but not slaughterhouse animals.

 

Animals are certainly treated inhumanely before made into food and essentially every time you eat a cheeseburger (and I eat many of them) you are supporting animal cruelty.

 

Although Vick's problems also had to do with the organizing of illegal gambling involving dog fights.

Out of curiosity, how do you libertarians feel about severe animal abuse such as the activities of Michael Vick. Property right such that he can do what he wants, or do animals have some rights?

Let local governments decide. Animals are not protected under the US Constitution.

 

I'm not speaking for all libertarians here but that would be my take on it.

 

As a state issue ala smoking bans?

Here's the thing:

 

Whether or not you are a Libertarian, this IS a state/local issue. The US Constitution niether grants any rights to animals nor does grant the Federal Government any authority to pass laws relating to the treatment of animals or any property. Or maybe it is just me since everyone just ignores the 10th Amendment anyway.

 

Now if you are a Libertarian, and you agree that an animal is property, then you think no state or local law should be written interfering with a person's right to do as they wish with their property. Now if you do wish to grant animals rights as though they were people, it has to be done at the state and local levels (unless by Constitutional Amendment), and then you have to figure out what those rights are, how they apply, how they are going to be protected and how they will be exercised. But I think personally that in the end, any such laws would amount more to a restriction on our rights as property owners rather than a real protection of the rights of any individuals.

No, he should not go to jail. Mainly for the reasons you mention.

 

There is an absurdity of moral relativism in regard to domestic animal sentimentality. If animals are going to be granted rights (ignoring the fact that they are irrational beings), it would be improper to grant these hypothetical rights only to domesticated animals but not slaughterhouse animals.

 

Animals are certainly treated inhumanely before made into food and essentially every time you eat a cheeseburger (and I eat many of them) you are supporting animal cruelty.

 

Although Vick's problems also had to do with the organizing of illegal gambling involving dog fights.

Gambling is a whole other issue, that if you want a Libertarian view on, is another place government doesn't belong. It is another gross example of government interjecting into dealings between private individuals and entities, and deciding how we are allowed to use our own property. If it is my hard earned money, what (legitimate) right does the government have to tell me how I can and cannot use it? You can tell me everything bad about gambling, and I just may well believe you, but it doesn't change the fact that it is another example of government violating our private property rights.

[

Gambling is a whole other issue, that if you want a Libertarian view on, is another place government doesn't belong. It is another gross example of government interjecting into dealings between private individuals and entities, and deciding how we are allowed to use our own property. If it is my hard earned money, what (legitimate) right does the government have to tell me how I can and cannot use it? You can tell me everything bad about gambling, and I just may well believe you, but it doesn't change the fact that it is another example of government violating our private property rights.

 

I assure you I don't need to go out to ask what anyone else's Libertarian views are on any issues. My statement was merely a centering of the issues in this post. The Vick situation, although portrayed in the media as an animal 'right's' situation, was moreso a gambling issue. So, to give the Libertarian view on this, it is a much simpler issue than say abortion or animal rights. It is much more like prostitution, in that it deals with adults making consenting decisions, so it is not an issue that any Libertarian should be struggling with in terms of having any form of moral dilemma on.

 

Animal issues are much more complex, in that the Constitution, which mostly provides negative rights, does not mention animals at all. The status of animals as property stems from English common law (obviously much further than that, but in terms of of our jurisprudence we don;t have to look much further than that), and nothing in the Constitution should stop a State from giving animals a status that goes beyond mere property. Whether they should or not is the question.But if say Florida decides animals have a status highter than non-animalian property, then they can regulate the treatment of animals. Again to me this is one of those murky issues like abortion, where the balance is the government's right to interfere with the private person vs. the right to life.

Where I stand with Animal rights isn't the libertarian viewpoint as I do believe the government can play a positive role in protecting animals from pain. The tricky part comes to defining what animals to protect and what is pain? I think some common sense needs to be used here, and the government can do the job of regulating companies to protect animals from cruel and unusual treatment. Obviously animals don't have 'rights' and they are irrational beings, but they still don't deserve to be put in unnecessary pain.

 

A lot of companies could and would save a lot of money by not having to worry about the certain guidelines in place by the government to ensure slightly better treatment of animals that are due to be slaughtered for food. Yes you could say that the consumer would just not buy from that company, or Peta (or some other charity) could stop them, but I don't buy that that is enough of a motivation for companies to cut corners to save a buck.

 

It's a tricky issue either way and maybe I'm just a sucker for animals because I've owned a dog or two but I just think Government has done some good for protecting the helpless here and this is one situation where the free markets would not work, as the businesses would have very little benefit to be concerned about the animals.

