I think that Placer county, Gov. Schwarzeneggar, and the Federal Government owes Mr. Kubby an apology, restitution, and that the War on Drugs be put to an end. We should recruit those who got their lives ruined by the 2005 hurricanes, victimless crime legislation, and bureaucratic failure. Plus, educate as many people as we can about the Constitution (as well as the Declaration of Independence), the Founding Fathers, and most importantly, the Bill of Rights.

I agree, totally egregious. Having said that...

Who the hell cares? Is this a major issue? Is it likely to get citizens up in arms, or draw attention to Libertarianism? What is the purpose of this blog anyway? Is it just to whine about random things the government does, or is it to advance this movement and party? If the former, you're doing a great job. If the latter, I can come up with a few better issues than some pot smoker getting arrested.

It can be a big issue. The FedGov indirectly murdered Peter McWilliams in a similar situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_mcwilliams

I've posted a video on this featuring Peter McWilliams giving his speech at the 1988 LP National Convention courtesy of petermcwilliams.org.

http://libertyforsale.com/2006/01/28/peter-mcwilliams-on-medical-marijuana/

What many seem not to accept, are consequences exist when apprehanded in violation a law. While some uneven enforcement exists in the justice system, law enforcement is tasked to enforcement without regard to status, station or cause. Although Mr. Kubby draws public attention to a legal behavioural restriction many do not support unless and until the majority of the general public demands a repeal of that restriction it stands and violation has serious consequences. Better to abuse, if one must, a legal substance and keep life less complicated and out of the court records.

I agree with Anonymous...and I disagree with Anonymous (1/27/06)

Using medical marijuana as a upfront issue will just fuel the critics who stamp us as a 1-issue party (opposition to the war on drugs.)

Don't get me wrong -- I agree that medical marijuana should be legal for cancer and AIDS patients...but we need to focus primarily on issues that affect the average American: education, social security, taxes, healthcare.

On the other hand, the death of any innocent person (such as Mr. McWilliams) is horrible and I feel that it was beyond cruel and cold-hearted to deny him medical marijuana. I thought the government was supposed to protect our rights (such as our right to life and liberty)...not infringe on them.

This IS a big issue. Even wikipedia is picking up on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Kubby. And so what if LP involvement fuels any critics who can label us a "1-issue party"? We're demonized for so many things already, but people are still interested in what we have to say. Besides, I'd rather people get the idea that we're a 1 issue party than either a)not know anything about us or b) think we're a bunch of spineless cranks who won't stand up for one of our own when he is attacked by the gov. If we put politics ahead of a good man's life, how can we call ourselves the Party of Principle?

Anyway, trying to end the war on drugs will probably gain us more support than most other issues we could emphasize. For the LP to lay low on this would be neither morally nor politically sound.

I try to post on this blog but can never make it past the filter. I'm giving up.

To those who think that this issue is "not that big of a deal".

Try telling that to the 800,000+ "pot prisoners" in this country.

As far as the "average citizen", this one issue affects every single "average citizen" in the world, not just us U.S.

The war on drugs is a primary issue. Until our Gov. stops the "Witch Hunts" we'll never be free, and liberty is just a dream.

I was the anonymous poster. Anyway, marijuana is not an issue that will inspire many Americans toward Libertarianism. Most people don't smoke pot, most people don't care about pot, and I don't blame them. One poster said that he would rather us be labelled a 1 issue party than have people not know who we are. Well, if we are labelled as a marijuana party, then people still don't know who we really are. Some of the problems the LP has are 1) lacking membership, 2) lacking funds, 3) lacking broad-based appeal. Why is that? Our message should appeal to alot more people than are in the party right now. There are millions of fiscal conservatives out there who want smaller government, states rights, less spending, etc., but they aren't becoming Libertarians, because either they haven't heard of us, or because they mentally associate Libertarians with marijuana and other fringe issues.

Of course I believe marijuana and all other drugs should be legal, medical or not, but that doesn't mean this is smart strategy. One poster said we need to stand up for our fellow citizens who have been oppressed by the government. But there are thousands of ways this happens every day. We only have so many resources, we can't fight every government abuse, so we have to decide which ones to go after based on what will advance the cause of liberty the most over the long term. There's nothing unprincipled about that. If you're going to call that unprincipled, then every time you don't mention another issue because you were talking about marijuana is also unprincipled.

A recent Gallup poll showed the plurality of Americans (23%) rated the most important issue as the war in Iraq, followed by a cluster of distant seconds, including education, surveillance, terrorism, yada yada. Guess where drugs came in? Less than 1% of Americans thought drugs were the most important issue in this country. Most people just don't care about it as much as other things we could be focusing on. So why should we emphasize it?

Here are some other issues I think Libertarians would do better to emphasize:

1. immediate withdrawal from Iraq
2. limitation on executive power
3. patriot act

4. property rights/eminent domain
5. balanced budget, lower spending

Yes, I know the party goes after these issues, but not nearly enough, and not as much as marijuana. The first three of those issues are things that could create a groundswell of support for this party and this movement. Marijuana cannot and will not.

