Nah, I'm just saying it's not uncommon among the libertarians I've met .. there are some less-crazy ones ... some don't go as far as saying we should re-institute slavery, but ... for real a lot of them are way out there on the individualism scale.
yea, and they're oddly aligned with the far-left in places like Oregon, and look at how great things have turned out there. 🙄
I think most libertarians are good, well-intentioned people with a five year old's understanding of how the world actually works. They don't understand their world view only works if 95% of the world are good actors.
@CONSERVATARIAN clearly all drugs should be legal. I understand thinking that could solve everything else. I disagree with them, it didn't work in the hippie communes 60 years ago and I have no reason to believe government approval would it any better. #JesusRevolution
@gnu2 I don't think all drugs should be legal. But I also agree govt fs up everythjng they touch. Also, don't think people should be incarcerated for using them. Although, some addicts I know tell me prison saved their life because was only way for them to get sober.
@djsumdog@CONSERVATARIAN@gnu2 “"No!" Some soft-hearted visionaries will say: "No, it is possible! Possible by means of the ultimate perfection of humanity."
Is it necessary to point to the sentimental folly of this view? He who would found his hope for improved conditions on the ultimate perfection of humanity would indeed be relying upon a Utopia!” https://www.gutenberg.org/files/25282/25282-h/25282-h.htm
The trouble is you look at Oregon and their mass de-criminalization of everything (including heroin) has made all their cities and even towns/outlying areas totally unlivable. There are people who really are too stupid to self regulate and they simply don't die off fast enough for the problem to fix itself.
So maybe we're missing the other libertarian piece of this, which is to deny all public services and health to the drug addicts if they can't pay their own way? At least they'd die off faster. I still don't feel like that would be enough.
Going further on with Oregon, I was visiting a friend yonks ago and her husband's aunts were visiting from waaay out. They said even with farm permits, there was organized crime and shake down for licensed weed growers. You could report it to the sheriff because they were part of the shakedown and taking a cut.
Oklahoma voted against full legalization of cannabis because of all the issues (including organized crime) they've had with medicinal legalization. In Illinois, they scan your drivers license at dispensaries and transmit that data to all others in their chain for buying/daily limits. They claim the data is deleted daily, but you can never trust them. Once again, I guess the more libertarian approach (remove limits for stores so they're not required to track) would work out better, except it would create massive demand as people would smurf around stores to traffic out of state (like they do in Colorado).
..and I smoke a lot of weed, but I still see that this isn't a cut and dry issue. It's not all "just legalize it and you solve problems," because it really just creates an entirely different set of problems.
@djsumdog@CONSERVATARIAN@gnu2 Oregon didn't legalize drugs, they decriminalized a small amount. Meaning drugs are still contaminated in the hands of criminals who are still reaping the profits instead of legal entities. Now cannabis profits go to law abiding citizens instead of drug cartels.
In some countries they just give addicts heroin in a clinic, that way drug dealers aren't fighting over profits and the addicts aren't injecting rat poison sold as cocaine.
@djsumdog@CONSERVATARIAN@gnu2 "Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer." https://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/sense2.htm#google_vignette
Look I agree large states are bad, and smaller states are .. marginally better .. but you have to have a state to get to where we are. Large scale technology, interoperability standards, roads, economies of scale .. they all depend on States. A small nation of anarchists are not going to maintain roads, and they certainly aren't going to build airports.
I stand by my previous statement about libertarians and a child's understanding of the world ... and that's okay. That's even good. We need more people with child-like faith. That gives us hope for a better future. You keep doing you and spreading your message. It'll just be tempered by all the realists and pragmatic people in the world, who will continue to spoon feed you and the commies at the kiddie table while the adults do their thing.
((( CHURCH ))) ((( STATE ))) ((( CORPORATIONS ))) ((( CENTRAL BANKS)))
You would no longer have tax cattle funded
Multi culturalism Diversity Inclusion LGBT Tranny story hour gender mental illness Anti Ethnic Nationalism Anti Goyim Anti White Cuckservitism Liberalism Feminism womens 'rights'
They're cowardly, dwarfish imbeciles, puffing themselves up by invented, neon lore. Tell us we're stupid, cowardly, and have no heart- we're 'just a little girl'- who needs them.