“I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence.” - Frederick Douglass
It's encouraging to see young people caring about this. It's also refreshing to see a (somewhat) racially diverse crowd at the conference. Sometimes I grow concerned, that more minority individuals don't seem to care about getting involved in movements like this - it makes me worry that perhaps so many of them are wrapped up in racial grievance-mongering, that they're missing out on what it means to be free. Case in point - the ceaseless (and false) observation by the media in 2010 that the Tea Party movement is "all white."I've often shied away from the word "libertarian", even if I concur with its ideas, at least when referenced with a capital L. Why? Because my impression is that many of those who use the label simply want drug legalization (especially pot) without caring about any of the other (legitimate) concerns about unnecessary government interference in our lives.Ann Coulter once voiced similar misgivings, and I think she was on to something.
It's an unfortunate consequence of language (at least colloquially) that liberal doesn't mean liberal any more, nor does libertarian mean libertarian.That said, if Ann Coulter wants liberty, she's going to have to come to terms with people smoking pot, eating trans fats, and all sorts of behavior she might not like.
Well, Ann Coulter could certainly use a few trans-fats, and I'm not all that sure she wouldn't be on the legalization bandwagon. I know she's a Grateful Dead fan, and if she's been to a concert she's certainly been around it.Personally, I think cocaine should be legal, but that doesn't mean I'd touch the stuff.Hard core libertarians definitely have the right ideas -- but they need to understand we'll never be "there". We need to move toward there, for sure, and quite a ways. But not overnight.Jeffmon put it very well a while back.
I've never heard Coulter say a word about trans-fats or "other behavior she might not like." (I imagine, if anything, she'd be *against* this trans-fat nonsense.) Not to open a can of worms, but...Her argument against drug legalization (she didn't say which one) is that in this country, people use illicit drugs, then become incapable of parenting their kids or holding a job. In both cases, the state has to step in, at our expense. As she put it, "Back on Earth, you see, we live in a country that doesn't allow people to take responsibility for their actions." Legalization would make these issues worse, she said.And you have to admit she's got something there. Remember the original argument for helmet laws for motorcycle riders? Head injuries incurred in motorcycle crashes were being treated at public expense...so the public had a right to "do something" about the behavior causing those injuries. At least that's the way I remember the rationale.Ann also pointed out that the recreational substances already legal have caused untold damage to society - everything from DUI-related traffic fatalities to lung cancer treated at government expense...and that this wasn't a good argument for expanding the smorgasbord of available recreational substances.I wish I could find the original column in which she said all this (it's several years old) but you get the gist of it.Unfortunately, the drug-legalization thing really is the major split between libertarians and other conservatives, I think.
Post a Comment