It's a major issue? Then why aren't the "major" parties talking about it? Why is there no legislation on it? Why isn't the media talking about it? Why is it that when I talk politics with most people I consider to be average Americans, this issue almost never comes up?

As to your claim that this effects every average citizen in the world, what do you mean by that? I don't even think that makes sense, because most people don't smoke pot, wouldn't smoke it if it were legal, and don't care if it's legal or not. If you want to talk about an issue that affects every citizen of the world, how about American imperialism, foreign invasion, killing of innocent civilians? Those are things that truly effect the citizens of the world.

I've heard the Libertarian party was for restoration of Constitutional rights, but I see here we have the usual and (typical) attitudes concerning others' plights when they don't concern "us", i.e. "potsmokers".
Libertarians that are "good to go" with the Federal governments stand on Cannabis Laws are Puppets, incapable of any real rational thought, such as "Why is it illegal, where there is no real harm?" When it proves itself efficacious in treating serious maladies, where is the crime?
Looks just like any other political group in Amerika these days, divided and non-functional, full of personal interests, unable to agree on even the most basic concepts of freedom and liberty.
"Marijuana" law is the yardstick by which you can measure your freedom and liberty.
Do you know how many inches are left?(if any), and do you really care?

THERE is to much focus on the mj issues, now is not the time for this. People may be looking for another party and to keep bring this up as a blog or otherwise is not going to turn people on to the Libertarian party.

As said in previous post, while I have no opinion on the medical mj, the hard drugs should NOT be legalize. There are many incidents that people under the influence hard or soft substance have taken another ones life, if wasn't under these substances in the first place another life would not have been taken.

Stop focusing to much on the mj, WE HAVE BIGGER MAJOR ISSUES HERE, AND IF YOU DON'T STOP it you will not suceed to get people interested in the Libertarian Party.

Comprenda.

"There are many incidents that people under the influence hard or soft substance have taken another ones life, if wasn't under these substances in the first place another life would not have been taken."

And there are already laws about murder, robbery etc. Doesn't matter if you are on something or not. Presonal Responsibility.

Yes, but if a murder can be prevented why should another suffer if it could have been prevented in the first place.

You're talking about imprisoning people who haven't committed any crimes. That's inherently unjust. You can make an argument that it might save lives, but I can just as easily make an argument that legalizing drugs would save more lives because it would eliminate gang wars over drug territories. None of that matters though. What is important is that it is unjust to imprison a person who hasn't committed a crime.

You need to worry more about what is versus what might be. If is for children.

to COMPRENDA:

Our civil liberties are in peril and you waste time by worrying about who will be interested in this party ? Wait until you have a dear friend or family member who is suffering from a terminal disease who needs the medical pot to eat, sleep and just live peacefully until its their time. Its all part and parcel of what a party stands for and it's citizens needs. Ronald Regans's son has had a very loud voice on this issue and stem cell research..who would have thought the son of a "law and order"( liar to both houses about Iran Contra) president would say this ? It's about "life and death" issues you see. Did you like the way the Congress and Senate got involved in the Terry Schivo's case ? Its all intertwined and the party that gets it, will be triumphant ! Comprenda ????

Hey, we already have enough people calling the libertarian party a bunch of potheads.

You do not have a clue what had happened in my family, nor am I oblidge to tell you my business to prove to you anything. You are worried about freedom. Proving to have drugs isn't going to do it. Get your head out of the sand.

If you are are not concered about people being interested in the libertarian party, then do not complain when you have a chain around your throat and controlled because your worried about your stupid drug.

My guess is you at home smoking the crap and watching football.

What's wrong with watching football?

what an idiot.

If you do not believe in doing drugs, don't do them. Attempting to control the behavior of others is, was and always be an exercise in futility and un-Libertarian.

Not if someone on drugs destroy another person life, that could have been prevented in the first place. Going to jail does not bring the person who life got infringed on back.

SORRY< an ounce of prevention is a pound of cure.

Being a gun owner, and having never used Pot (honestly), I can't help but laugh at the posts that claim that the drug issue makes the LP a "1 issue" party. That's exactly what I was accused of trying to make us when I ran LP outreach booths at 50+ gun shows in 2000 through 2002. That's right, in excess of 50 shows. I've got news for all of you. The LP is already in fact, a one issue party, and that issue is restoring constitutional rule of law, and yes the right to ingest, inject, or inhale whatever you want falls under that "1 issue", just as owning a gun, or being free to board a plane without being searched, being able to make a phone call without big brother listening, etc.. That said, those who think that the drug war issue alienates us from the mainstream haven't been paying attention to both the polls and the election results. Voters have been saying "enough is enough" in state after state for several years now. Why in the world would we back down from the battle that we can rightfully claim having brought into the mainstream? Lastly, one person in jail for acting like a free man is one too many, and any person who is not outraged is not a libertarian at heart.

