Rand Paul: Libertarian Republicanism

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Libertarianism only works in a utopian world.

You talk about freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone. What about the use of drugs? Roughly, 1 in 28 children in America have a parent incarcerated because of drugs. In a Libertarian world, is that person really free?

You've probably read John Adam's quote - "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people." The churches and other similar institutions are here to shape those lives. And, although, it's not the government's role to instill virtue or to be in the business of saving souls, it does have a role of sustaining the basic moral framework of society or it would collapse.

"Basic moral framework" fine. That is not in conflict with libertarianism. As for how drug using parents effect children, throw the book at those parents for abuse and neglect. With liberty comes responsibility, a tenet of libertarianism. Make dumb people pay for dumb decisions. If they choose drugs over their kids, take the kids and adopt them out to adults who will be responsible, loving parents. Outlawing drugs is not the answer. All the anti-drug laws have not stopped people from being stupid, neglectful parents.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Originalist

"Basic moral framework" fine. That is not in conflict with libertarianism. As for how drug using parents effect children, throw the book at those parents for abuse and neglect. With liberty comes responsibility, a tenet of libertarianism. Make dumb people pay for dumb decisions. If they choose drugs over their kids, take the kids and adopt them out to adults who will be responsible, loving parents. Outlawing drugs is not the answer. All the anti-drug laws have not stopped people from being stupid, neglectful parents.

If you don't want laws to outlaw drugs, how can you have a law to "throw the book" at someone violating a law?

What measure do we have to make liberty minded people responsible when everyone is doing "right in their own eyes"?

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

If you don't want laws to outlaw drugs, how can you have a law to "throw the book" at someone violating a law?

What measure do we have to make liberty minded people responsible when everyone is doing "right in their own eyes"?

The violation of the law would not be the drug use in and of itself but rather being a neglectful parent.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Originalist

The violation of the law would not be the drug use in and of itself but rather being a neglectful parent.

Okay, so if you don't have a law regarding drug use and abuse, what standing would you have, legally, as a neglectful parent in the case of drug abuse?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Libertarianism only works in a utopian world.

You talk about freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone. What about the use of drugs? Roughly, 1 in 28 children in America have a parent incarcerated because of drugs. In a Libertarian world, is that person really free?

First, we're talking about Republican Libertarianism. This means that each drug should be considered individually. For example, marijuana. Should people have their lives ruined with a record and possible prison time over smoking something that makes them giggle and get the munchies? Should cops have to occupy their time trying to capture these people? Remember, most libertarian minded people aren't focused on legalizing harder substances. We can legally buy beer, wine, tobacco, and liquor. The very same regulations can be in place for marijuana. Think of all the prescription medications out there. With disclaimers that have side effects that include blindness, lung failure, congestive heart failure, suicidal thoughts, in ability to operate heavy machinery, etc.. Is marijuana as bad as any of these?

To a libertarian minded person, substance abuse is a health issue... not a criminal issue. If one commits a crime while on a substance... the fact that they were under the influence of said substance can be added to the charge. For example, even if marijuana is legalized, it will be illegal to drive while under it's influence. Most businesses will also have work place standards wherein one cannot be under the influence while on the job. Legalization will decriminalize something that really isn't a public danger. Remember, the reason why the criminal element is so involved with marijuana is BECAUSE it is illegal. Decriminalization will decriminalize a large segment of our society, free up law enforcement resources, create a new market that generates revenue, and takes the substance out of the criminal sphere. For example, if you can buy a pack of "blunts" at UDF for $6 dollars... why would you seek out a dangerous dealer to buy them? Besides, he'd also have an inferior product grown in his basement. And once people start buying legally... the dealers will abandon the substance because it doesn't generate the revenue it once did.

Then consider it's medicinal use. Studies have shown that it relieves pain and stress relating to many maladies, including PTSD.

Most libertarian minded people would only legalize marijuana.

You've probably read John Adam's quote - "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people."

I do believe marijuana was legal in John Adam's time. As were many other things that are "illegal" today. Why do people assume that the society our Founding Father's lived in was like our own? It wasn't. In fact... a libertarian perspective would bring our culture back to the liberties they enjoyed in their day.

