This thread is inspired by the following quote by another poster in this forum.



As such, is the political theory of libertarianism practical for the USA?

Certainly, our country was founded by people who were arguably more "Libertarian" than any other political stripe. They believed in fundamental freedoms which were neither granted, nor could be taken away by government. They saw government as a necessary evil and an entity that should be kept small and at bay (via the second amendment in the bill of rights).

I know that a number of people in this forum, including one of the founders, is a declared Libertarian. But why has the party, which arguably founded this country, been reduced to minority status?

Instead, we have the battle between the pro-statist crowd (the democrats) and the pro-corporate crowd (republicans). Yes, these are grand over simplifications but arguably accurate generally.

The questions for debate are:

1. Can the Libertarian philosophy regain popularity in the USA?

2. Is the Libertarian philosophy realistic for the "masses" of people in our society.

3. How could it come to power? Isn't the vested interests of government and corporations too big an obstacle to overcome? After all, the government must keep growing to maintain power and corporations don't like real competition anymore than socialists do.

1. Can the Libertarian philosophy regain popularity in the USA?No far too many people are of the mindset that everything should be done for them. Yhe thought of actual independence without the safety net and mothering of the state is far too scary a proposition for them.

2. Is the Libertarian philosophy realistic for the "masses" of people in our society.
No.
3. How could it come to power? Isn't the vested interests of government and corporations too big an obstacle to overcome? After all, the government must keep growing to maintain power and corporations don't like real competition anymore than socialists do.
It would take a complete change to the way kids are taught in school. You wont find Hayek or Rothbard or Bastiet in any American high school as part of the curriculum. instead you get a great big group hug mentality and standards set to the lowest common denominator.

This is a debate pulled right from some of the libertarian forums, but a very good general question nevertheless.

1. Can the Libertarian philosophy regain popularity in the USA?

Hard to say. The platform can get kinda wing-nutty IMHO at the fringes, and I am both a supporter (with things like money) and a volunteer as well. No way in the world an all privatized police and fire department would work. Poor poeple would be allowed to die and burn basically. It is pretty obvious, that the places that need the most fire and police protections are the places that can afford it the least.

So, in my debates at my own meetings- my words go something to the fact of "let's move a little more centrist without giving up some core principles, and we could win some elections, and move the country towards more freedom instead of less"- and you can see some of this reflex in national politics- there is no way you can call Clinton a liberal- he was either center on most issues, or right of center- yet, because he was a dem, it forced the repubs to move farther right, and not in the Barry Goldwater/libertarian right direction, but instead, to the fascist right, were corporate Oligarchs are the ones with all the rights.

By balancing some of the libertarian issues that play to both sides of the aisle, and shelving some of the more fringe ideas, I think they could easily regain popularity, or more accurately, gain popularity, since they have never had more than 3% nationwide vote and seats LOL

2. Is the Libertarian philosophy realistic for the "masses" of people in our society.
These questions blend a bit, but there is a huge element of TRUE personal responsibility, and punishment for poeple that don't exercise that responsibility, built into the libertarian philosophy. Not every republican endorses 100% of thier party platform, and niether do I- one extreme area is public health, I think of it as a matter of national security and longevity of our nation to institute universal health insurance, and do away completely with health insurance companies, and take the profit motive completely away from that area. But I believe it to be a public safety issue- so, in the framing of a libertarian argument- my arguments would be based on what most libertarians consider the paramount duty of the state- public safety and defense of the longevity of the state, while providing maximum liberty to as much of the population as possible.

3. How could it come to power? Isn't the vested interests of government and corporations too big an obstacle to overcome? After all, the government must keep growing to maintain power and corporations don't like real competition anymore than socialists do.

Well, first part of your question- by going grass roots and more centrist, and de-emphasize some of the more fringe type platforms of the party. Corporations ARE the goverment- make no mistake, teh dems and repubs are just two different corporate sell outs with competing interests. So how does the country become more free? By becoming more educated about ACTUAL issues- not stupid fringe issues that keep them all a-frother- like gay rights.

Here is a classic example of how corporations and the "two party system" keep folks away from parties that emphasize freedom- you have an issue that:

1) directly effects a very small group of poeple (let's say, to not get sidetracked with a different debate topic) 10% of the population.
2) Has no direct impact at all on those not specifically adressed in any legslation- pro or con. No gay marriage amendment will affect me with either a "yay" or a "nay"- voting FOR legalizing gay marriage won't force me to get a divorce or disolve my marriage, and niether will making it illegal make it any more difficult for me to get a divorce or re-marry.
3) In the end, the entire debate is about restricting freedoms.

The US voting population, is, to put it mildly, a bunch of idiots. It is almost impossible for the US, as a group, to make an informed choice. We can debate the finer points of this american idol over another- but darnit, try and discuss a REAL issue with those voters, and they will become glossy eyed quick!

Freedom demands and educated and free-thinking population, and, whether it be a PETA person wanting "animal rights" or a fundamentalist christian that wants to make 'swingin" illegal- either way, both groups are anti-freedom and anti-free thought.

So basically, I think we are on the inevitable road to fascism and a third world status economically because of this lack of education and free-thought.

1. Can the Libertarian philosophy regain popularity in the USA?

I've seen my own views go from a pretty solid Republican stance, to a conservative, and finally to a more libertarian stance as my knowledge and comprehension of literature has increased. This of course has changed my view on the role of government (or lack thereof), the idea of personal responsibility, the interpretation of the constitution, economic freedom, and of maximizing individual liberty at all costs. I think that libertarianism has a lot of values that Americans from both sides of the current political aisle share but don't really know it because the libertarian party platform just never has gotten out there effectively.

The party of Goldwater and Reagan who emphasized limited government and individual responsibility are long gone from the platform of the GOP and we now have the incredible President Bush who's policies have lead to a decrease in civil liberties, have gone against economic policies of fiscal responsibility, and have relied on ridiculous issues such as gay marriage to gain votes.

From my understanding of libertarianism (little L), it finds that individual liberty needs to be maximized at all times even in the area of economics, something that I think most people do not believe has much to do with freedom. The ability to buy and sell goods and make contracts without government interference is essential to liberty. That aspect of libertarianism might not hold well in the stomach of ordinary Americans because most people would see it as cold even if it maximizes liberty. You see there is a difference between each side's concept of freedom. Some liberals, socialist, communists, exc... believe that people should have a freedom from want, or hunger. Libertarians or classical liberals believe that people should have the freedom from government coercion and be able to live their lives free of interference.