'at' wrote: "Yes, but if a murder can be prevented why should another suffer if it could have been prevented in the first place." - ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?! No really, you have to be kidding me!! Who is this Nazi? Did he get lost on his way to his Stalin fan club meeting? Since anyone is capable of harming someone else, by this guy's logic, we should lock up everyone - you know, just in case... I have an idea, let's start with 'at'

Well put it this way, Libertarians has never been in the positio of President, hmmm, the majority of Libertarians has never had most of Congress seats, hmmm what else, oh, they are still no where.

You think pot is going to get these voters intested. Dream on.

"The LP is already in fact, a one issue party, and that issue is restoring constitutional rule of law"

I totally disagree. The LP is about establishing justice, not about restoring the original Constitution. Those two are not synonymous. As an anarchist, I find that the Constitution also infringes on individual rights, and if I had it in my hand right now, I'd burn it. There are alot of Libertarians who feel the same way.

Joe, I never said I wasn't against the war on drugs, I am. It outrages me of course, but I just believe there are more important issues to liberty. Shouldn't war and intrusive surveillance outrage you just as much as marijuana laws? Why do you think we should go after marijuana instead of those issues?

"Not if someone on drugs destroy another person life, that could have been prevented in the first place. Going to jail does not bring the person who life got infringed on back."

No it does not, what's your point? Please send me a copy of your guarantee that life is fair, I lost mine.

Again, live your belief, but do not attempt to shove it down my throat. There has been enough of infantilizing personal responsibility in this culture.

You choose to have it shoved down your throat.

@at

"Yes, but if a murder can be prevented why should another suffer if it could have been prevented in the first place."

That is a good argument for every step leading up to a police state.

Personal responsibility. That goes for would-be victims, too. I never go into a dangerous situation unprepared.

@JGdisciple

You bring up some good points however, I'd like to remind you that the War on Drugs isn't a single battle about infringing on the rights of the people. It also is an incredible waste of the taxpayer dollars and the money is used to brainwash children into becoming govt stooges. It hits us in the pocketbooks and if you don't tow the line, then you wind up in prison.

at, I have no inclination to argue with you. I gather that you're not a Libertarian and that you've just come here to instigate a conflict. People like you get tiresome very quickly.

Jake, you're absolutely right, that's a very good point. The thing about it is that most people don't see it that way, and an effort to convince them of something so contrary to the popular opinion probably won't be successful. I think Libertarians should focus on ending the war on terror and foreign interventionism, because that is the one issue that has the greatest effect on all the other issues. When people feel threatened, when they feel there is a common enemy, they don't think as clearly, get more emotional, and are more apt to show allegiance to their government. If we can remove the fear of terrorism from the masses' minds, that will maximize our chance of success. Look what happened in 1994, after the big bad Soviets fell, people were less afraid, and fiscal conservatives won a huge victory in the house. Now the neocons and statists have found a new enemy for the people to rally against. The key is to remove the fear of that enemy, and people will think more freely, and will be more open to our ideas, on all issues.

I agree JG, "at" is another statist in an ill fitting disguise as a Libertarian. In a free nation would be tyrants and the "I-know-better-than-you" crowd who attempt to employ force or coresion to implement their points of view have their heads handed to them. We could do with a little more of that in this nation. The Supreme Court did it in the Oregon "assisted suicide" case, unforetunately there is the problem of "New London" and Samuel Alito looks like the sort of sycophant and toady to authoritarianism that Bush is looking for.

I hate to tell you, I am more Libertarian then you will ever know, just because I do not agree with drug users does not mean I do not believe in freedom. Go back and crawl in your hole and get stoned out so you can't think straight, because under the influence who are you to speak, half your brain if fried is not fit to tell me what I am or not.

Right now, there is too few Libertarian holding and office in high status. Go figure.

Bad call nameless, I don't use drugs, tobacco or even drink, so take go a valium and calm down, you are hysterical. You are too emotional about this drug business for whatever reason. People who act through emotion and "feelings" make bad judgment calls like that one. You need to think in a more rational, reasonable manner. If you believe in freedom you believe in freedom, not "I believe in freedom except for (insert your favorite taboo here)". That is not freedom nameless that is nanny statism. You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.

The reason no Libertarians hold high office is for the same reason no non-Republicrats do, the myth drummed in by the media of "if you don't vote for the Democrats or Republicans you are wasting your vote". We need to destroy that myth FIRST before we get anywhere. Third parties such as ours are not bought and paid for by the forces that own the Republicrats and WE TERRIFY THEM.

No actually, by your writing you seem to be the hysterical one, guess you cannot handle the truth thrown at you.

The pot issue is no more than the persistence of Volsted Act mentality in our (tampered-election) elected officials. The Volsted Act - Prohibition - was a total failure from day one and seeded the massive organised crime syndicates that now feed on the idiot drug laws. The so-called war on drugs was a failure from day one and wastes our tax money. Scrap the DEA and install an Amsterdam-style legal supervised use program, and execute the organised crime lords - including those who are members of the major political parties!

"...guess you cannot handle the truth thrown at you."

What truth is that Mr. Nicholson?

Nicholson, is that who you think I am. haaa haaa haaa LMAO
You know there are more important topic to talk about then to waste the time with those who do not have a clue.

