Comments on: To Raimondo and Barr: Legalize It! http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/04/14/to-raimondo-and-barr-legalize-it/ Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:15:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Brian N. http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/04/14/to-raimondo-and-barr-legalize-it/#comment-150195 Brian N. Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:59:53 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4281#comment-150195 One must, ever carefully, weigh the contrarian spirit against the importance of not being rash. For now, I'll assume that's what Raimondo did; wrote something rash. One must, ever carefully, weigh the contrarian spirit against the importance of not being rash. For now, I’ll assume that’s what Raimondo did; wrote something rash.

]]> By: brian http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/04/14/to-raimondo-and-barr-legalize-it/#comment-150131 brian Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:48:15 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4281#comment-150131 absolutely! i would want any nasty brown people crossing an imaginary line into "our" country! brown folks are what they make bombs for. here's an article that shows how the fence will keep 'em out: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5693569.html absolutely! i would want any nasty brown people crossing an imaginary line into “our” country! brown folks are what they make bombs for.

here’s an article that shows how the fence will keep ‘em out:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5693569.html

]]> By: Molly http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/04/14/to-raimondo-and-barr-legalize-it/#comment-150039 Molly Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:17:40 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4281#comment-150039 The Monroe Doctrine has been revised for the 21t century...it now includes the entire world, not just the Western Hemisphere. As for the original comment in this thread...I suppose less evil is better than more evil, but what's wrong with no evil at all? Asking the U.S. to put an end to <i>most</i><i> of its imperialist tendencies is like asking a heroin addict to simply try to cut his habit by 75% a day. And since when is any sort of imperialism "reasonable"? How valuable does a region have to be to justify its oppression? And as for a fluently Spanish America which gives our southern neighbors an equal share in enterprise...get real. Economic and cultural integration was not the goal of the original Monroe Doctrine--it was exploitation.</i> The Monroe Doctrine has been revised for the 21t century…it now includes the entire world, not just the Western Hemisphere. As for the original comment in this thread…I suppose less evil is better than more evil, but what’s wrong with no evil at all? Asking the U.S. to put an end to most of its imperialist tendencies is like asking a heroin addict to simply try to cut his habit by 75% a day. And since when is any sort of imperialism “reasonable”? How valuable does a region have to be to justify its oppression? And as for a fluently Spanish America which gives our southern neighbors an equal share in enterprise…get real. Economic and cultural integration was not the goal of the original Monroe Doctrine–it was exploitation.

]]> By: liberranter http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/04/14/to-raimondo-and-barr-legalize-it/#comment-150035 liberranter Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:39:28 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4281#comment-150035 Perhaps I should be concerned that the LP has chosen Bob Barr, a man who has in the past demonstrated an enthusiasm for drug war aggression equal to that of his Demopublican/Republicrat peers. However, since the LP long ago ceased to be libertarian (small "l") in fact and deed in order to obtain mainstream acceptance among the herds of voting sheeple (who already have the Demopublican/Republicrat party representing the mainstream and thus don't need the corrupt LP alternative), it really doesn't matter. The LP is going nowhere, fast, precisely because it panders to the mainstream by accepting as candidates pseudo-libertarians like Barr who, to my knowledge, has never publicly renounced his love for the tyrannical war on drugs and who, like his Demopublicans/Republicrats appears enamored of foreign intervention. Let the LP and Barr waste their time and money pretending to be a principled opposition party if that's their goal. They won't fool real libertarians, nor are they likely to get many of their votes. Perhaps I should be concerned that the LP has chosen Bob Barr, a man who has in the past demonstrated an enthusiasm for drug war aggression equal to that of his Demopublican/Republicrat peers. However, since the LP long ago ceased to be libertarian (small “l”) in fact and deed in order to obtain mainstream acceptance among the herds of voting sheeple (who already have the Demopublican/Republicrat party representing the mainstream and thus don’t need the corrupt LP alternative), it really doesn’t matter. The LP is going nowhere, fast, precisely because it panders to the mainstream by accepting as candidates pseudo-libertarians like Barr who, to my knowledge, has never publicly renounced his love for the tyrannical war on drugs and who, like his Demopublicans/Republicrats appears enamored of foreign intervention. Let the LP and Barr waste their time and money pretending to be a principled opposition party if that’s their goal. They won’t fool real libertarians, nor are they likely to get many of their votes.

]]> By: Piers http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/04/14/to-raimondo-and-barr-legalize-it/#comment-150026 Piers Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:12:09 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4281#comment-150026 I'm all for taking "steps against serious mind and body destroyers that enslave a significant portion of their users." Yes, the consumption of statist propaganda could be significantly curtailed if federal monopoly laws were used to break up the big media companies. The only things mind and body destroying about drugs are fear-the-substance disinformation and black-market-induced violence. I’m all for taking “steps against serious mind and body destroyers that enslave a significant portion of their users.”

Yes, the consumption of statist propaganda could be significantly curtailed if federal monopoly laws were used to break up the big media companies.

The only things mind and body destroying about drugs are fear-the-substance disinformation and black-market-induced violence.