The best line that I have ever heard that almost single-handedly converted me was the idea that... if we give government the power to do good, we give it the power to do evil. I think thats a powerful statement that make sit necessary to limit government power wherever possible.

2. Is the Libertarian philosophy realistic for the "masses" of people in our society.

I think it is realistic and I think it could work if someone strong enough in natonal politics could push it on the national agenda. The problem is that many people want to believe in the paternalistic government that does everything for them. Most people refuse to accept personal responsibility for their actions and need a safety net which our government aptly provides.

The idea that each individual exerts his/her own ethics in society is another aspect most people find abhorrent. People like to control the actions of other people under the guise of "normal." What's normal? What the majority says is normal. So there are a number of social structures and institutions in place to ensure that deviant or abnormal behavior is kept in check by the majority.

3. How could it come to power? Isn't the vested interests of government and corporations too big an obstacle to overcome? After all, the government must keep growing to maintain power and corporations don't like real competition anymore than socialists do.

I think Amlord had a quote, which i must find, something to effect that the reason that business is so intertwined with government is because government tried to meddle with business in the first place. Institutions such as the ICC or the FCC were once (and in some cases still are) used by businesses to create monopolies in their respective industries. If government stays out of the economy wherever possible, it would both maximize individual liberty and ensure that competition can occur.

lederuvdapac- you actually touched quite well on the "doing" of libertarianism vs the "talking" of libertarianism with your talk of Reagan- Reagan has basically been the key pivotal figure for big brother in the US today- he sent the goverment, instead of into the board room, but went to the bed room. Social conservatism has it's roots in Reaganism.

I think that Reaganism actually highlights the fact that American's really don't want to be free- they bought into that *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** hook line and sinker. The idea of freedom that is quantified by what your personal moral outlook may be.

"just say no" and the "war on drugs" are EXACTLY anti-libertarian, and have led to some of the greatest abuses against freedom and the constitution this nation has ever seen.

To me, the fact that Reagan is even popular shows how anti-freedom Americans truly are at thier core-

You see, in order to have a free society, you have to be able to put up with behavior that offends you, but does not directly harm you- and this is something that post 1980 Conservatives have never been able to figure out. Barry Goldwater conservatives had it pretty good, though they were really infants in this thought sometimes I think.

One of the harder concepts to grasp by folks who CALL themselves conservatives is that big business is just as anti-freedom, and perhaps even more brutal and anti-liberty than goverment, frequently serving hand in hand in tyranny with the goverment.

I do think you probably hit the nail on the head with the comments about the FCC, which is basically a monopolistic tool for major corps- like the FDA is for drug companies etc.

This is where I think Libertarians go off the rails. The "I'll do whatever I want if I feel like it" attitude is at the core of modern Libertarians and I think this is why they are the minority party (and will remain that for some time).

I agree with the Libertarians to a point. We have inalienable rights and it's not up to the government to take them away. Our constitution identifies a number of those rights explicitly in spite of the politicians/courts attempts to redefine that clear intent in unrecognizable ways.

However......We need the rule of law to keep our civilization from turning into a bad version of the Balkans or Lebanon.

We have a process for defining these laws. We elect representatives to make those laws and an executive branch to approve/veto them and they appoint judges to determine if they are "constitutional".

Yet, Libertarians too often want to ignore this basic process. They say, "I want to smoke dope so I'll break the law", or take similar actions. They rail against prohibitions against "gay marriage" in spite of the fact that time after time it's been demonstrated that prohibiting gay marriage is WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT. Ok, you'll respond with the "tyranny of the majority"... but what' the substitute? Tyranny of the minority or tyranny of un-elected justices with an agenda??

The people don't WANT legalized drugs. Therefore, the legislation against their use, sale, and distribution. It's not a violation of Libertarian values to lock up drug users any more than it is to lock up thieves and murderers. Those who violate our laws violate the lines of morality that our society sets. Period.

Too often, what passes for Libertarianism these days comes down to sex, drugs, and rock and roll. It's actually hedonism dressed up in a political outfit. The founders of our nation who were REAL Libertarians believed in the rule of law, traditional standards and social institutions, and the "conservation" of those institutions.

And those who rail against Big Business because they're not pro-environment, or "for freedom" or any of those things lose me too. You ever hear the joke about the scorpion being carried across the lake by the frog? You remember the punch line after the scorpion stings the frog who he talked into carrying him across the lake to both their ends? "That is what we do... we are scorpions".

Well, it works the same way with business. They make money. They don't want competition. It's the government's job to keep things fair, to pass things like environmental laws (which impeded freedom too) and create agencies like the FDA to prevent businesses from killing people or ripping them off with scam drugs. It's a balancing act. You can't let business define the rules. Nor can you ignore the capitalist system in order to make a radical egalitarian society which is unnatural and impossible without the application of totalitarian-like force.

Finally, as long as we have the freedom to succeed in this country, we will have the freedom to fail and fail miserably in some cases. Since those who have failed to achieve have the exact same voting rights as those who have achieved, it's only natural that those who favor redistribution of wealth (i.e, democrats) will continue to get elected and pass legislation that confiscates from "the rich" in order to take care of the poor.

Libertarianism represents the core values of the founders of this country. But, I've come to believe that such principles, when taken to a hard line are just not workable. A pure capitalistic system would not work without anti-trust and other regulations. Legalizing drugs would result in more problems, not fewer and increase crime, bad behavior, and other social pathologies simply because we have so many irresponsible and less than smart individuals among us. And throwing sexual mores, institutions like marriage and family overboard on a fashionable whim does not make our society more stable and our civilization more sound.

Our system is the worst possible available. Except for all the others.

I, for one, will focus on reform in a few key areas without throwing the entire system out ala the far left, wackos like Chomsky and Gore, and ultra-partisan Libertarians. Believe it or not, I trust a two party system a lot more than a 1 party system and if we're to expand it to a 3 party system, that alternative party will have to move way closer to the "center" than they are now.

And slavery was "what the poeple wanted" for some time- however, it was not freedom.

Libertarianism is the principle that wants the maximum amount of freedom with the minimum amount of external control- we don't protect poeple, as you put it, from stupidity- i.e.- doing drugs. Call it hedonistic if you will- but why should the goverment have a vested interest in some poeple hedonism? It is anti-freedom, anti-free society.

Yes, a citizen should be able to "do whatever they feel like" as long as it doesn't directly harm another adult, and protects those that can't rationally make decisions for themselves- i.e.- children or mentally incompetent.