Chuck is there in your opinion a difference between Libertarians and Anarchists? If so could you elucidate upon them? If not do other Libertarians agree?

Steve Kubby's case was the important issue here.. Without getting into heated political debates lets just say this- over 400 million *yes, 400 million) people worldwide smoke pot. There have been no reported fatalities directly to smoking pot. Compare that to 300,000 in the USA alone per year of those dying from alcohol poisioning, or even more dying behind the wheel from being hit by a person who is drunk. Zero fatalities people. Think about that before you continue to slam the worlds most widely accepted recreational drug. It's a plant for god sakes. Lets see, drink and become loud, boisterous and violent, or smoke weed and become mellow, relaxed and profound in thoughts.

By the way, a drug is defined by something that alters your mental state. Alcohol is also considered a drug... Ignoring this is ignoring proven scientific data..

I am a medical patient and it hurts me to see such hostility towards something that enables me to function without pain. I owe my life to it. Marinol doesn't work, and brings forth nausea. So much hate in this world, and for no good reason. Think on your own people, dont just regurgitate everything you hear without thinking about it yourself first.

Pat, as I have been told the difference between Libertarians and Anarchists is that Libertarians wish to restore the Constitutional Republic as it was designed. Anarchists want no Government at all and wish to descend into tribalism.

Libertarians accept the constitutionally designed limits on the government, and wish to keep it out of our private lives altogether. Now, for many people out there it will require them to do something that they never contemplated in full and probably terrifies them, GROWING UP. Taking full and total responsibility for their own lives and not blaming others for their follies.

There are, regrettably few people who fit that description in our era. It is my opinion that many so called "adults" today are simply overgrown children who never want to be responsible or held accountable for everything. That Pat, is where we now stand with the Authoritarian State more than ready to keep us in eternal childhood.

"We have faced the enemy and he is us..." Pogo

FACT: pot leads to heavier substance.
FACT: pot destroy's brain cells. One observation such as forgetfulness and these leads to arguments because he own brain isn't working properly.
FACT: I do not have to get into what the harder drugs do.
FACT: A person under the influence cannot hold a normal conversation, and it is know when they go through a down from the stuff there is an angry side that shows through after it wears off.

If a person wishes to smoke because he is ill and he thinks it help him, then do not get behind the wheel of your car, operate machinery and keep the stink of that stuff away from others.

Chuck,
Thanks for the reply. I just began visiting the site. I thought of myself as leaning Libertarian however some of the comments I read lent themselves to an Anarchist interpritation. I certainly am not a subscriber to that particular ideology and was somewhat concerned.

I don't see the Libertarian party gaining enough momentum in the near future to become a true contender in politics and attempting to do so may actually be undermining the spread of the ideas. I think however that it is a legitimate voice that certainly has deep roots alongside the Conservatives in the Republican party. I also think the fact that it is not officially aligned allows for it to have an influence amoung Democrats as well, although it seems the Dems may be going the way of the dinosaur.

In the end the successful spread of the ideas of libertarianism are more powerful than the positions the party may hold.

Pat;
If those ideas are not spread far enough, fast enough it may be to late anyway. Post cold war America is rapidly becoming a totalitarian state based on exaggerated emergencies, untruthful intellegence and a corrupted media. The masses are willingly being led to the slaughter.

Nameless;
Enough with the drug rant. No one cares. You will never convert those of us who believe in freedom to impose restrictions on others for such matters. PERSONAL CHOICE. Because I think you are MOSTLY correct, I don't do it myself, but again that is my business only.

Tell it to the Republicans, they like their noses up everyones a**.

Thats ok, the restriction have already been made, not need to worry if you will do it chuck.

Chuck,
That kind of hyperbole simply stirs the already troubled souls of the mentally ill.

There is room for difference of opinion without the rhetoric or intolerance which you displayed. In adddition it does a disservice to the cause by alienating rather than reconciling people.

We all have "totalitarian" tendancies and intelligent persons will recognize the need for law and legitimately differ as to where to draw the line. Anonymous is stuck on an issue and is missing the priciple at the heart of the disagreement. It would be better to draw the conversation back to principle in order to depersonalize the debate.

I don't think the Republicans have a monopoly on having "their noses up everyones a**." It's primarily the Dems who are on the front line in the battle against tabacco, taxing your freedom away is very effective. Taking away "choice" in education and health care seems to be the desire of the libs and the eminant domain issue is a problem from the left as well.

The point is that making this a partisan debate distracts from the real issue and antigonizing possible allies undermines your own agenda.