]]> By: Brad Smith http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/04/14/to-raimondo-and-barr-legalize-it/#comment-150024 Brad Smith Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:25:36 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4281#comment-150024 The war on drugs would be a joke if it wasn't destroying lives. It makes about as much sense as the war on Terror. Terror doesn't die or go to jail people do, same thing for drugs. I once read an article titled something like why I hate your politics. The guy hated Dems because they spend and Rep's because they control. But what really got me was his arguement against the Libertarian ideas. He said all you Libertarians want is legal drugs and prostitution. but would you really want your daughter selling crack on the street for a blow job? My first thought was of course not, but would I want her further victimized by being arrested? That's the problem with drug laws they further victimize the victims. I don't advocate anyone taking drugs prescription illegal or otherwise (and of course it's none of my business anyway). However, laws are not the answer freedom is. The laws we have further the problem and do nothing to help. As for the Bob Barrs of the world. All I can say is that we can't keep drugs out of Maximum Security Prisons how the hell do you think we can keep them out of the US, Turn us into a Maximum Maximum Security Prison? Has this guy ever heard of market economics? I could go on and on and on and on but whats the point you either get it or you don't. Peace! The war on drugs would be a joke if it wasn’t destroying lives. It makes about as much sense as the war on Terror. Terror doesn’t die or go to jail people do, same thing for drugs. I once read an article titled something like why I hate your politics. The guy hated Dems because they spend and Rep’s because they control. But what really got me was his arguement against the Libertarian ideas. He said all you Libertarians want is legal drugs and prostitution. but would you really want your daughter selling crack on the street for a blow job? My first thought was of course not, but would I want her further victimized by being arrested? That’s the problem with drug laws they further victimize the victims. I don’t advocate anyone taking drugs prescription illegal or otherwise (and of course it’s none of my business anyway). However, laws are not the answer freedom is. The laws we have further the problem and do nothing to help. As for the Bob Barrs of the world. All I can say is that we can’t keep drugs out of Maximum Security Prisons how the hell do you think we can keep them out of the US, Turn us into a Maximum Maximum Security Prison? Has this guy ever heard of market economics? I could go on and on and on and on but whats the point you either get it or you don’t.

Peace!

]]> By: abraham http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/04/14/to-raimondo-and-barr-legalize-it/#comment-150019 abraham Tue, 15 Apr 2008 08:04:17 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4281#comment-150019 Tim R., I totally agree. And after it's up, we should throw you over it. Tim R.,

I totally agree. And after it’s up, we should throw you over it.

]]> By: R. Nelson http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/04/14/to-raimondo-and-barr-legalize-it/#comment-150016 R. Nelson Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:20:11 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4281#comment-150016 If I had to choose between a nation of doddering drugheads or a despotic government that shatters our rights in order to monitor "controlled substances," I'd almost surely choose the former. Already in my lightly populated, rural region, jails and prisons spring up like mushrooms to house drug convicts. The tax burden is enormous, let alone other malicious side-effects. But you have to wonder. Granted that the stories of methamphetamine addiction stories are probably over the top, it does seem that a substance (your choice) that could incapacitate society would be one that that society might want to keep a short leash on. Self-survival is the first law of nature, as even America's founders agreed. This means that there's the possibility that society might want to avert its own suicide, even if it's voluntary. Of course there are serious problems with this view: it means government, with or without majority consent, could do what is necessary to stop use of whatever substance is in question, and that power is always and everywhere liable to abuse. Still, the gonzo war on drugs we suffer under now has only been around 25 years or so, so we know that overbearing government interference in this area is not a given. It was otherwise for most of American history, so there is a third way. I think Raimondo draws a useful distinction between soft and hard drugs. Go to jail for marijuana? Ridiculous. But take steps against serious mind and body destroyers that enslave a significant portion of their users, as China did long ago against opium? That shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Some years ago it was James Wilson, I think, who wrote that certain areas of the country should be completely open to any kind of drug use. If you wanted that freedom, you could move there. If you didn't or didn't want to share what he thought would be consequently wasted living zones, you didn't move there. 'Twould be an interesting experiment. If I had to choose between a nation of doddering drugheads or a despotic government that shatters our rights in order to monitor “controlled substances,” I’d almost surely choose the former. Already in my lightly populated, rural region, jails and prisons spring up like mushrooms to house drug convicts. The tax burden is enormous, let alone other malicious side-effects.

But you have to wonder. Granted that the stories of methamphetamine addiction stories are probably over the top, it does seem that a substance (your choice) that could incapacitate society would be one that that society might want to keep a short leash on. Self-survival is the first law of nature, as even America’s founders agreed.

This means that there’s the possibility that society might want to avert its own suicide, even if it’s voluntary. Of course there are serious problems with this view: it means government, with or without majority consent, could do what is necessary to stop use of whatever substance is in question, and that power is always and everywhere liable to abuse.

