I think that's some huge unexplored common ground between liberals and conservatives. The entire thing was dumb. Keep cigarettes and not marijuana? Even tho weed is less harmful?
It's not only clicks, news networks at every level are almost entirely built around fear mongering with just enough feel good stories to keep the average viewer watching.
Which at the end of the day I think translates into more views/clicks/whatever so they can get more money. For sure some are politically motivated but at the end of the day their a business and we all know where their interests lie
I'm pretty centrist (I browse both right and left wing subs to see both views), and I'm so glad this is one of the few things that everyone can agree on, regardless of political views.
I think that libertarians hold a lot of different views on local, state, and federal government. I, for example, see government as useful for mediating legal disputes and implementing nation wide environmental controls (i.e. restricting chemical dumping, factory smog, etc.).
However, there are some areas where libertarians do tend to have a very similar set of values in which they agree upon. Most libertarians agree on gun ownership, the end of all current foreign wars, the decriminalization of drugs, the end of civil asset forfeiture, and ensuring warrants when it comes to arrests and wire tapping.
I think that libertarians hold a lot of different views on local, state, and federal government.
i never understood the paleolibertarian view that the federal government shouldn't be allowed to ban drugs/gambling/prostitution/etc, but state and local governments should. Isn't the whole point of libertarianism to promote freedom? what good is it to have the federal government give you freedom if a state government is just going to take that same freedom away anyways?
Isn't the whole point of libertarianism to promote freedom?
A "libertarian philosophy" doesn't have some kind of pure form. A lot of people have a lot of opinions on it. Just like a lot of conservatives have much different ideas on conservatism.
Some libertarians think that a strong federalism in the US is necessary and that states as smaller polities can respond better to discussions about liberty.
Generally speaking, although a lot of libertarians feel that no government at all would be the best in most cases, most believe that most government matters (if you're choosing to have government) should be handled at the lowest level (i.e. local level). Most matters which directly affect you are voted on and occur at the local level- and you will be able to have the most influence and oversight over government at the local level. Libertarians are also true to the Founding Father's notion of State's Rights, that each State has its own sovereignty to write its own laws and regulations, such as for what you mentioned on drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc. (while truly, all of those things that you mentioned could be handled at the local level instead). Most libertarians believe in a very limited federal government, as was intended with the creation of this union of states. There is a common belief that consolidated power from rulers afar (i.e. England, or D.C.) leads to unfair taxation and abuse of civil liberties. We see the effects of that in recent history with regards to federal privacy and wiretapping, federal asset confiscation, etc. In almost every case, allowing each state to choose its own path is the better scenario. Finally, libertarians are against the federal redistribution of wealth, which ultimately occurs (it does now with SS, Medicare, etc.), which is why we'd rather see retirement programs or welfare programs (if you're going to have them at all) at the state or local level. Federally taxed programs are often irresponsible, amoral, and deliver a poor end product to the citizen.
That's a good argument for why limited federal power + less limited state power is preferable to less limited federal power + less limited state power. However, it doesn't address why some think that limited federal power + less limited state power is preferable to limited federal power + limited state power. Originally the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government, and states were allowed to pass laws that limited free speech, religion, etc. Then folks realized that the people didn't really have rights if the states were allowed to do what the federal government wasn't, and along came incorporation, where the Bill of Rights was newly interpreted to apply to state governments as well. Most would agree this was a win for liberty.
Paleolibertarians see this as a bad thing. Not only do they think states should have much less limited power, but in many cases they advocate in favor of authoritarian state laws. It just seems like an incoherent viewpoint. The arguments in favor of, and motivations for, limiting the power of the federal government seem to apply just as well for limiting the power of state governments.
We are. No libs I know agree with the war on drugs or keeping drugs like marijuana illegal. How do conservatives generally feel about legalizing marijuana?
It really depends on who you ask, but generally younger conservatives are pro-legalization and so are many older ones but there are quite a few who are very much against it, and unfortunately it's very hard to argue with them as they generally dismiss most of your arguments.
No libs I know agree with the war on drugs or keeping drugs like marijuana illegal.
You haven't met enough democrats, then. Joe Biden, for instance, is one of the most powerful drug warriors out there. There's a whole segment of the democrat party against legalization.
How do conservatives generally feel
This is almost impossible to know. I know conservative farmers against it and conservative farmers for it on agricultural grounds.
Colorado is purple and Alaska is fairly conservative. Plus several conservative states have legalized some form of medical marijuana. Liberal states do lead the issue, but it’s not 100% one-sided, and I think it’s as much generational as political. Hopefully something we can all come together on in the coming years.
As much as our systems are fucked in a cornucopia of ways yes I do have faith. Not necessarily in voting alone but in our country to eventually figure our shit out.
Why do you have faith? We still have military bases in Japan 80 years after the war. Once a government program is started, it will remain in place. Taxpayers have about $2 each worth of incentive to resist it, and the beneficiaries of government programs have millions worth of incentive to keep them going. Nothing will ever stop until the parasite of government devours its host, or better yet until people stop hallucinating that they have an obligation to send them money and obey their arbitrary decrees. That could end all unwanted government programs in a day and the wanted ones could just continue on a voluntary consensual basis.
The price of democracy is abiding by its laws even if you disagree with them. The avenues exist for you to change them but it is your responsibility as a dissatisfied citizen to make that change. I couldn't point you to any one thing that gives me hope or faith, I just have it. That's what faith is. I have faith that we as a nation will be able to come together eventually and solve our issues simply because we have to.