Pat;
Thank you for your comments. First I have no agenda or ambitions, political or otherwise. Some if not most souls need to be stirred as they are in some sort of self induced limbo of one sort or another. I love differences of opinion and exchanges of views. I however am emphatically NOT a "tolerant" man. I have core beliefs, and I stand by them, I despise “moral relativism” in any form. I believe in freedom, I believe in a society of rational, objective laws - not personalities and fads and I believe in the Jeffersonian principle of "...the government which governs best, governs LEAST..." I believe in the restoration of a Constitutional Republic, not this totalitarian Police State or an Anarchistic chaos. It is a fearful people who will not look too deeply into the society that they helped create, and fear is a commodity being sold by the current Administration and their media lickspittles like soap powder. The problem with society over the last several decades is this concept of "tolerance" run amuck. People who sell out or ignore core beliefs and principles in the name of tolerance are no better than soulless creatures blowing in the cosmic wind. The ability to recognize and JUDGE right from wrong is what sets humans apart from their other counterparts. The abdication of that is reprehensible. There are indeed black and white absolutes in this universe, like it or not. If that “alienates” some people, to hell with them. People who stand for nothing ARE nothing. Libertarianism requires commitment to principle; it is easy to be a Republicrat they stand for everything and nothing at the same time, quite a trick!

You miss the point to a certain extent Pat, in fact "at" and I are in total agreement over the issue of drugs on a PERSONAL level, however I get the impression that he wants to make his view the law of the land, I do not. The control of personal behavior is not a legitimate function of law OR government, on the other hand, providing consequences to those whose reckless self indulgence leads to harm to others IS. This is where I go back to freedom and personal responsibility to be an absolutely fused concept. This is where the current "Republican conservatives" (Neocons) have got it wrong. They are politically beholden to and have been instructed to impose the restrictions of the "christian" ayatollahs on us, so we may be relieved of the strain of doing our own thinking or taking responsibility for consequences. And the difference between that and the Islamic's they are so eager to demonize is what??

Incidentally, my reference to the "Republicans" was a typo, I meant to say Republicrats.

Chuck,
Its sounds like we have much in common. I too have little patients for moral relativist who believe tolerance is the only moral absolute. But I have discovered that my abrasive personality is not effective at winning debates no matter how strong the arguement and the semblance of tolerance goes a long way.

I certainly did not intend "agenda" as a slur. I have an agenda and am proud of it. How I present it to others determines to a great degree how it will be recieved. Often it's the emotion which motivates people. If people feel like you care it does not matter what you say even if you're the biggest idiot on earth they will listen.

I too am frustrated with the Republicans as of late but I think Alito and Roberts will be refreshing additions to the court and if the right has to sell out in some things for the present in order to retain power so as to stack the court for a very long time then I can handle that. I may not like it, but it may be a political strategy for the long term. We need to look pragmatically at the situation in DC. Those congressmen who bring home the bacon get re-elected, in an ideal world this would cease but this is the present reality.

This may smack of Republicratism but it is the game that has to be played to have any power. We could stubbornly hold fast to political principles and continue to hold no power whatsoever or play the game and hope to at least gain some ground and momentum in the right direction. Two steps forward one step back.

As to Chief Justice Roberts, possibly, Alito though seems to be a one-trick-pony when it comes to decisions regarding Executive Power, there is far too much of THAT already, and what got clipped as a result of the Nixon Presidency has long since grown back. We have forgotten as a nation that power emanates from the ground UP, not the other way around.

Congressmen do not get re elected because they "bring home the bacon" to their constituents, but because they have "sold the pork" for the special interests who hold the mortgage on their souls. The body politic, lulled into a state of perpetual apathy on the premise that no matter what the do will make no difference, do not even bother to vote.

You state: "We could stubbornly hold fast to political principles and continue to hold no power whatsoever or play the game and hope to at least gain some ground and momentum in the right direction. Two steps forward one step back."

You cannot redeem your soul after you have bartered it away, Pat. If you sell out principle for any reason, then all you are IS a sell out and you will go on selling out forever. If I may quote Malcolm X: "A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything...” and Ayn Rand "The only compromise between food and poison is death."

I certainly admire and respect your position and despite your premise to the contrary there are issues I will not bend on. Regardless I still believe that in American politics some compromise is necessary and inevitable. As long as that compromise is of itself not objectively evil.

I agree that many congressmen (and Women) have "sold the pork" but massive change is not going to happen overnight. Do we ring our hands or find some way to effect change? I choose the later. The socialist are in this for the long haul and we need to approach this struggle with a level head and fortitute.

As long as the courts have/had a left leaning we had little hope of success. Alito may read the constitution as granting more executive power than we would like but at least he is someone who values the constitution which is more than we could say for certain other justices.

The socialist and their political bedfellows circle the wagons and close ranks in tough times. We need to do the same.

It depends on YOUR definition of compromise Pat, if you are talking about a give - take situation where each "side" gives a little and gets a little I have no problem with that. That is the basis of all human interaction. If you are talking about sacrificing a core belief or principle simply to get elected to some office where you really have no power anyway then forget it.

Massive change will only happen one of two ways; first, when the general public wakes out of its slumber, realizes that the pooch is being screwed, rises up and SLAPS DOWN the Republicrats at the polls. This will not happen, it is too late. The "public" is fat, dumb, self-indulgent, pampered, narcissistic and lazy and the only way they will ever wake up will be when they finally realize that the REALLY ARE slaves with the horror and rage that should induce rather than the cynical amusement it currently engenders.