Do you have some evidence that legalizing those types of things make society less stable? That is the same ol' church lady thinking that leads to nazi-germyesque abuses - it is the same slippery slope, you start down this moralizing path, and there is no stopping it. In fact, we are one of the least free western societies- you just have to look at the massive jail and legal system in this country- we literaly, by definition, have become a police state.

I thought you didn't like the idea of the nanny state?

I am not for the redistribution of wealth as you claim democrats want to do (of course, with the usual lack of evidence for the claim ) but I am quite strongly in favor of making corporate "rights" ALWAYS subjective to individual rights.

Republicans, and conservatives, today's version anyway, are some of the most profoundly anti-freedom movements this country has ever seen- they want freedom, but only for themselves- which goes to the heart of tyranny. It is how tyranny has ALWAYS began for the last 200 years- "we need more control because we need protection from....."

A free society is not determined by how the majority of poeple behave, but, in how the majority treats the minority and thier beliefs and "social mores".

Oh, and LH, try reading Chomsky before commenting on him, it is pretty clear you have not.

Libertarian philosophy has a firm basis in the rule of law, probably more so than any other ideology. It stipulates that all laws must be made known to the population by the government beforehand. The rule of man means that the government does not need to make the laws known and can change the what the law is on a whim. This follows more closely to socialism as the argument is that people do not know beforehand where the resources need to be allocated and thus decisions need to be made as situations arise.

The substitute that you have asked for is limited government. When you limit the power that the majority can have over the minority than it matters little what the majority can do. The Constitution was created to protect the rights of the individual. Individualism is the single greatest protection against totalitarianism and the tyranny of the majority. The people may want a law prohibiting gay marriage, but what if the people want a law allowing for human slaves? This may seem to be an extreme example but it follows the logic of your argument quite nicely. You would most likely be against such a law because you respect the rights of the individual against oppression. Just because 99% of people believe it would be beneficial doesnt mean we abandon the rights of those whom the Constitution was meant to protect.

And libertarians really don't believe in breaking the law as you have claimed. Most libertarians follow the Natural Law aspect of law and rights and believe that we have been endowed with certain natural rights that are inalienable. Government doesn't give us rights but is in charge of protecting the rights we already hold. Furthermore, anything that violates natural law is not seen as a law at all for it is unjust. Whether or not you believe people taking drugs is right or wrong is not the issue. The issue is whether or not people have a right to their own body and to do with their property what they wish. If you don't allow people to govern themselves, how can you expect them to govern others?



That's a straw man. It is critics of libertarianism that frame the ideology as about sex drugs and rock n' roll. The truth is that its about being able to do what you want with your body without interference from government or others. If i want to drink a glass of cyanide with my steak for dinner, I should have the right to do it because it's my property. Laws that outlaw such things are showing disapproval of a behavior that it deems deviant. This is a form of social control in which the majority dictates to the minority how to live their life. Its the same with drugs and other such things. The Founding Fathers believed in limited government interference in the lives of the people, not direct control over behavior that is considered a vice.



That's really a backwards view on the economic views of libertarians. Competition is the essential component of every economic model that classical liberals support. It's not the government's job to keep things fair and I would please like to see the part of the Constitution that dictates its job as so. Business should not be defining the rules...it should be the consumers. The consumer will buy what is in the best interest of their person and will not buy what they see as harmful. This gives business incentive to create products that will be profitable in that people will buy their goods. If their product breaks down every 5 minutes than most people are going to go to their competitor.

When government tries to regulate business, it is corporations that benefit, not the consumer. When the ICC was created, it was a tool used by the railroad industry to maintain a monopoly on the transfer of goods in this country. Because the ICC had to give licenses to businesses in order to transport goods across state lines, they would limit the amount of licenses that could be given out. With a limit placed on competition, the railroads were able to avoid the trucking industry from growing in prominence. Without the ICC, the railroad industry wouldn't have had the power to do it.

Your final line is very interesting. I'm not sure if i understand it fully to be honest. Are you saying libertarians are in conflict witht he capitalist system and that their egalitarian beliefs would foster totalitarianism? If that's it than you might want to double check your sources on libertarianism and classical liberalism. I recommend F.A. Hayek.


The pure capitalist system was working for a long time in this country until the SCOTUS used its overreaching powers to redefine the Commerce Clause and change our Constitution forever. Where at one point the Commerce Clause was only meant to mean Congress could regulate the transfer of goods across states, it then meant that the government could regulate the production of goods in state. The New Deal legislation ushered in an area of unbridled government power that we are feeling the effects of to this day. And FDR's despotic push for power over the economy and his plan to pack the court are a testament to the end of lassez-faire economics.

Furthermore, you say legalizing drugs would create more problems. But my question to you is, other things create problems because they are legal yet I do not see you calling for their criminalization. The fact is that drugs have become a vice that the majority have chosen needs to be outlawed in order to maintain an ordered society. However it is the natural rights that each person has to their property, in this case their body, which is being oppressed. You think that it would cause problems but I say hogwash. People know the effects of drugs and will do it or not do it based on that knowledge. People should be responsible for their own person and their own actions. I don't want Big Daddy Government telling me when to brush my teeth and when to go bed.

A stable society which you call for can only be achieved when the collective views of the majority are upheld. The majority wants a stable society and thus needs to oppress freedoms in order to achieve that goal. Whether it be prohibiting gay marriage or the redistribution of wealth, one group's morals and ethics are dictated to everyone instead of each individual dictating their own morals as it applies to themselves. I follow the John Stuart Mill rule that my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins and thus believe that the right to do what we will with our property is essential to liberty.

1. Can the Libertarian philosophy regain popularity in the USA?
I don't think the libertarian philosophy was that terribly popular to begin with. Perhaps Jeffersonian Democracy would be the purest representation but slavery is the least Libertarian Philosophy possible. Then I guess the Democrats were the Libertarian Party until progressivism. But in any era I think it's very difficult to find a large group who believes both in little federal role in the economy and in social policy. Usually Laissez-faire economics are paired with a belief that the government should maintain the traditional order.

2. Is the Libertarian philosophy realistic for the "masses" of people in our society.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Should people have right to have a gun for shooting at things? Yes, probably. But should they be able to have a biological warfare lab? No way. I think as citizens we need to draw the collective line wherever we think it's best placed. Personally I don't think the masses of people could handle biological warfare. However I do think the masses of people can handle who gets married to who. I think most reasonable people would agree that there are some areas of our lives where the government has a legitimate interest in regulating and others it does not. Living in either extreme wouldn't be very much fun.

3. How could it come to power?
Perhaps if they were the only party totally against the Iraq War (or a similar one). However for most of our history there haven't been third parties and usually they've replaced one of the two main parties or gone away. I don't see the Libertarian Party replacing the Republican party any time soon. Not in my lifetime at least.