Still, the gonzo war on drugs we suffer under now has only been around 25 years or so, so we know that overbearing government interference in this area is not a given. It was otherwise for most of American history, so there is a third way. I think Raimondo draws a useful distinction between soft and hard drugs. Go to jail for marijuana? Ridiculous. But take steps against serious mind and body destroyers that enslave a significant portion of their users, as China did long ago against opium? That shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.

Some years ago it was James Wilson, I think, who wrote that certain areas of the country should be completely open to any kind of drug use. If you wanted that freedom, you could move there. If you didn’t or didn’t want to share what he thought would be consequently wasted living zones, you didn’t move there. ‘Twould be an interesting experiment.

]]> By: tesla http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/04/14/to-raimondo-and-barr-legalize-it/#comment-150014 tesla Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:34:13 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4281#comment-150014 Personally, I wonder about the values of anyone who says he is "very happy" that Americans (or any other mass population) "will finally get their just desserts." Who decides what is just? What sort of mindset gleefully anticipates and pictures any mass population - which necessarily includes the poor, the innocent, the weak - getting their doors kicked in, living in fear, forced into prostitution, except one that holds himself as so superior that he is certain he would be excluded, or is so full of self hate he thinks he deserves it? This is the sign of a sick and suffering mind deserving to be pitied. I must wonder about the values of someone who could "Grin" at the thought of the injustice of such collective punishment. That is how Iraq got to where it is today, as in Palestine and any number of other horror hot spots on the earth. Grinning at that is an attitude worthy of a George Bush, is certainly no better than him, is contrary to common decency and Libertarian values (at least as I understand them) and merely repeats the abuse, accomplishing nothing except to feed sick egos and continue the cycle of abuse. And how would Americans be singled out from the innocent foreigner in the wrong place at the wrong time? Does one innocent more or less not matter? By what standard do the Americans who work on this website, who read and believe in the values of this website, who work to further the ideas here deserve such punishment? And the "just desserts" - the punishment itself, or even this attitude, helps - what? Personally, I wonder about the values of anyone who says he is “very happy” that Americans (or any other mass population) “will finally get their just desserts.” Who decides what is just? What sort of mindset gleefully anticipates and pictures any mass population - which necessarily includes the poor, the innocent, the weak - getting their doors kicked in, living in fear, forced into prostitution, except one that holds himself as so superior that he is certain he would be excluded, or is so full of self hate he thinks he deserves it? This is the sign of a sick and suffering mind deserving to be pitied.
I must wonder about the values of someone who could “Grin” at the thought of the injustice of such collective punishment. That is how Iraq got to where it is today, as in Palestine and any number of other horror hot spots on the earth. Grinning at that is an attitude worthy of a George Bush, is certainly no better than him, is contrary to common decency and Libertarian values (at least as I understand them) and merely repeats the abuse, accomplishing nothing except to feed sick egos and continue the cycle of abuse. And how would Americans be singled out from the innocent foreigner in the wrong place at the wrong time? Does one innocent more or less not matter? By what standard do the Americans who work on this website, who read and believe in the values of this website, who work to further the ideas here deserve such punishment? And the “just desserts” - the punishment itself, or even this attitude, helps - what?

]]> By: Eugene Costa http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/04/14/to-raimondo-and-barr-legalize-it/#comment-150013 Eugene Costa Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:34:35 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4281#comment-150013 Revised Monroe Doctrine? For the 21st Century? Revised Monroe Doctrine? For the 21st Century?

]]> By: Eugene Costa http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/04/14/to-raimondo-and-barr-legalize-it/#comment-150012 Eugene Costa Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:31:47 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4281#comment-150012 corr: "one has never" corr: “one has never”

]]> By: Eugene Costa http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/04/14/to-raimondo-and-barr-legalize-it/#comment-150011 Eugene Costa Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:30:44 +0000 http://www.antiwar.com/blog/?p=4281#comment-150011 My dear fellow: (1)I am not aiming to convince you or anyone else. (2)one has no idea what you are talking about in relation to "conspiracy theories". (3) You use the word "atheist"--you will have explain what you mean. (4) The New Testament is written in Koine--you might trying reading it some time. (5) You might also try actually reading Rousseau, Tacitus' Germania, and Mircea Eliade's Cosmos And History--those three make an interesting triple play. (6) Arguments defined as facts "others already believe" is an intriguing contortion one would not have thought of using to define argumentum ad populum (7) One have never met "the public mind"--care to give out the whole poop before returning to the Atelier des Solipsistes? My dear fellow:

(1)I am not aiming to convince you or anyone else.

(2)one has no idea what you are talking about in relation to “conspiracy theories”.

(3) You use the word “atheist”–you will have explain what you mean.

(4) The New Testament is written in Koine–you might trying reading it some time.

(5) You might also try actually reading Rousseau, Tacitus’ Germania, and Mircea Eliade’s Cosmos And History–those three make an interesting triple play.

(6) Arguments defined as facts “others already believe” is an intriguing contortion one would not have thought of using to define argumentum ad populum

(7) One have never met “the public mind”–care to give out the whole poop before returning to the Atelier des Solipsistes?

]]>