The churches and other similar institutions are here to shape those lives. And, although, it's not the government's role to instill virtue or to be in the business of saving souls, it does have a role of sustaining the basic moral framework of society or it would collapse.

That's a myth. Society wouldn't collapse. In fact, the GOVERNMENT and it's efforts to enforce various mores one society has done more to damage society than anything else. Consider Prohibition. The purchase, consumption, production of alcohol was prohibited. What was the result? It all went underground and became a criminal market. A market that gave birth to the Mafia and massive organized crime syndicates. People enjoyed their brandy. Government's prohibition ignited a crime wave that left many dead and incarcerated over what? Alcohol. Something perfectly legal today. When they lifted Prohibition... the criminal empires built around the production and sale of alcohol deflated and shrank to nothing. Having the GOVERNMENT try to establish and sustain the "basic moral framework" of our society caused total chaos. Not to mention... politicians, the wealthy, and those with connections never stopped enjoying their brandy. The Roosevelts always had some on hand in their lake house. It was a dumb idea. Essentially, the prohibition on marijuana has created a very similar social effect. The prohibition has ignited the underground network of dealers, suppliers, and the additional crimes that come along with it. Cops have been killed over a weed that makes you giggle and crave Doritos. Teenagers have been criminalized over it. Families have been torn apart as mom or dad has gone to prison for the purchase, sale, or production of a plant that makes you giggle and get the munchies. Frankly... it's plain dumb.

Now... the Government should protect life, liberty, and property. If someone is at home giggling and eating Doritos... smoking something they'd be smoking anyway if it were still illegal... how does it's legalization endanger my life, liberty, or property? The moment they try to drive... that endangers life, liberty, or property. So, like alcohol... those caught driving under the influence should be punished. But it should be the dangerous act that is illegal... not the substance.

[Aquila]

I believe that one can make a libertarian minded case against prostitution. I've thought about this one. Prostitution can contribute to the spread of disease and can result in unwanted pregnancies. Also, many drug syndicates run prostitution rings wherein the women are addicted to some hard substance and reduce themselves to being slaves for their fix. Therefore, it endangers life and liberty. So I can see prostitution remaining illegal. Now, in places like Nevada they have bunny ranches. I don't know about the background of those industries, so I can't really say if a similar model might provide some limited legalization on the state level.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

"Basic moral framework" fine. That is not in conflict with libertarianism. As for how drug using parents effect children, throw the book at those parents for abuse and neglect. With liberty comes responsibility, a tenet of libertarianism. Make dumb people pay for dumb decisions. If they choose drugs over their kids, take the kids and adopt them out to adults who will be responsible, loving parents. Outlawing drugs is not the answer. All the anti-drug laws have not stopped people from being stupid, neglectful parents.

Very true. The anti-drug laws have simple ignited a criminal underground, criminalized many adults who were just at home being silly, and cost law enforcement and others their lives. The drug war has been a total disaster. Frankly, if it truly were a war... we've lost. Most of us know tons of people who smoke weed. I'm not for the legalization of the harder stuff. But something has to give.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

If you don't want laws to outlaw drugs, how can you have a law to "throw the book" at someone violating a law?

What measure do we have to make liberty minded people responsible when everyone is doing "right in their own eyes"?

If a parent is neglecting their kids due to their alcohol abuse, society intervenes. And alcohol is perfectly legal.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Originalist

The violation of the law would not be the drug use in and of itself but rather being a neglectful parent.

Bingo... just like alcohol.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Okay, so if you don't have a law regarding drug use and abuse, what standing would you have, legally, as a neglectful parent in the case of drug abuse?

A parent who neglected their children due to their drug abuse would be treated the same way parents who neglect their children due to alcohol abuse.

Imagine a world wherein a pack of marijuana cigarettes is treated like a bottle of wine. You can buy it and drink it at home. You can order it in wine shops and drink it at tastings. But... you can't drive while under its influence. And if you have children under your care and you are under its influence... charges of negligence will be filed against you.