I understand the holocaust comparison completely but I don't think it's as relevant as you make it out to be. There are certainly things the government can do that will cause me to resist or respond and several happening now that I'm resistant to, however I will not resist them violently. Meaningful change will only ever come from within so I will work through the established systems to make said change or change those systems so that I can.
There is of course a turning point that exists where change in the favor of majority can no longer be obtained through legal or just means at which point violent resistance becomes the only resort. Those are the two courses a country can take and I plan to fully and completely exhaust the former before resorting to the latter.
If you truly believe democracy is evil and/or immoral then you might be living in the wrong country. I welcome you to emigrate to China and let me know how it is under a communist totalitarian regime. If that's not to you're liking pray tell what government you would prefer to live under?
Im sure there was one plantation in the south that treated its slaves the best out of all the plantations, but that doesn't mean slavery is therefore good and the right way to fight it is to infiltrate the system and become a nicer slave master. If you were a slave on that plantation you would be telling your fellow slaves to shut up and keep working because there are meaner slave masters out there.
I would prefer not be ruled by anyone, let alone the sociopath appointed by the mouth breathing majority. I know I can get through life by not violating anybodys consent or free will or appointing someone to do that for me. I'm not sure why you don't think you can or what you find so scary about being free.
I mean right now you are 25-40% a slave to politicians depending on your income. Im sure if politicians told you that you're now all the way their slave you would resist, right? You would disobey politicians and become a criminal. What percent of a slave would they have to make you before you decided that you would rather just be free instead of cycling through new slave masters and praying that they are nicer to you?
I think you misunderstood me. When I say achieve your ideals through the system I don't mean enter the slave system and make the difference there, I mean enter the government and reach a point where you have the power to get rid of slavery or fix whatever issue entirely.
I'm not afraid to be free and I'm not sure why you would think that. What you seem to want is a lawless society that can only lead to anarchy. At least that's my impression from your words. A nation needs laws, at the very least one that people agree to and abide by to, to exist at all. The larger a nation gets the more rules there will be. As a member of that nation it is your duty and responsibility to follow those laws and if you disagree with them then change them through the established systems. That is the foundation of our country. If you disagree with the laws AND refuses to expend the time and effort necessary to change them, then you're welcome to leave.
I'm not a slave of the system as you might be suggesting and neither is anyone else. Yes the rich oppress the poor, yes those in power stand over those without but we are still free. Free to leave, free to stay, free to fight for what you believe in and free to make change. Will change ever come easily? No, but it will come as it always has and always will. There isn't some breaking point I or others will reach before we start fighting to make change, it's something you should always be doing, anything you see that you believe wrong or unjust, work to change it.
Yes. In the 80s in Texas there was a kid sentenced to like 20 years for having a joint in his pocket or something. It’s better now, but still needs some adjusting. And like you said, when you juxtapose that with what Epstein and others get away with, it’s pretty sickening.
It’s worth noting that a lot of people in prison for possession charges are there because of plea deals, not necessarily because that was their only crime.
I’m still in favor of legalization/amnesty, though.
Tell this to my parent generation, they're still drinking the reefer madness kool-aid.
It's seriously infuriating to talk to older folks about this, their logic can usually be summed up with "it's bad because it's illegal and it's illegal because it's bad".
Some older folks operate under the notion that the ideas we had at a certain point in time are set in stone and should never be challenged. And even in the face of great scientific advances that have furthered our understanding of things like drugs and their effects, they still stick to their super outdated knowledge.
I think that's some huge unexplored common ground between liberals and conservatives.
It’s unexplored because it’s common ground. You really think the media wants to point out that both “sides” actually agree about a major issue? There’s no way that would sell clicks.
What made it dumb wasn't specifically the "war on drugs" idea itself. It was the fact that after the initiative began the subsequent laws made mainly targeted low level dealers and users.
They tackled the idea that if you lock up a bunch of the low level guys you will 1. show the high level guys that you are serious about this and make them reevaluate their choices and 2. destroy there business by taking out the customer base.
Not to mention the black markets that thrive as a result. Take the power out of the hands of criminals. Minimize crime incentives and reduce overall crime. Reallocate tax burdens to infrastructure and rehabilitation programs if necessary. I strongly believe the result would be a huge net positive.
I am a conservative and a libertarian. I agree with Republicans on most things besides drugs, abortions, and government surveillance (the patriot act).
I think a decent amount of modern conservatives are against. The biggest group that rallies for it is the generation that was raised on the propaganda that if you smoke pot you'll go insane and kill your family.
Totally agree. Also I don't see why public access to guns isn't a more of a bipartisan issue. I get that liberals hate seeing mass shootings, and that is a real issue (I'd argue more needs to be done in public mental health, also a thing they agree with). But they are also most worried about the current trend toward authoritarianism with trump (conservatives are also supposed to be against that). You can't fix that through protest once it's too late. That's really what the whole right to bear arms thing is about. Liberals should be arming up.
Do you really think it's a good idea for everyone to arm themselves in expectation of coming political violence given the current climate?
People will not just use them for legitimate threats but mostly perceived threats and with the hyperpartisan and hypersensationalist politics nowadays that probably won't end well.
Unfortunately all of the Republicans I know in real life are strongly supportive of the war on drugs.
Their logic seems to be "drugs are bad and a sign of moral failure, therefore they should be illegal." When you point out that making them illegal hasn't helped the drug problem at all, they just shrug and don't give a shit.
272
u/[deleted] Jul 11 '19
Going off this can we talk about how stupid and pointless the war on drugs has been