Do not downplay the executive grab for power; Alito may be all the Neocons need to push us from Republic to Empire. If that happens, the show's over and we are all officially cattle no matter how much we will bitch and moan on this site and others. Remember the story of Brier Rabbit. Don't overestimate the (Democrat) Socialists either; the so called "loyal opposition" can't agree on how to boil water right now.

What the Libertarians need is a powerful spokesman to challenge the status quo, raise REAL questions and insist on REAL answers. Not a job for a “politician”.

"Alito may be all the Neocons need to push us from Republic to Empire." I hear this alarmist rhetoric from the left and am surpised to hear it from you. I think to have intelligent dialogue about this issue we need to discuss specifics.

Unless I am missing something the only alleged "power grab" to date has been President Bush' monitoring of known terrorists phone calls to the US. His defense is legitimate and I expect the investigation and hearings will be conducted appropriately.

Beyond that I think we have no real evidence of empirical aspirations only speculation and politically motivated accusation.

The one thing the socialist (and Islamofascist) do agree on is relentlessly and recklessly attacking President Bush and everything he does no matter what the cost (Even at a funeral. No class at all.) and it seems they can count on some true liberty lovers eating their own.

Before we proceed any further Pat I would appreciate it if you would answer me three questions:

1. What is your full definition of what constitutes a "Conservative" philosophically?

2. What is your view on the question of individual Liberty vs. Safety in the wake of "9/11"?

3. What is your opinion to date of the limits on Executive power?

Liberty lovers NEVER eat their own Pat, but they are wary of statist plutocrats dressed as conservatives.

I would not attempt a comprehensive definition of a conservative philosophy in such a brief period of time. I am an Ideological Conservative with Libertarian leanings. While I differ with President Bush' spending and desire a smaller more fiscally responsible government I think his activism in foriegn relations is the proper coarse for the times and his judicial appointments will at least put a halt to judical activism and the march of Socialism/Progressivism. I do not consider myself purely libertarian because I believe the need exist for regulation of certain behavior for the sake of domestic tranquility. However I am certainly an advocate of the Principle of Federalism and in general I believe most of those regulations are best addressed by the states.

The constitution prescribes certain powers to the executive branch and those powers may not be proscribed without a constitutional amendment. That is the arguement of President Bush and I don't find it to be groundless. The constitution clearly establishes the purpose of government and the scope of its power. If the FISA laws prohibit the exercise of powers granted to the executive by the constitution then the FISA laws are unconstitutional. In times of war I am inclined to allow some latitude in the legal exercise of these powers which I would not in peace.

We are at war! Liberty and license are very different things. The debate over license is a luxury, unity in the fight for liberty is not.

I would have to debate you on one or two of your concepts. Conservatives, in the traditional sense do not involve themselves in the private affairs of others and I am vehemently opposed to intrusions into my private life. You will have to go a long way to convince me those FUTILE attempts to govern personal behavior under force of law "insures domestic tranquility" as much as it fills our prisons with its own citizens. It is not the proper function of the law or government, the fact that these efforts ALWAYS fail is proof enough.

The Neoconservatives have hijacked the conservative label, but are almost as anti-conservative as the leftists themselves.

What to you is the difference between "Liberty" and "license"?

You are dead right on Bush's spending; I think he has even beaten LBJ in that area. Doesn't exactly make him a "conservative" does it?

The constitution does indeed define limits, but the limits are ON THE GOVERNMENT NOT THE PEOPLE. As an advocate of Federalism you are obviously familiar with the ninth and tenth amendments. Mr. Bush's (or any President's) position of Commander in Chief is strictly and exclusively over the military, NOT the civilian population. Even Lincoln, when he suspended Habeas Corpus then went to the Courts for permission (for which he was rebuffed).

Finally, if I may directly quote the Constitution which is the SUPREME LAW OF THE UNITED STATES" "Section 8. The Congress shall have power to...declare war..." The fact that the congress in its collective cowardice has abdicated its duties does not render the Constitution invalid. This country is involved in aggressive military actions under Executive Order, in foreign nations for highly dubious reasons and a very unclear agenda. This country has not legally been at war since August 1945. This is not hair splitting semantics, it is a fact no one wishes to face. Technically, this makes every member of the Congress, by not doing their duty and the Supreme Court, for not calling them on it - guilty of potentially impeachable offences if not treason. Let us see if the new Supreme Court made up of these so called "conservatives" are as strictly constructionist as I hope they are. My guess is it will be business as usual with a further slide to absolute power of the executive in CLEAR violation of the Constitution and a furthering of the agenda of the slimy "christian" right (small c) who want to mind everyone’s business but their own.

Libertarians hold the Constitution of the United States of America, its properly ratified Amendments and its basis of authority the Declaration of Independence, to be the absolute basis of law in this country. The United States is a Constitutional Republic, elected through democratic means NOT A DEMOCRACY!!

I would rather be a dead free man than a living "subject". If that makes me a radical in your eyes Pat, I am proud of it.

The "slimy christian" comment is truly inappropriate and inflamatory and that type of bigotry has no place in a civil dialogue.

Beyond that Ill write more later.

