Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek
For many years I thought my only differences with libertarians were suicide, drugs, porn, gambling and abortion.
Since Sept 11, I've also realized that I am uncomfortable with the degree of isolation many libertarians advocate in foreign policy. I do think that the US should be much less interventionist in foreign wars and avoid being the world's policeman. But when US soil is attacked, or US citizens, we need to put a hurt on the bad people. I also feel strongly that we need to live up to duly passed treaties and international obligations that we have duly incurred. Even if they were a bad idea, backing out on duly incurred treaty obligations is a worse idea. In these cases, we should look for a mutually agreeable way to disentangle ourselves from international messes.
I have also grown to be a convinced federalist. Just because I believe something is a "good idea" or a "bad idea" for government to be involved with; I feel even more strongly about keeping the proper separation between the Constitutional roles of federal and state powers. As a resident of Louisiana, for example, I shouldn't strong arm the federal government for my "good idea" policy changes at the federal level if the matter at hand is not a proper federal power, and I shouldn't exert undue influence on policy issues in other states. It's OK for 50 states to have 50 different state level drug laws, driver's license requirements, drinking ages, etc. The Libertarian party platform almost demands uniformity of laws in different states.
I wouldn't mind too much if the feds got out of the drug game, but the US really needs to extract itself from some duly passed international treaties first, as well as (at the Federal level) get out of welfare, health care and higher education. Legalizing drugs would be much more tenable if the federal government would let abusers crash and burn (per a libertarian philosophy). Legalizing drugs while providing a "safety net" for drug abusers sounds like a step toward libertarian policies, but in the end will yield a bigger and more controlling government.
It is interesting to me that libertarians usually are making public policy pushes for the most egregious parts of their overall platform. Rather than less taxes and smaller government, 2nd amendment rights, and reduced regulation on businesses, they tout stuff like drug legalization, gambling, and pornography. Some even tout gay marriage.
Gambling is a great example where "legalization" increases rather than decreases government control and involvement. I fear drugs will likely turn out the same way.
|
Although it's true that the LP certainly has pushed some agenda's via social networking that are popular with younger voters.
They have in my opinion been quite steadfast in pushing less taxes, less government, 2nd amendment rights, and reduced business (handouts / regulations / bailouts etc) and taking a laissez faire approach to business. (ie.. no catering to special interests etc,)
I guess what i am trying to nail down here.. is on voting day, do you choose to align yourself with a particular party who's ideal's you endorse. Or do you take the "lesser" of two evils route.
As i am asking you for an answer, i will provide you with mine first (as it's only fair of me to do so).... I choose to vote for a party who's ideals i endorse to the greatest extent, and no longer choose the "lesser" of two evils route.
As far as the continuing discussion about cannabis your exceedingly aware of the enourmous scientific body of evidence supporting why legalization / decrim is the right way to go. You choose to still take a stance opposing it.... fair enough you have the right to make that choice. So no hard feeling on that matter.