1. Can the Libertarian philosophy regain popularity in the USA?

No. Most people believe libertarianism to be as blatantly problematic as communism.

2. Is the Libertarian philosophy realistic for the "masses" of people in our society.

Libertarianism provides no way of minimizing or dealing with busts, no way of ensuring seller integrity (before big government popped up with Roosevelt, people were unwittingly eating rat poison in their sausages), no way to prevent monopoly, no way of protecting children from working in factories rather then go to school (or of providing school for the lower class), and basically no way of facing any of the problems of post industrial age laizze fair capitalism.

To revisit how it is like communism, excuses for its obvious deficits are based soley on blueprint, and are refuted by all evidence actually provided by reality rather then reason.

I see no reason why libertarianism can't seep in. You need to address individual issues and not as a general philosophy.

My problem with this idea about "not regulating people" is that I have to deal with too many annoying people on a daily basis who I wish had LESS freedom.

I find it hard to really find a political idealogy that fits me, I'd really rather take on one issue at a time. For instance, drug use IMHO should be legal for many reasons. It's not because I'm gungho about FREEDOM (whatever that REALLY means), it's for many other reasons including a gov't not interferring with personal choice.

There are other issues where I have no problem with a group deciding how an individual must behave, such as housing standards. In other words, I don't want my neighbor having two tires in the front yard and a truck on cinderblocks in my neighborhood.

I find it amazing that so many people try to fit a generalized idealogy to so many diverse issues. I'd prefer to take on issues one at a time.

And I always noticed that those clamoring for more freedom tend to be the ones that would obviously benefit from it. I.e. the rich pushing for freedom from taxes since they can afford everything they need and supposedly don't need gov't assistance. Or your psycho gun-totting neighbor pushing for his right to have an anti-tank weapon in his backyard.

I'm not sure "FREEDOM" is always the best thing. Just like Laisse Fairre isn't always the best thing.

Aside from being pretty much the exact opposite of communism in perhaps every single regard I don't really see the point you are trying to make. Perhaps you can expand on it more thoroughly so I and others can try to refute it?


In terms of libertarian economics providing no way for minimizing or dealing with busts i disagree with you on that point. If your are trying to use the Great Depression as an example than I think we may need to go over the causes of it in another thread because it had little to do with the core values of lassez faire and more to do with other factors. More recently, there were mini-crashes as you will in 1987 and following the 9/11 attacks. The economy took huge hits during both cycles but we saw nowhere near the repercussions that occurred during the 1930s. Now I know that you will say that this is do to the government policies put in place to prevent a huge crash but we must keep in mind that the era of huge government interference in the economy has steadily declined (though still prominent) in the past couple decades. Furthermore, i think that Hurricane Katrina is an excellent example of how our economy can still be maintained in the face of a major disaster to a huge economic center.

On the second point of ensuring seller integrity, i disagree again. Yes during the Roosevelt era, things were bad. But things are different today and that is not because of the Roosevelt. Its because the people are open to a larger market of goods which they are able to choose from. Back in the day the choices were very limited. Today, private firms such as insurance companies and Consumer Reports are able to handle the load of ensuring that manufacturers create quality products.

On the third point of no way to prevent monopoly...this is incorrect. A monopoly can only occur through the sanction of government such as when the government said there could be only three television stations. Libertarianism prevents monopolies through little government interference. One company outcompeting their opponents and gaining a large market share is not a monopoly. For instance, a Wal Mart going into a small town and pushing out small businesses is NOT a monopoly. Its beating out your competition. The government saying ONLY Wal Mart can exist in that town is what makes a monopoly.

Children will not be forced to do anything if they so choose. The ability for corporations to make a contract with their employees is one of the most disregarded liberties in our country. Children are not of age and thus not able to make a contract with an employer, so this argument is void. But lets say I am working a job and I WANT to work a couple extra hours per day because I need the cash for a vacation or something...should i not be allowed to if I consent to it?

The industrial age lassez faire capitalism is long gone and today's world with investigative reporting by the media and the thirst for truth by the populace have replaced the general apathy of that era.



I am sure you would not enjoy it if it were your freedoms that were being taken away.



Well, in my world view I don't clamor for more freedom because I already have it. Its just the government that must be made to protect those freedoms. The rich (well pretty much everyone) wants their taxes cut because they want to reap the reward for their labor. Why should you enjoy what I worked hard for?

And i think there is some reason in the right to bear arms argument. Nobody is saying we have the right to anti tank guns or biological weapons.


Well that's okay RedCedar. I vehemently disagree with you to an exponential degree but hey, you have the freedom to believe that. I wonder what your view would be if you didnt have that liberty.

This is something I hear fairly frequently. First of all, let me say that majority rule is certainly preferable to rule by a minority or an individual. But the only reason this is so is that we can be guaranteed, in a democratic system, that at least the liberty of the majority is not grossly violated. Even this minimal guarantee is not present in other systems.

However, we must be careful to make a distinction between what the majority wants and what is morally acceptable. Just because some particular law is acceptable to the majority does not automatically make it morally justifiable. If that were so, there would be no need for political discussion and debate. We would simply take a poll or vote on some issue and then rest assured that the correct decision had been made because it was "what the people wanted". The purpose of debate is to make an appeal to some shared fundamental values like liberty or equality, attempting to convince the opposing side that your solution is really more consistent with some set of values they claim to embrace.

The goal of libertarians (and everyone else who holds a minority opinion) is not to overthrow the democratic system and force their minority opinion upon others, but rather to reason with others and convince them that their opinions are inconsistent with the values they claim to embrace.

The tyranny of the majority is very real and very capable of causing great harm to large numbers of people. It is not a problem that should be quickly dismissed for lack of alternatives to the democratic process. The democratic process can very easily lead to a tyranny of the majority, but the problem is not with democracy itself. The problem arises when a majority maintains a belief that the purpose of government is to do what is in the best interest of the majority rather than to secure the liberty of all. The only solution to this tyranny is for a majority to truly value the liberty of others, even when such liberty is not in the majority's own interest.

A nation is not free simply because it has elected representatives or even because its people value their liberty. Rather, a nation is free only when its people value the liberty of others.



Morality is not determined by the democratic process. Morality is transcendant. It is very possible that society will pass laws that are immoral. This is why we have political debate: to seek truth about what is right and wrong. From the debates on drug laws I have been involved in, both on this site and elsewhere, I am convinced that rational people, when presented with both sides of the issue, will conclude that are drug laws are extremely harmful and immoral. Unfortunately, people are very reluctant to debate this publicly, as doing so has a tendency to quickly end political careers.

There is nothing wrong with democracy. There is something very wrong with the belief that morality is determined by majority vote. Libertarians seek (or at least they should seek) to work within the democratic process to convince the majority that some of their past decisions are immoral in an attempt to change the laws by legal means.

Which freedoms are those? This is why I have a problem with using blanket terms like "FREEDOM!". It's like the clones that always shout "FREE MARKETS!" as if we all know what you're talking about and we all agree that it is the best solution for all. When in fact the terms are really quite ambigous and mean different things to different people.



Why should you enjoy what I worked hard for? Isn't that the slogan of unions? Why should a CEO get billions for the work of thousands? But that's another topic for another time.

But you make my point for me. "FREEDOMS" always seem to have a drawback for someone else. Freedom to not work must be supported by others working harder. Freedom of a company to hire illegals equates to others bearing those costs.



Yeah, that's what I was implying, no freedom whatsoever.

I think RedCedar made a good point about libertarianism being able to "seep in" the American political system. The Libertarian Party may never be very large, but the libertarian philosophy can play an important role. There seems to be a strong undercurrent of libertarianism among us here at , for example. Sometimes it seems to me that the real divide between the left and the right among the members here is over which part of the libertarian philosophy is the most important.

It may be of use to notice that there is a philosophy in American politics which is at least as important as the libertarian philosophy. We might call this "populism." The typical American populist has no interest in liberalizing drug laws or legalizing same-sex marriage, but also has no interest in getting rid of government aid programs.

To answer the questions for debate:

1. The libertarian and populist philosophies are already important in American culture. Neither one is going to be completely dominant, so the question is how to keep them in balance.

2. Neither pure libertarianism nor pure populism is completely realistic for the average, middle class American. The very rich and powerful might be likely to be more libertarian in outlook; the very poor and weak might be likely to be more populist.

3. It is very hard to anyone, of any political philosophy, to overcome the Powers that Be. The best that we can hope for is to use friendly persuasion, and hope the Powers will listen.

Sure. Eventually there will be wide-spread backlash against the authoritarian actions of both parties. Don't confuse that with optimism...I have very little confidence in the electorate, however, eventually, a majority of the people in this country will become outraged, and when they do, the Libertarians will come off smelling like roses. Until then, you can always fake the end of your phone conversations to get Ned at the CIA to hang up first.

As Lederuvpac [Jeez, I leave for 2 months and come back to find you much more libertarian] said, libertarians value the rule of law and limited government, the same principles this country was founded on...what could possibly be more realistic than that?


Sit and wait, and watch the two major parties destroy themselves. It's already happening. People are sick of the Republicans but still see that the Democrats are complainers, not policy makers. Eventually people will start to think, "if only there was another party to vote for...wait a minute...." and then the libertarians are golden. Hopefully this will happen before I die.

CP

Morality IS defined by our democratic process. And our morality is defined via the rule of law.

There is nothing wrong with that. It's ESSENTIAL to our way of life. It's a lot fairer than a church or unelected judge deciding what is moral or not.

Rational people have heard the libertarian arguments in favor of drug legalization and have rejected them. But, libertarians don't want to hear that. Anarchism isn't democracy and it isn't condusive to the rule of law. Therefore, the more radical people who call themselves "Libertarians" but who are actually anarchists who flaunt the laws and do whatever they want, don't support our rule of law and therefore undermine our civilization.

You're free to advocate any position you wish. But Libertarians (and anyone else) crosses the line when they defy the laws that they don't agree with.

I don't have a problem with people advocating the Libertarian point of view (or any other). The problem arises when they ignore the results of our democratic process and believe that they are above the rule of law.

No civilization can survive that way.

Well lordhelmet, I'll continue this dance because this is my favorite song. If morality as you claim is determined by majority rule...what about our rights? Are our rights inalienable as Jefferson, Madison, and our Founding Fathers envisioned or are they given to use by government and majority rule? This a fundamental argument about conceptions of law. Positivism v. natural law theory. It appears that you are advocating that our rights are given to us by the government and that it is only the government that dictates what those laws are. I disagree. I tend to side with the likes of Jefferson in the belief that the rights which we have are inalienable and no government gives us rights because we have them regardless of whether or not government recognizes them.


To tell you the truth, I don't understand your outrageous claims that Libertarians are in any way law breakers. I mean that's a pretty blanket statement that I am pretty sure you cannot back up with any sort of fact or research so how about we drop it? Furthermore, once again nobody is advocating minority rule. Libertarians most certainly support majority rule because as the Founding Fathers believed, it is the only practical way to ensure democracy and freedom. However, the FFs believed in limits in the power that the majority and government could have. Libertarians are not anti-democracy in any way, shape or form. What they are for is the protection of civil liberties that not even a majority could break. They want to limit the powers that the government are allowed to exert because the eternal rule of government is that if you give the state the power to do good, you give it the power to do evil.

That would be horrifying if it were true. How does something magically become "right" if more people want it than not? Hitler was popularly elected. Most Americans supported slavery until the late 1800's...so let me ask you, was it moral before they decided it wasn't...and did it become immoral when most people thought it so? Of course not. Morality and majority or morality and democracy have absolutely not consequence on one another.


Wow. So which am I, LordHelmet? I'm a libertarian with no criminal record, no history of drug or alcohol use and a great respect for the rule of law. But how can that be, all libertarians are criminals and anarchists...There must be something else to me you're missing, right...I mean, otherwise, that enormous, offensive blanket statement might be wrong...Nah...


As far as I know, no libertarian here, nor the Libertarian Party has advocated ignoring laws...Only changing them. Besides which, we're talking about libertarianISM, the idealogy, which does not state that laws should be ignored...just changed. I suggest either back up these ridiculous generalizations with some fact, or stop painting hundreds of thousands of people with such a broad brush.

CP

Our rights ARE inalienable. And the restrictions on the government infringement of those rights is articulated in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Of course, we could have another discussion entirely on how valid that premise is today. Contrary to the statist views of the left, I agree with you that the government cannot "grant" rights since they did not possess that ability in the first place.

However, the fact remains that we have a process for determining what infringements are valid or not and that's via the judiciary branch. It's not a perfect system, but it's far better than an anarchistic system where everyone takes it upon themselves to decide which laws suit them and which don't.

I don't agree with most "gun control laws" since I believe that the second amendment is not about "hunting" or "target shooting" or any other such nonsense, but explicitly all about putting the means for self protection, from predators (human and otherwise) AND the government into the hands of the people. However, in spite of my views, I don't support those who illegal acquire fully automatic weapons, grenade launchers, and the like just because THEY don't like the laws.

I didn't declare that "Libertarians were all law breakers". I, myself, hold many Libertarian views.

However, you cannot deny that the most radical of the Libertarians do advocate the flaunting of laws, particularly when it comes to drugs.

Furthermore, the "inalienable rights" is not a blank slate where every individual has the right to decide which laws apply to them and which don't.

In other words, the practical implication of a statement like this:



which could be read to understand that you don't feel obligated to obey the laws that the government recognizes if you don't agree with them.

Clarify your position if you must.

You are following a number of misconceptions that I will try to address. First, as ConservPat pointed out, nobody is disobeying any laws because they find that the laws violate their civil liberties. If you would like to to take a ride over to Rikers Island and ask the inmates about libertarianism and natural rights, i'd say good luck because you wouldn't get what you are looking for.

Radical sects of every political ideology would advocate violence, militarism, and law-breaking. Libertarians are no different. But as a whole, libertarians advocate a change in the laws and having people realize the civil liberties that have been forfeited to the federal government. I have inalienable rights whether the government acknowledges that fact or not. If I choose to smoke marijuana its because I am making a conscious decision that I want to smoke it. The government may find me in the wrong, but that doesn't make me wrong. All it means is that the government is trying to regulate my behavior through the guise of the public good. I believe I have a right to my body and that the government should have zero say what I do with it because it's my property. If we are not able to govern ourselves, how can we be expected to govern others?

If you smoke pot, you should suffer the legal consequences. Our society, via our democratic and constitutional process has decided that the sale, possession, and use of illegal drugs is criminal. Just because "you" decide that it's "your body" doesn't mean that our rule of law should be abandoned because of you. It makes no difference whether one breaks the law consciously (i.e, on purpose) or not.

Can't you see where this leads? It isn't up to the individual to decide "which inalienable rights" the government can't infringe upon.

We have elected representatives, and the judiciary branch to handle that function.

And yes, the government tries to regulate your behavior. A regulated body of people is called a "civilization". An unregulated group of people, each of whom decide their own personal morality, is called an anarchist mob.

It would seem that my initial analysis of the modern Libertarian party is dead on, not a broad brush mis-characterization.

Once again you are misrepresenting my point. I am not saying that you should not face the legal consequences because as has already been established, if you have full knowledge of the law and choose to break it anyway, you are making a decision that acknowledges that you will accept the consequences of your actions. What I am saying is that it is a violation of my right to property (in this case my body) to prevent me from smoking pot. This is why libertarians are advocating a change in the law.

Technically, the government shouldn't be infringing on any inalienable rights. Natural Law clearly dictates which rights people have and should be protected. The right to govern one's body is essential. As long as my actions have no effect on a 3rd party, I should have the freedom to do with my body what I wish whether its shoot up heroin or take a nose dive from the top of the Empire State Building.

Government should not be in the business of regulating behavior that in no way harms others. If everyone went around doing whatever it is they feel like, murdering, stealing, exc...then yes that would be anarchy. But libertarianism isnt advocating that. What it is saying that you have a right to your body and you can do with it what you wish because government has no right to tell you what to do with it. Two of the limited roles of government is to protect people from foreign enemies and to protect people from eachother. If I am smoking pot in the sanctity of my own home not harming anyone...than the government should have no power.

LH, what are you talking about here? The Libertarian Party advocates the removal of these LAWS, through the LEGISLATIVE process. It does NOT call for the IGNORING of the laws. No matter how many times you say it, it still isn't true. The libertarians call for legal change through legal means. I can't say this any more clearly.


Right, because this, certainly isn't a broad generalization.

Lord Helmet, so far you haven't argued against anything that libertarians actually advocate. You're making a up a platfor consisting of ignoring standing drug laws and anarchy and then destroying that straw man. It's getting incredibly frustrating to continue telling you that what you're saying is simply untrue. Libertarians want to accomplish their platform [which includes removing drug laws] through legislative means, so to continue saying that they advocate ignoring the laws is simply dishonest.

CP

I'm not mis-representing your point. I'm pointing out the practical implication of it.



That's not exactly correct. Your dive may hit and kill an innocent bystander and your shooting up with heroin CERTAINLY fuels a large criminal underworld which is responsible for much death and destruction not to mention our country's resources.

What you're saying (and have been saying) sounds good in theory.

I'm concerned about the practical, and thus the realistic implications.

Libertarian philosophy is certainly elegant. It appeals to me on many levels. But that common sense meter that I have implanted in my brain just doesn't think that most of it would fly.

If you legalize drugs, the situation in our country would be worse, not better. It wouldn't become Amsterdam (which is a very isolated region in a small country in any event). It would become a huge problem that would eclipse the problem we already have with alcohol in this nation. What could we expect to see? Madison avenue PROMOTING pot and other drugs?



But who's to decide what "hurts others"? This is where your argument runs into a brick wall. It still comes down to the "individual" deciding what laws should or should not be obeyed.

Such a system cannot work and has never worked throughout history on any scale beyond a college-age commune (even that doesn't work).



If you ARE smoking pot in your own home, then you should suffer the legal consequences of such which could include your children being taken from you (if you have them).

Sorry if my views seem extreme. But without the rule of law, we really have nothing. And, I am sympathetic to the Libertarian cause even though I believe it can't work given the size and complexity of our civilization. I just see the downside of individual interpretation of, and compliance with our constitutionally defined legal process as being FAR more dangerous than someone taking away your "inalienable right" to get high smoking illegal drugs. Besides, if you want to get high, there are plenty of perfectly legal ways to do so.

You are misrepresenting my point by setting up a straw man with a foundation of maybes and assumptions. Your right, If i jump off a building, I COULD hit a person. If I shoot heroin I COULD commit a crime. But why don't we continue this line of logic? If the people are allowed to vote, they COULD vote in person who is bad for the country. If I am allowed to drive, I COULD mow down a pedestrian through an accident. If i am allowed to voice my opinion, I COULD say something hateful or offensive. Its a slipper slope. You are basing your viewpoints not on what will actually happen...but on what COULD possibly happen. That's weak.

When looking at the practical, realistic implications of libertarian philosophy, you must ask yourself one thing. Is freedom supposed to be easy or clean? Isn't the point of freedom supposed to be that it's hard? Dictatorships are easy. The dictator says whats what and it is done. Freedom is a concept that messes up the civility and order of society because the responsibility for conduct falls on the individual.

Your assessment that legalizing drugs will make our country worse is void of any historical or scientific fact. People who want to do drugs will do drugs. People who don't won't. If a person takes drugs, they will be responsible for their actions just as expect from people who drink. People should have the right to goven themselves whether or not you believe it contributes to the greater good.

Edit: Sorry forgot the rest


Well who's to decide what does hurt others? Obviously there is a reasonable method to judge whether or not one is directly affected by my actions. Smoking pot in my living room doesn't really affect my neighbor across the street. Mugging a pedestrian would most certainly directly affect a third party. Its not too difficult to assess unless you trying to stretch the test to what someone could possibly one day do.

What LH fails to grasp from what I am gathering from this thread is this:

Maximum amount of liberty, with the minimum amount of goverment interference. Liberty IS harmed when you can not walk safely down the street. So, safety is an essential liberty, to a degree. We want to minimize the goverment precense at the same time. So- a balance between warlords running the streets with no goverment interference and martial law by goverment forces needs to be struck.

LH lists himself as a conservative- some time ago- conservatives didn't like big goverment- now, this is no longer true- EXCEPT when interfering with Big Business- don't want ANY goverment control there LOL

So the libertarian's try to strike a balance that keeps the goverment out of others lives, yet doesn't allow your nieghbor to run rampant over your rights either "the rights of your fist ends at my nose" ideal.

So yes, the concept is quite clear- the goverment does not have a compelling interest of protection from harm from various "victimless" crimes.

The goverment has no business REGULATING marriage outside making sure, or arbitrating/mediating contracts between parties- just like with business- you can civilly sue someone for not following a contract, and there is only a few things that a party CAN NOT enter into in a contract- for instance, you can't sell yourself or your kids into slavery- the idea that selling human beings as property is not allowed- freedom being a larger "inalienable right" that trumps the right to a contract freely entered. (though some would say marriage is a type of slavery.... )

The goverment has no business regulating what you injest into your body- as long as the product is as claimed - i.e.- if the heroin is claimed to be 99% pure- well then, it better be 99% pure

Conservatism, as we know it today, has shifted to become less free than the hard core left of the 70s restrictions on business- it is an oppressive regime and ideology that discounts the freedoms of others for the right to not be offended- the rights are switched around in the libertarian view-

i.e.- my right to marry into a line marriage with several wives and husbands trumps your right to not be offended by this- unless you can prove a direct, and physcially harmful reason that it should not happen- i.e.- marrying into a large line marriage situation causes a meteor to drop out of the sky-

in all your "morality" arguments, it really boils down to "the majority of folks don't like that behavior, it offends us"- but can never, ever prove harm, just slippery slope and straw men arguments.

now- there are, in fact, extremists of the libertarian party that want to take govermetn to TOO SMALL an entity- where it is simply not powerful enough to protect the weak from the vagaries of the strong- one obvious to me, is the idea of the private police force- the profit motive and a police force just don't belong on the same mission!

But the "liberty" is the key word of the libertarian- niether of the "2 main parties" has any care whatsoever about general liberty and freedom, except for key components of thier constituents.

1. Can the Libertarian philosophy regain popularity in the USA?

Based on your opening post it appears that despite your use of the capital L, you're not referring to the libertarian philosophy as espoused by the Libertarian Party, but the philosphy of the republic's founders. Those are two different things, and it's important to maintain the distinction. And I believe it is possible for it to regain popularity. People even today generally respond quite positively to it when it's presented to them as a viable alternative. Even supposed bastions of leftism like Massachusetts can show surprisingly libertarian tendencies.

The main reason statist politicians are able to stay in power is that they're able to buy the votes of their constituents through pork-barrel spending. The voters in each district know that if they vote out a porker, they won't make their government any more libertarian (at least right away), but they will lose out compared to other districts. Essentially, they'll still get hit with the bill for the pork all the other districts receive, but won't get to partake of any of it themselves.

But present them with the opportunity of eliminating pork altogether and lowering their tax bill, and they could very well react differently.

2. Is the Libertarian philosophy realistic for the "masses" of people in our society.

Yes. Any addiction, including addiction to the social-entitlement mentality, is ultimately beatable.


Methinks, on the surface at least, that you were doing the same thing earlier in thread, in this post:


The impression I'm getting here is that you've set up a slippery slope whereby any deviation from (cap-L) Libertarian ideology puts us on the road towards slavery or something equivalent.

I didn't set up a slippery slope. I set up an extreme example whereby proving the point that majority rule can be tyrannical without the protections inherent with the Constitution and the belief in individual liberty. Without those rights being respected we might as well be a dictatorship because whatever the close majority wants, the majority will get even if it means trampling the rights of the minority.

My response to lordhelmet was due to the fact that his argument was based on a few baseless assumptions about what could possibly happen even though there is no evidence to suggest that his assumptions are correct. My argument is consistent because in both cases I advocate limiting the power of the government so that their decisions do not harm the rights of the individual even if the majority believes it to be "right".

OK, I'll accept your explanation. It looked like what you were saying could be interpreted more than one way, so I just wanted to be sure.

Nonetheless, I think lordhelmet's points about the potential consequences of certain actions and behaviors still deserve consideration. There comes a point where actions - such as jumping off a building or shooting up with heroin - do put others in danger. At what danger level it becomes appropriate for the state to intervene and disallow it is a judgment call, and not always a hard-and-fast rule. You yourself said earlier in the thread that you don't advocate legalizing private ownership of anti-tank guns and biological weapons, presumably because it involves a danger to others besides just the owner.

Blackstone- the area that Leder and I very much converge on is this- with the elimination of things like drug crimes and vice crimes- we can arrest those that commit violent crimes and use the resources for public safety more wisely.

If you believe in gun ownership by law abiding citizens- isn't the argument that all gun ownership should be taken away for the actions of the bad few? You assume that everyone that smokes pot or shoot heroin are automatcially going to commit crimes - the same as gun control advocates assume that everyone that has a gun is a potential columbine killer.

Libertarians believe in using the resources we have to punish the ACTUAL criminally damaging behavior instead of blanket/group punishment for crimes which have no demonstratable direct effect as a crime- i.e.- smoking pot does not automatically kill someone, any more than guns automatically are used in crime.

This may be a bit off topic, but i shall proceed. If the question is wheter we should favor tyranny of the minority or majority, i think most would agree that our system is designed to favor the majority position when issues conflict. That being said, the true question is what our system is designed to do when there is no conflict.

To rephrase economically, if there were issues regarding Pareto superiority or optimality, what would be the stance of our government. If one person were made better off, and none were adversley affected, should that one person be allowed to increase their utility.

