For my Libertarian friends

Epignosis wrote: JJLehto wrote: Epignosis wrote: JJLehto wrote: and I personally think marijuana should be legalized, (though hard drugs should be kept illegal) kind of like horse said. Socially libertarian! As I've said before, weed should be legalized and taxed as liquor and tobacco.  And I've never toked once, and probably never will.  Beer please. Oh yeah, besides the government off thing...I dont even need to get into how whacked the drug schedules are, how alcohol and tobacco are potentially worse and heavily advertised, not to mention it was Milton Friedman who advocated the legalization of weed. I know a lot of stoners were crushed by Bama...but I still think one day. Damn I wish there was a "stoned" smiley! I think marijuana reeks.  I can't see myself even trying it (I never have).  I still think people should be allowed to purchase and smoke it.  And even forget what's worse...think of how much money the government(s) spend on regulating weed.  And how many kids grow up without a dad because of this "war on drugs."

I'm with you. I see no downside to legalizing pot, even though I've never tried it and never will (and I went to very stoner friendly college.) It's certainly less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes, and legalizing it would curb a lot of violence and also solve a lot of gateway drug problems (Milton Friedman illustrates this well, but I'm too lazy to find and post the video. It's on youtube, do it yourself.)

Captain Clutch wrote: JJLehto wrote: Captain Clutch wrote: ^ we're a little off topic here, I think; I have been for 3-4 posts Also, I should stop discussing politics before I say something that makes everyone hate me I dont know if my post ninja'd yours, but I wasn't mad...just explaining why the US didnt enter until 1941, when FDR wanted to earlier, is all. Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, I can tell you're not mad; but, given my history of discussing politics online, I'd better step out BEFORE I make an ass of myself

Cool, although I do hope I answered your question.

JJLehto wrote: Captain Clutch wrote: ^ we're a little off topic here, I think; I have been for 3-4 posts Also, I should stop discussing politics before I say something that makes everyone hate me I dont know if my post ninja'd yours, but I wasn't mad...just explaining why the US didnt enter until 1941, when FDR wanted to earlier, is all.

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong, I can tell you're not mad; but, given my history of discussing politics online, I'd better step out BEFORE I make an ass of myself

JJLehto wrote: and I personally think marijuana should be legalized, (though hard drugs should be kept illegal) kind of like horse said. Socially libertarian!

As I've said before, weed should be legalized and taxed as liquor and tobacco.  And I've never toked once, and probably never will.  Beer please.

Captain Clutch wrote: JJLehto wrote: Well, if FDR had his way it would've been sooner, and we were practically fighting Germany in the Atlantic anyway. It's a fact the US has acted only in its self interest in regards to foreign policy, but I do think WWII was an exception, maybe the only time we got involved elsewhere for something besides our interests. Why, then, did it take two years, until after a direct attack on the States?  Nearly every source I've read/heard/seen has said that the US was reluctant to enter the conflict before it directly involved them; contrast that to Canada, entering the war 1939; two full years of fighting before the Americans so much as lifted a finger. You just answered your own question. The US was reluctant to enter the conflict. I said if FDR had his way it would've been sooner, but he didn't. I don't mean to patronize, but if you don't know the President can't just declare war, Congress does and it has to be voted on by Congress. So....yeah, FDR wanted to enter and did all he could prior to it to aid the allies, but he couldnt just say "Lets go boys!" It took the attack on the states to wake Congress up, and they have the only power to declare war. JJLehto wrote: And I only ask because I havn't gotten the same feeling yet but, why do you say: "well, actually, this is starting to change with the Obama administration". Not that I disagree, but I havn't really seen enough to make that judgment. He seems to be making more effort to connect with other nations in a positive manner - probably what the source of his bogus peace prize was.  I dunno, just a hunch perhaps.