I said "slimy "christian" right" Pat. Do not misquote me. I also revile political correctness. The statement is the dead on truth, they got their followers to help elect the current administration laying out large sums of money to do so. They expect value (quid pro quo)for their support and cash. I see little difference between this crowd and the Islamic fanatics the Neoconservatives are beating the panic drums about with such fervor.

I was not referring to real Christians.

If expecting decency and honesty from you is political correctness then count me in. That kind of talk leads people to burn churches. The Christian right and left each as a whole expect a more socialy activist government. This is part of the American political tradition we may not like it but that is the fact. And really what is your issue Chuck? Ten to one you don't like their involvment because of their position on abortion. Am I wrong? The only posible alternative is homosexual marriage in which case you are radical. Most right wing Christians are not concerned with pot or tabacco or booze and most use condoms and the pill. A few have become reactionary in regards to Darwin and support "intelligent design" but most conservative Christians are embarrassed by this and it has gone nowhere. What is a "real Christian" Chuck? Someone who will bow down to the demand that they stop trying to end abortion or other institutional injustices? Maybe those same people should have shut up about slavery too right Chuck? How about child labor? Or civil rights? Or womens sufferage? Abortion is murder in many peoples minds and they therefore have a legitimate reason to try to put an end to it. The constitution initially said blacks were only part human should we go back to that since it was those irritating Christians who got involved and changed it?

Word is around George Soros is paying hundreds of people to infiltrate sites just like this and mess with people. Your extremism and intolerance smack of left wing attitudes and have sent up red flags numerous times in my mind. If I am wrong you need to keep your anger and bigotry in check because it does not help your cause and sends the wrong message.

You would be hard pressed to find one Christian in this country who thinks we should eliminate the constitution and replace it with the Bible. Comparing Christian political activist to Islamofascist who would slice your throat and blow up your family for such talk is an extremist perspective and politically expedient. You have to be an idiot to really believe such non-sense.

Pat; stay out of Vegas:

"Ten to one you don't like their involvment because of their position on abortion."

Should be a matter handled by each state. I do not make moral judgments and try to impose them on others. I make moral judgments and impose them on myself. I am personally neutral on abortion, as a male, it is a problem that is really none of my business. If you think it is the murder of an innocent, you may be right I am not so sure.

"homosexual marriage" I am opposed to as well, “marriage” is a religious term strictly speaking. Civil Unions for sharing of benefits, I have no quarrel with.

"What is a "real Christian" Chuck?"? The followers of Christ who live their life by HIS example, NOT Pat Robertson, the American Family Coalition or whatever they are calling themselves this week and their fellow travelers. You don't think they would impose a Theocracy on this country if they had a chance? IN A HEARTBEAT! Listen to ALL their words.

Also note, that Christ was not politically correct either and did not care one whit whom he offended (a fact that ultimately got him crucified, if the stories are true).

I have no problem with and absolutely support the efforts of people of good conscience and honest intent of ANY religion to attempt to influence behavior and society by example and persuasion to both the individual and collective conscience. This practice created a national consensus many times over in our history which ended slavery, gave women the vote, desegregated America, etc. This is how Gandhi and Dr. King found success. On the other hand I am absolutely and vehemently opposed to them IMPOSING their view of morality by force of law and decree. A perfect historical example of THAT is the Volestead Act (Prohibition) where personal behavior morality was attempted to be shoved down our throats. To make my point even more, I am personally opposed to Roe v Wade as this was rightly a state matter.

I told you up front Pat that I AM an extremist and I have NO TOLERANCE WHATSOEVER for certain things and apologize to no one for it, but a Socialist in the employ of George Soros? I am laughing so hard I have to catch my breath! If that is true then that prick owes me tons of cash!! I have no "cause" aside from restoring this Republic and living as a free man I am not interested in the SLIGHTEST to persuade anyone to do anything except THINK FOR THEMSELVES. I love controversy and debate. Don't be so concerned about offending people. Look at this foolishness regarding the cartoons in Europe, to hell with the Islamic “sensibilities”.

Libertarians are REAL conservatives Pat. You need to study on the differences with the Neocons.

P.S.: It is not a Constitutional function of government to promote "Social Activism", only to guarantee equal justice for all, by the consent and PERMISSION of the governed through rational, objective laws.

"You don't think they would impose a Theocracy on this country if they had a chance?"
Posted by: Chuck at February 10, 2006 10:26 AM
in response to being called to the mat for his hate speech.

"You need to worry more about what is versus what might be. If is for children."
Posted by: Chuck at January 30, 2006 01:48 PM

And haters too Chuck. Dont be a hater.

Christ spoke truth in love. He did not call the woman at the well a whore though he could have. He spoke gently and changed her heart. There are many more cases like that than his outburst in the temple or his scolding of the Pharisees.

Pat Robertson is one man. I can't speak for him, nor should you presume to, but he comes from a tradition that fled protestant europe in order to find religious liberty. And if his followers forget that it is a powerful fact that they can be quickly reminded of. The puritans were not political or moral liberals if they were going to impose a Theocracy on the US they could have done it long ago.

Will get back to License and Liberty soon.

The Puritans did impose a Theocracy Pat within their own community. They also tried to "convert" the natives (another practice I despise). The results were disastrous. Have you never read Hawthorne?

"Christ spoke truth in love. He did not call the woman at the well a whore though he could have. He spoke gently and changed her heart."

You made my point perfectly, thank you. He didn't go to the Roman Governor (Pilate) and demand a place in governmental affairs to further his agenda, I also seriously doubt he would have demanded Pilate's assassination if he refused. Pat Robertson is LEGION out there and fits the biblical prophecies of false messengers and prophet’s to the proverbial "T". He is only one of many with the same agenda as regards government. Don't make me name them all, you know perfectly well what I mean.

Hate speech, Pat the very concept of it is part of the Socialist/Liberal agenda to stifle free speech, thought and expression. I thought you were a Conservative? Do YOU get a check from George Soros? (only joking) I reject the concept, definition and purpose of hate thought, hate speech and hate crimes totally and without a single exception. It is an application of the old "argument from intimidation" which is invalid in and of itself. It is Orwell's concept of the "Thought Police". So do not slap yourself too hard on the back for "calling me to the mat", the concept is invalid. There is an old concept, again Libertarian in its roots "I may hate what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I don't hate, Pat, that requires far too much passion, but I do not tolerate fools and their familiars either.

"If" as an abstract concept when postulating possible scenarios is for children when they go off onto an absurd tangent, for example "what if we could get rid of gravity?" An if illustration of a potential political concept, no matter improbable it might be in your opinion, but still within the realm of the possible is fuel for thought and discussion.

Pat, you sound to me like a traditional conservative with a few of the "family/traditional values" dog and pony show concepts the Neocons have thrown in. Libertarianism is for those of us who value freedom above all else, not anarchistic freedom, but the freedom of trial and error, to make mistakes because that is how we learn, to contract freely, to keep what we earn from the sweat of our labor, etc. We want nothing to do with the more "paternalistic/maternalistic" concepts of government. We do not want or need to be tucked in at night, told how to live, what to eat, what to think, what to believe, how to behave (as long as we do no injury to others), etc. You are still a Republican at heart in more of the Eisenhower/Goldwater mode than what you are being fed by the current crop of faux conservatives. On economic issues, we agree - on everything else, we probably have a few differences, but I have no problem with that. Republican conservatives possess a basic distrust of man that they feel needs to be controlled, Libertarians feel that most men must be trusted because those who operate in their own self interest recognize that can only be accomplished when the self-interest of others is recognized and respected.

Chuck,

Let me reiterate your position. Pat Robertson is wrong to make an offhand remark about the assasination of a communist dictator which he later retracted and thats wrong, but you can insult, falsely accuse and slander millions of Christians and thats OK.

"Libertarians feel that most men must be trusted because those who operate in their own self interest recognize that can only be accomplished when the self-interest of others is recognized and respected." Your unself-regulated hate speech, and thats what it is just because liberals use the term does not mean it in fact does not exist, proves that at least you are not accomplished. You can justify it all you would like and continue to lob insults and labels but that does not change the facts.

I am sure if I were so inclined I could find plenty of quotes from Libertarian leaders that would embarrass Libertarians that proves nothing. I can think of another Pat who has put his foot in his mouth a few times.

Because the Christian right does not necessarily embrace your concept of government does not make them fascist or slimy or any other indignity you chose to plaster them with.

You are wrong. You have a right to be wrong. You dont always have a right to say what you would like to say. Some speech is indeed illegal and should be. Other speech is legal but immoral. I cant just say you sodomized some kid without evidence it is true because their are consequences. What you said was factually incorrect and morally repugnant. But sure you can say it. You can believe your ridiculous assersion that the Christian right is similar to Islamofascism and it is you who are the fool in that case. And I have a right not to bother with you any more.

If you truly represent Libertarians it is no wonder they have no standing in any civilized society.

I represent only myself, something else I told you at the outset that you chose to ignore. If you have facts to present, present them. If I am factually incorrect, correct me with the facts. "You dont always have a right to say what you would like to say." Yes I do. "Some speech is indeed illegal and should be." What type of speech is that, specify; what you disagree with perhaps? Your sanctimonious complaining and pontificating without facts is becoming tiresome, peddle your politically correct nonsense to someone who gives a damn about it. Your dogmatic thinking limits you and your efforts of intimidation are a waste of your time. Hate speech again is a tool - a ploy - of the intellectually challenged to limit debate and intimidate opposition when they have no facts to present as a counter arguement. I have no use for argument based on emotion. In my case, your efforts are wasted. But it is a classic PSYOPS technique, isn't it?

I will repeat what I said before "Libertarianism is for those of us who value freedom above all else, not anarchistic freedom, but the freedom of trial and error, to make mistakes because that is how we learn, to contract freely, to keep what we earn from the sweat of our labor, etc. We want nothing to do with the more "paternalistic/maternalistic" concepts of government. We do not want or need to be tucked in at night, told how to live, what to eat, what to think, what to believe, how to behave (as long as we do no injury to others), etc." And we will defend that concept with our dying breath.

Deal with it.