I assure you I don't need to go out to ask what anyone else's Libertarian views are on any issues. My statement was merely a centering of the issues in this post. The Vick situation, although portrayed in the media as an animal 'right's' situation, was moreso a gambling issue. So, to give the Libertarian view on this, it is a much simpler issue than say abortion or animal rights. It is much more like prostitution, in that it deals with adults making consenting decisions, so it is not an issue that any Libertarian should be struggling with in terms of having any form of moral dilemma on.

 

Animal issues are much more complex, in that the Constitution, which mostly provides negative rights, does not mention animals at all. The status of animals as property stems from English common law (obviously much further than that, but in terms of of our jurisprudence we don;t have to look much further than that), and nothing in the Constitution should stop a State from giving animals a status that goes beyond mere property. Whether they should or not is the question.But if say Florida decides animals have a status highter than non-animalian property, then they can regulate the treatment of animals. Again to me this is one of those murky issues like abortion, where the balance is the government's right to interfere with the private person vs. the right to life.

Animals are considered property because what else can they be? They are clearly not people, and they are terminally incapable of expressing any legally recognizable will or consent (with perhaps the rare exception of a few SL-speaking apes).

I assure you I don't need to go out to ask what anyone else's Libertarian views are on any issues. My statement was merely a centering of the issues in this post. The Vick situation, although portrayed in the media as an animal 'right's' situation, was moreso a gambling issue. So, to give the Libertarian view on this, it is a much simpler issue than say abortion or animal rights. It is much more like prostitution, in that it deals with adults making consenting decisions, so it is not an issue that any Libertarian should be struggling with in terms of having any form of moral dilemma on.

 

Animal issues are much more complex, in that the Constitution, which mostly provides negative rights, does not mention animals at all. The status of animals as property stems from English common law (obviously much further than that, but in terms of of our jurisprudence we don;t have to look much further than that), and nothing in the Constitution should stop a State from giving animals a status that goes beyond mere property. Whether they should or not is the question.But if say Florida decides animals have a status highter than non-animalian property, then they can regulate the treatment of animals. Again to me this is one of those murky issues like abortion, where the balance is the government's right to interfere with the private person vs. the right to life.

Animals are considered property because what else can they be? They are clearly not people, and they are terminally incapable of expressing any legally recognizable will or consent (with perhaps the rare exception of a few SL-speaking apes).

 

I see the animal debate like the fetus debate. There are these strange quasi statuses that the framers did not think of.

I assure you I don't need to go out to ask what anyone else's Libertarian views are on any issues. My statement was merely a centering of the issues in this post. The Vick situation, although portrayed in the media as an animal 'right's' situation, was moreso a gambling issue. So, to give the Libertarian view on this, it is a much simpler issue than say abortion or animal rights. It is much more like prostitution, in that it deals with adults making consenting decisions, so it is not an issue that any Libertarian should be struggling with in terms of having any form of moral dilemma on.

 

Animal issues are much more complex, in that the Constitution, which mostly provides negative rights, does not mention animals at all. The status of animals as property stems from English common law (obviously much further than that, but in terms of of our jurisprudence we don;t have to look much further than that), and nothing in the Constitution should stop a State from giving animals a status that goes beyond mere property. Whether they should or not is the question.But if say Florida decides animals have a status highter than non-animalian property, then they can regulate the treatment of animals. Again to me this is one of those murky issues like abortion, where the balance is the government's right to interfere with the private person vs. the right to life.

Animals are considered property because what else can they be? They are clearly not people, and they are terminally incapable of expressing any legally recognizable will or consent (with perhaps the rare exception of a few SL-speaking apes).

 

I see the animal debate like the fetus debate. There are these strange quasi statuses that the framers did not think of.

I disagree that there is any relationship between the two. In the case of the fetus, even the staunchest Abortion advocate has to concede that a healthy fetus left to its natural development becomes a human being and that human life is something our laws should protect. The question is when do you start to consider that fetus a human being with human life that should be legally protected.

That's not an issue when it comes to animals. An animal will never become a human and there remains debate about the value of animal life and to what extent it should be legally protected.

"socially conservative" (socialist)

:lolup

"socially conservative" (socialist)

:lolup

Glad I could give you a laugh. Maybe you make the assumption that those two things are some how opposed, but really, where is the conflict for a "benevolent" leader who wants to use his power to give away free money to buy everyone a home and buy old people their drugs (at any cost) while also wanting to protect the people from the evils of gay marriage, pornography and gambling on the internet? Socialism, which is about redistribution of wealth, is in no way in conflict with the "Socially Conservative" agenda of protecting adults from themselves and their choices. It is also what we've been seeing from our government for at least the last 8 years.

question 2 passes in massachusetts with flying colors, making possession of up to one ounce of weed a civil issue, not a criminal one...and while i dont think its enough...its a step in the right direction...thank god for liberals....errrrr people who think for themselves