The argument can be made that in the real world, nothing you do is isolated, and at least someone may be hurt by your actions, despite how minor this infringement may be.

As i said, this is probably a new topic, concerning economic affects of political decision making (and i will search for that forum), however, it is my understanding that the core belief of libertarians is that they are free to do whatever, as long as no other rights are infringed.

I can agree with this position. Our system favors the majority because as political philosophers such as John Locke proclaimed, it is the only practical way for a government to run. However it is my contention, and I think that libertarians will agree with me, that even though the majority opinion should be favored, we should create a situation where the decisions of the majority can in no way infringe on the rights of the minority. You do this by limiting the power that government as a whole has over the populace. This is achieved through seperation of powers, checks and balances, and finally through the democratic process of elected representatives.



This argument can be made. That as lordhelmet contended, shooting up heroin could make me more likely to commit a crime or that committing suicide may negatively affect the psyche of my friends and family. But here is where my contention lies. If you stipulate that nothing an individual does is isolated and that it one way or another hurts others...than this line of logic dictates that it is acceptable to regulate the behavior of individuals since those behaviors affect others. So to continue, my behavior which could be hazardous to others (albeit usually through a very liberal interpretation of circumstances) will need to be contained or prohibited under the guise that it is serving the public good.

It is my contention that this is a path towards totalitarianism. The regulation of behavior that directly affects only the individual is an infringement on that person's individual liberty. The question that needs to be asked is who decides what behaviors are acceptable and should be allowed? Is that not a moral judgment that is forced upon non-consenting individuals? You may see taking heroin as wrong, but what makes it wrong? Is it not just your opinion since "right" and "wrong" are subjective? Thus it is libertarian belief that what you think is wrong isnt what I think is wrong and as long as I am not harming another individual that I am perfectly within my right to take heroin.

It's you who's making quite the assumption by making that statement about me. How about responding to what I've actually written, instead of making up positions for you to shoot down?


So potential damage doesn't factor into the equation at all? No licenses necessary to fly helicopters over a city, for example? Or to operate a nuclear power plant?



It would only put us on a path towards totalitarianism if you assume that voters lack even a modicum of common sense, and wouldn't know when to say when. You could say that the risk of a heroin user committing a crime is too theoretical to justify passing a law against it, but I think I can confidently assert that it's many times more likely that a heroin user would commit a crime than that laws against heroin use would result in a totalitarian society.

You are confusing inalienable rights to person and privileges inherent in a free society. Nobody is contending that anyone has a right to fly a helicopter, run a nuclear power plant, or even drive a car. Those are privileges and not rights. The right to do what I wish with my property (e.g. my body) should not be regulated by government.



What exactly is "common sense?" Do tell. There is no set definition because it varies from person to person. That is due to the subjectivity of morals and behavior. My argument is not that voters lack reason. Its that absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you forfeit personal liberty, even with the best of intentions, you give the government a power over your life that should rightly reside with your own person. When the government denies me the right to shoot heroin, it is taking away my autonomy to make my own decisions about my body. It doesn't matter if I am 99% more likely to commit a crime while on heroin because it doesn't justify the infringement on liberty. And a word to the wise, the "facts" that supposedly link the use of drugs and the likelihood to commit a crime are either untrue or highly exaggerated. The burden of proof is on you. But anyway, allow me to pose a question or two. If you see taking heroin as wrong and worthy of outlawing, what other behaviors do you disagree with that you feel should be made illegal? How can you justify criminalization of this behavior and not others that you simply deem harmful? You think taking heroind is wrong and maybe you think promiscuity is wrong. Should that be regulated as well?

I've said it before and ill say it again...If you give government the power to do good, you give it the power to do evil. The only hope to ensure individual liberty is to limit the power by which government can control the lives of people. Once government starts to regulate behavior and what people can and cannot do (which in no way harms others) than it is infringing on our autonomy and will lead to the regulation or even medicalization (see Addiction debate) of our actions and we have then sacrificed our rights under the tempting guise of the public good. What the public good truly is, is whats good for the individual.

Except your car is your property. The principle is the same in both cases: it's a question of whether, or to what extent, the use of your property will endanger others.


At the beginning of your paragraoh you asked how the term "common sense" is understood. Here, I think you just answered your own question. By phrasing the above question the way you did, you implied (correctly) that attempting to crack down on "promiscuity" would not be terribly commonsensical, and most people would agree. That's what this debate really comes down to - whether or not the people can be expected to know when to say when. I think they can. I'm hard-pressed to think of a scenario whereby universally applicable, democratically enacted laws will lead to totalitarianism (unless they wreck the economy in some way; that's why economic libertarianism appeals to me). Certainly the totalitarian movements we've seen historically have not come about that way at all.

Usually it works in the opposite direction. The New England colonial laws started out strict, because they were founded by a specific religious sect operating in full fervor. But they mellowed out over time, without intervention by any sort of constitutional court, simply because the people lost their taste for that sort of thing.

Okay- let me break it down this way blackstone

1) Is smoking pot inherently dangerous to another person, so therefore, should be illegal
2) Is owning a gun, when used as intended, to kill, inherently dangerous to another person, so should be made illegal?

In case 1) we make a blanket law to cover anyone and everyone that smokes pot in the privacy of thier own home, despite the fact that teh overwhelming majority of those poeple will never commit any crime other that the pot smoking itself or, if we make not wanting to have a job a crime

Okay- if the above is true- shouldn't gun ownership be restricted the same way- there are far more deaths due to criminals using guns than criminals using pot!

Same could be said for herion, gambling and prostitution! In the case of prostitution- that is the most benign "sin" of all- 99.99999% of the problems associated with that are strictly because it is illegal! It is pretty clear that legal prostitution has nearly none of the issues that illegal prostitution has- STDs, Exploitation and white slavery- all which are outgrowths out of the very fact that they are illegal.

So what a libertarian says is this:

If you commit burglury- then you go to jail- that was an action that directly harms others
same with killing, fraud, etc

If you have a behavior that is merely distasteful, but doesn't cross the line into direct harm to others- then it should be legal- similar with Alcohol- it is perfectly legal to drink yourself to death in the privacy of your own home- but if you go out drinking, and kill someone else- you have crossed that line into harming others, and yes, should pay the price

A libertarian feels that rules for alcohol and cigarettes should be applied to herion, gambling, drugs of any kind, and prostitution (the last must be freely entered into of course, by a consenting adult)

YOu kill someone over a hooker, a gambling debt, or while on herion- you are charge