Well, I agree with that, though it is a gut feeling. I really do HOPE he is acting for the best overall interest and not just ours, it would be a nice change of pace...

thellama73 wrote: JJLehto wrote: So, we've accomplished nothing! So Rob, in regards to my other question, if you could have your way...what would it be? Are most of you guys in agreement that there needs to be a limited, federal government to maintain a military, judicial system, ya know the essentials? Which of course needs some amount of taxes? I only ask because I'm just curious what level of government is acceptable to you guys, I know some out there are really dedicated to limited government, (should ONLY support a military and enforce contracts) real John Locke stuff. And also, if most of the federal service were shifted to state control, wouldnt the tax burden simply be shifted as well, and not really alleviated? One more question for you guys, (I really need to start doing some work soon ) correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't non interventionist foreign policy also part of Libertarianism? I believe Ron Paul supports non intervention, which is again pretty outside the Republican mainstream. How do you guys feel about it? Would any of you be fine with reducing the defense budget? Reducing the military to defensive, rather than offensive? I'm pretty radical in my libertarianism, in that I really only want the government to handle law enforcement and national defense. Basically the Milton Friedman/F. A. Hayek brand. Isolationist foreign policy is the official standpoint of the Libertarian (large L) party, but not necessarily of libertarian (small l) philosophy. Personally, I think there are times when the American military needs to get involved in world events (world war 2 comes to mind) but I would prefer less meddling in foreign affairs than we currently engage in.

I see. I had a feeling you may have subscribed to the Locke school as I like to call it (gotta be different )
And I do agree pretty much 100% with you about foreign intervention. Same about government being out of the way of marriage, and I personally think marijuana should be legalized, (though hard drugs should be kept illegal) kind of like horse said. Socially libertarian!

Captain Clutch wrote: thellama73 wrote:   Personally, I think there are times when the American military needs to get involved in world events (world war 2 comes to mind) but I would prefer less meddling in foreign affairs than we currently engage in. (ahem) you do know the US only entered WWII because of the attack on Pearl Harbour, right? In fact, ALL of the foreign affairs the states are and have been involved with (well, actually, this is starting to change with the Obama administration) have been nearly entirely to promote their own national self-interest

Well, if FDR had his way it would've been sooner, and we were practically fighting Germany in the Atlantic anyway. It's a fact the US has acted only in its self interest in regards to foreign policy, but I do think WWII was an exception, maybe the only time we got involved elsewhere for something besides our interests.

And I only ask because I havn't gotten the same feeling yet but, why do you say: "well, actually, this is starting to change with the Obama administration". Not that I disagree, but I havn't really seen enough to make that judgment.

thellama73 wrote:   Personally, I think there are times when the American military needs to get involved in world events (world war 2 comes to mind) but I would prefer less meddling in foreign affairs than we currently engage in.

(ahem) you do know the US only entered WWII because of the attack on Pearl Harbour, right?

In fact, ALL of the foreign affairs the states are and have been involved with (well, actually, this is starting to change with the Obama administration) have been nearly entirely to promote their own national self-interest


Edited by Captain Clutch - June 24 2010 at 22:25

So, we've accomplished nothing!

So Rob, in regards to my other question, if you could have your way...what would it be?
Are most of you guys in agreement that there needs to be a limited, federal government to maintain a military, judicial system, ya know the essentials? Which of course needs some amount of taxes?
I only ask because I'm just curious what level of government is acceptable to you guys, I know some out there are really dedicated to limited government, (should ONLY support a military and enforce contracts) real John Locke stuff.


And also, if most of the federal service were shifted to state control, wouldnt the tax burden simply be shifted as well, and not really alleviated?

One more question for you guys, (I really need to start doing some work soon ) correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't non interventionist foreign policy also part of Libertarianism? I believe Ron Paul supports non intervention, which is again pretty outside the Republican mainstream. How do you guys feel about it? Would any of you be fine with reducing the defense budget? Reducing the military to defensive, rather than offensive?


Edited by JJLehto - June 24 2010 at 17:38

I don't know if this has been posted on this thread previously (wading through it all would be too depressing) but this is an old piece from the Onion that amused me: