[Vpoll] Marijuana, Weed, Pot

[RDU Irish]

I think this idea has merit, but Rand Paul is not the guy to execute it. At the end of the day, people have to like a candidate enough to vote for him or her. Rand Paul is simply not that guy, IMHO. I voted for Ross Perot back in the day because he was the only candidate talking about the topics I thought were most important. All these years later, those unresolved issues he identified are still the topics of political debate. In retrospect, Perot was just a little too kooky for Americans no matter how right he was about the issues. It all starts with a candidate that comes off as knowledgeable, trustworthy and likeable. Given adequate funding, I think a candidate who scores high on all those tests may have a legitimate chance at making a 3rd party run, but it would be an uphill battle for sure.

Which may be why an "Independent" candidate has more leverage even though the policy stance would be largely Libertarian. With Rand Paul I think you have the ability to leverage his dad's network of rabid supporters for money and ground game to get on the ballot and get quickly to a 10% - 15% poll level to be in the game. I'm not sure who else has the experience and potential backing to get that far down the road.

It's a moot point since Rand is obviously playing the party game and will try to work through the Repub primaries. I would love to see him say he would appoint his dad to head the Fed. Boy would that be interesting.

Perot and Forbes are good examples. If they weren't so goofy they may have had a better shot. Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992 and 8% in 1996 in what was a complete half assed run. I think someone like him making the same push today would do a lot better since animosity toward both parties I believe is much higher.

 

[RDU Irish]

Libertarians are 100% right on some issues. On the majority of issues, they just have no idea they live in a society. I think libertarianism (in its current state) is a fad.

You are right! The ultimate Big Tent party! Pretty much everyone should be able to relate to something in that cartoon.

 

[GoIrish41]

Which may be why an "Independent" candidate has more leverage even though the policy stance would be largely Libertarian. With Rand Paul I think you have the ability to leverage his dad's network of rabid supporters for money and ground game to get on the ballot and get quickly to a 10% - 15% poll level to be in the game. I'm not sure who else has the experience and potential backing to get that far down the road.

It's a moot point since Rand is obviously playing the party game and will try to work through the Repub primaries. I would love to see him say he would appoint his dad to head the Fed. Boy would that be interesting.

Perot and Forbes are good examples. If they weren't so goofy they may have had a better shot. Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992 and 8% in 1996 in what was a complete half assed run. I think someone like him making the same push today would do a lot better since animosity toward both parties I believe is much higher.

are their third party guys who are not kooks? I would have to think they can pick a clean cut dude who doesn't say stupid things out of their ranks. If not, maybe they wouldn't be viable. lol

 

[wizards8507]

Libertarians are 100% right on some issues. On the majority of issues, they just have no idea they live in a society. I think libertarianism (in its current state) is a fad.

I'd be happy to go issue-by-issue with you and give you the sensible libertarian response. Obviously the cartoon you linked is caricature, but I'd love to dispel many of the myths that it perpetuates.

(The one that pisses me off the most is that being a pro-life libertarian is somehow hypocritical or intellectually inconsistent. If you're a libertarian and you believe that life begins at conception, you absolutely must be pro-life. The mother's right to liberty does not trump the child's more fundamental right to life.)

 

[Cackalacky]

I'd be happy to go issue-by-issue with you and give you the sensible libertarian response. Obviously the cartoon you linked is caricature, but I'd love to dispel many of the myths that it perpetuates.

(The one that pisses me off the most is that being a pro-life libertarian is somehow hypocritical or intellectually inconsistent. If you're a libertarian and you believe that life begins at conception, you absolutely must be pro-life. The mother's right to liberty does not trump the child's more fundamental right to life.)

Not even going to bother on the small stuff. Libertariansm is self-contradictory on many levels. My favorite is the myth of the free market and the role of government.

 

[Cackalacky]

are their third party guys who are not kooks? I would have to think they can pick a clean cut dude who doesn't say stupid things out of their ranks. If not, maybe they wouldn't be viable. lol

The moment some libertarian is asked about Title II of the Civil Rights Act, its game over. If they hem or hedge the question, he is not a libertarian.

 

[wizards8507]

Not even going to bother on the small stuff. Libertariansm is self-contradictory on many levels.

That's a bold statement without any examples. Care to elaborate?

My favorite is the myth of the free market and the role of government.

What would that myth be?

 

[RDU Irish]

The moment some libertarian is asked about Title II of the Civil Rights Act, its game over. If they hem or hedge the question, he is not a libertarian.

So using your same logic, all republicans should think exactly the same and all democrats should... wait democrats don't think, they just do as they are told by party leadership.

Maybe Libertarianism can be more of a philosophical framework than a hard and fast religion? I would argue abortion to be legal to the point life is self sufficient. A practical middle ground to the absolute stances taken by those who belabor the issue. While I find it immoral, I don't see the grounds for government to regulate that morality. Some things are best left between you and your maker.

And Title II applies to "Public Accommodations" if it applied to all private activities then I would have issue with it. I think you are talking to too many ideologues.

The greater point, many issues are hit out of the park by Libertarians. Why can't either party grasp those issues, reach across the aisle and get them done?

 

[Cackalacky]

That's a bold statement without any examples. Care to elaborate?

No you will have to figure that one out on your own. Not even going to bother.

What would that myth be?

That there is actually something that exists as a free market. Or the ability to conduct business therein. Especially within the libertarianism concept who wants no little to no government involvement.

 

[wizards8507]

The greater point, many issues are hit out of the park by Libertarians. Why can't either party grasp those issues, reach across the aisle and get them done?

Yup. The biggest room I see for compromise is gay marriage. What the heck does the government have to do with marriage in the first place? Gay, straight, red, blue, upside-down, or freezing-cold, marriage should have nothing to do with a courthouse. Just go through the US legal code and delete any references, benefits, penalties, or anecdotes relating to "marriage" and everyone is equal.

 

[RDU Irish]

As with most thing in life, absolutes and extremes are toxic. An ideologue does not have the ability to negotiate and work on middle ground (see Barack Obama).

Ideological reasons drive the drug war. Facts and reason are thrown out the window by a large section of policy makers. Another huge set of spineless wimps don't want to touch it b/c it is not a politically correct issue.

 

[Cackalacky]

So using your same logic, all republicans should think exactly the same and all democrats should... wait democrats don't think, they just do as they are told by party leadership.

Maybe Libertarianism can be more of a philosophical framework than a hard and fast religion? I would argue abortion to be legal to the point life is self sufficient. A practical middle ground to the absolute stances taken by those who belabor the issue. While I find it immoral, I don't see the grounds for government to regulate that morality. Some things are best left between you and your maker.

And Title II applies to "Public Accommodations" if it applied to all private activities then I would have issue with it. I think you are talking to too many ideologues.

The greater point, many issues are hit out of the park by Libertarians. Why can't either party grasp those issues, reach across the aisle and get them done?

This is my whole point of my last three posts. Both you and wizards are what I would consider the modern libertarian and you two have some drastically different "ideas" on everyday concepts. Its just not a cohesive philosophy especially in today's modern world. I am not taking a pot shot at you or wizards BTW...I have learned more about financial stuff from you than probably anyone else.

 

[wizards8507]

That there is actually something that exists as a free market. Or the ability to conduct business therein. Especially within the libertarianism concept who wants no little to no government involvement.

You misunderstand libertarian economics. The free market is simply an abstract construct to describe individuals acting in their own self interest. The government's role in a free market is to enforce legally binding contracts and make sure that entities and individuals don't lie, cheat, or steal.

You're not saying the word, but you're using "anarchy" as a strawman for "libertarianism." They're not the same thing.

 

[Cackalacky]

You clearly don't understand libertarianism philosophy. The free market is simply an abstract construct to describe individuals acting in their own self interest. The government's role in a free market is to enforce legally binding contracts and make sure that entities and individuals don't lie, cheat, or steal.

You're not saying the word, but you're using "anarchy" as a strawman for "libertarianism." They're not the same thing.

As to the bold, see my image above. What did you call it? A "caricature." LOLOLOLOL.


As to the rest, I am not saying that at all. Governments make the markets and they also defend and manipulate them (particularly globally) even through military force or with financial pressure. Its not free and open by definition. The abstract nature of the philosophy is why I call it inconsistent or contradictory. Its not free. Call it something else but not free. It comes with a cost.

 

[wizards8507]

As to the bold, see my image above. What did you call it? A "caricature." LOLOLOLOL.

As to the rest, I am not saying that at all. Governments make the markets and they also defend and manipulate them (particularly globally) even through military force or with financial pressure. Its not free and open by definition. The abstract nature of the philosophy is why I call it inconsistent or contradictory. Its not free. Call it something else but not free. It comes with a cost.

I'm glad you posted that because now it's clear what you're misunderstanding. You're using the term "free" incorrectly. "Free market" does not mean that the market has no cost. It means "free" in the sense of liberty or FREEdom.

NOT this: free - costing nothing; provided without charge: free entertainment

This: free - exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted

Markets don't need to be established or protected by governments. The first neanderthal who traded a spear for a night of shelter in a cave was engaging in a free and open exchange in a market.

 

[Cackalacky]

I'm glad you posted that because now it's clear what you're misunderstanding. You're using the term "free" incorrectly. "Free market" does not mean that the market has no cost. It means "free" in the sense of liberty or FREEdom.

NOT this: free - costing nothing; provided without charge: free entertainment

This: free - exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted

Markets don't need to be established or protected by governments. The first neanderthal who traded a spear for a night of shelter in a cave was engaging in a free and open exchange in a market.

oh boy. No I do in fact mean free as in freedom to pursue one's selfish interests and there are societal and global costs associated with this pursuit, particularly for manufactured goods requiring resources from other countries. Are you an invisible hand person?

Maybe you should explain to me how a market would be created under libertarian philosophy.

 

[wizards8507]

oh boy. No I do in fact mean free as in freedom to pursue one's selfish interests and there are societal and global costs associated with this pursuit, particularly for manufactured goods requiring resources from other countries. Are you an invisible hand person?

Maybe you should explain to me how a market would be created under libertarian philosophy.

What do you think a market is? It doesn't need to be "created," it just IS. If I sell you an apple, that's a market.

Also, self-interest is different than selfish interest. People do not need to be forced to cooperate because they're capable of looking one step ahead and seeing that cooperation is in EVERYONE'S self interest, including their own.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[Cackalacky]

What do you think a market is? It doesn't need to be "created," it just IS. If I sell you an apple, that's a market.

Also, self-interest is different than selfish interest. People do not need to be forced to cooperate because they're capable of looking one step ahead and seeing that cooperation is in EVERYONE'S self interest, including their own.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

So how would you go about maximizing this one apple market?

Also to the bolded the derivatives market disagrees with you.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

So how would you go about maximizing this one apple market?

I'd plant a lot of seeds.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Not even going to bother on the small stuff. Libertariansm is self-contradictory on many levels. My favorite is the myth of the free market and the role of government.

Unintentional interruption from the free market talk, I'm curious about how you define small.

 

[wizards8507]

So how would you go about maximizing this one apple market?

You serious, Clark?

It maximizes itself. Houstonian plants a bunch of seeds so he can sell cheap apples. Another guy sells organic granny smiths. I need to lower my prices or improve my product to compete or I get no business. Competition drives prices down, while quality and variety go up. If prices go down too far, people leave the apple industry and go into citrus. When prices rise again, people re-enter the market. Equilibrium is reached on its own.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[Buster Bluth]

On the "free market," how does the market deal with capitalism's economies of scale and industries being doomed to form oligopolies? I guess what I'm saying is that if the bigger you are the cheaper your costs per item are, increasing your advantage over smaller businesses and eventually we end up with oligopolies, where the benefits of competition, which the free market folk constantly bring up, seem to diminish.

 

[woolybug25]

Damn it, you guys... this is a thread about weed, not the definition of Libertarians or the free market.

Get your shit together, gents.

 

[wizards8507]

On the "free market," how does the market deal with capitalism's economies of scale and industries being doomed to form oligopolies? I guess what I'm saying is that if the bigger you are the cheaper your costs per item are, increasing your advantage over smaller businesses and eventually we end up with oligopolies, where the benefits of competition, which the free market folk constantly bring up, seem to diminish.

Nobody STARTS big. To get there in the first place, you need to be better than the other guy. Oligopolies are actually ENCOURAGED by regulation, because business becomes all about cronyism and searching for loopholes. Creating a product or service that people need, want, or desire is secondary.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[ACamp1900]

I admire Libertarian’s mixed views, it seems much more honest and sincere than the across the board group think you tend to find among Democrats and to a lesser extent Republicans.

On weed… A buddy of mine was going on his same tired point of it being, “Off the earth.” Someone else dropped, “Yeah, and so is dogshit, I don’t see you walking around chewing that.”

I smiled.

 

[wizards8507]

I admire Libertarian’s mixed views, it seems much more honest and sincere than the across the board group think you tend to find among Democrats and to a lesser extent Republicans.

On weed… A buddy of mine was going on his same tired point of it being, “Off the earth.” Someone else dropped, “Yeah, and so is dogshit, I don’t see you walking around chewing that.”

I smiled.

But we don't ban dogshit eating. I've never smoked weed and never will but I still don't like that I'm not free to do so.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[Buster Bluth]

Nobody STARTS big. To get there in the first place, you need to be better than the other guy.

Well, duh. That doesn't change the fact that they get there over and over and over.

Oligopolies are actually ENCOURAGED by regulation,

And yet the economic conditions of the Gilded Age show me much less regulation and an equal amount of (if not worse) oligopolies. Standard Oil and the railroads....yikes.

because business becomes all about cronyism and searching for loopholes. Creating a product or service that people need, want, or desire is secondary.

I have no disagreements with you on how much corporatism sucks and how awful it can be when corporations get governments to install certain regulations. But let's not pretend that businesses also want fewer regulations so that can pollute left and right, etc. Some regulations are good, some are bad. I think in the end government transparency solves more than an effort to go with a laissez-faire approach.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...On weed… A buddy of mine was going on his same tired point of it being, “Off the earth.” Someone else dropped, “Yeah, and so is dogshit, I don’t see you walking around chewing that.”

I smiled.

Yep, that's the Appeal to Nature fallacy.

Appeal to nature - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Buster Bluth]

But we don't ban dogshit eating. I've never smoked weed and never will but I still don't like that I'm not free to do so.

You're missing out haha

 

[ACamp1900]

But we don't ban dogshit eating. I've never smoked weed and never will but I still don't like that I'm not free to do so.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

Yeah, I was not taking that leap... I'm for legalization for the most part... just sharing a funny encounter.