Printable View
What does the brain trust here in the political forum think about the effects of legal weed on the economy? A lot of talking heads seem to think that legalizing marijuana will be the giant beanstalk that grows from the magic seed. Bad analogy, but I am interested in the opinions of those who post here. I'll share my own thoughts after a few responses are made.
Lot's of good come from this:
1. Another "Sin" tax to go after.
2. Better weed (Anybody not doubt what big tobacco could do with cannibis?)
3. Jump start the foundering snack food industry.
....the list goes on
from Reason:
Quote:
From the government's (and taxpayer's) point of view, the real fiscal benefit from abandoning the war on marijuana would come from no longer arresting, prosecuting, and jailing pot smokers, sellers, and growers. Drug law enforcement costs something like $40 billion a year, and marijuana accounted for 43 percent of drug arrests in 2005. That doesn't mean legalizing marijuana would save two-fifths of the money spent on the drug war, since marijuana offenders are much less likely to be imprisoned than other kinds of drug offenders. But the savings certainly would be substantial.
I would say there would be some decent savings from reduced drug enforcement.
And the potential increase in jobs would be fairly large, I could see the pot industry keeping as many people hired as the tobacco industry does now. That completely discounts the amount of extra tax revenue.
I wouldn't say it would fix the economy, but it would help.
Yes to both 101A and WH23.
There're many benefits, and slim to no risks involved.
Oh, and let's not forget it will take away a piece of the pie from black market sellers as well.
It'd be a nice revenue stream. However, I doubt any one thing can "fix the economy".
I'm all for it and I don't even smoke.
You could require a license to carry it, require a more expensive license to grow it (in order to promote buying instead of growing... kinda like how it's illegal to make your own booze), and have a progressive fee attached to the license depending on the size of your operation (large shops would pay more for a license than a dude growing it on his window sill).
On top of that you could tax it. Sounds good.
Too bad social conservatives will fight this tooth and nail. We're probably still a generation away from this happening, but with the economy the way it is you never know.
You could give government an extra 500 trillion dollars in tax revenue and they will spend 1 Quadrillion....
I'm fine with legalizing it, but to think it would solve any fiscal government problem is completely foolish.
The prison business will take a huge hit.
A true social conservative would conclude that it’s not the governments business what a person does to his/her own body.Quote:
Originally Posted by jman3000
Which I'm fine with, because as a taxpayer I don't think we're getting our money's worth.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurster
I think a lot of people will take huge hits.Quote:
Originally Posted by spurster
:smokin
I would agree to an extent. I don't mind if people kill themselves with drugs, its when drugs cause them to act in manners that endanger others. Pot, if used sensibly doesn't do that. Other drugs that cause hallucinations and whatnot are still bad, because the chances of someone hurting those around them are far higher IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Geezerballer
I'm guessing there's been more alcohol-related deaths over the past 10 years than pot-related.
Thanks for getting the ball rolling with a few quick responses. I'll chime in now. I do think that any and all possible taxation benefits, from a sin tax on packs of marijuana cigarettes to a license for personal or commercial growing as jman3000 suggested, would boost the economy quite a bit. We already have a vast, expansive group of consumers the world over who are cognizantly breaking the law to get high. I would assume the number of marijuana smokers would at the very least double if it were legalized.
One thing I'm wary about is Big Tobacco throwing its eggs into the basket too. I've heard unconfirmed reports that the R.J. Reynolds Company already has dozens of strains of marijuana patented and on tap for release in case Washington ever moves on this. The first brand is already set to be called "Marlboro Purple," they say. Sure, buying a pack of cigarettes and a pack of joints at the same time would be very cool, but not if the tobacco companies start adding ingredients to the recipe. There's a lot more than tobacco in a cigarette, and I'd hate for them to spill chemicals all over the grass.
The real problem with this issue is desensitizing the United States from all of the anti-pot propaganda that has been going on for 80+ years. I think that, by now, most people have figured out that Reefer Madness was all bullshit, that marijuana doesn't take young, bright and motivated individuals and turn them into lazy slackers unless they were already lazy slackers to begin with, and so forth with all of those old doomsday anti-pot ads. Well, that and the endless amount of money this country has spent on a farce known as the "War on Drugs." I don't know how many narcotics officers are assigned to specifically deal with marijuana, but I can't see a massive loss in jobs over just legalizing weed. People are abusing other drugs out there, and it would get cops out of the hassle of booking 16-year-olds for getting caught with dime bags.
I'll take some time to collect my thoughts, read some more responses and come back for seconds.
I'd guess there's been more alcohol related deaths than guns, pot, cocaine, heroine, crack, meth, shrooms, and extacy combined.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
The dutch model:
- Legalize marijuana -> lowered the price of it -> lowered rate of related crimes AND reduced power of criminal orgs -> cheaper and safer society.
- Most of the tax on the sale of weed is re-invested in drug prevention and education -> less addicts -> lowering of medical costs for drug addicts treatment.
I think those are the real savings, not really a traditional boost to the economy but a big saving in the long term (You need at least >10 years for the first results to manifest themselves).
Just my two (oversimplified) cents.
P.S. Legalizing weed without a huge increase in drug prevention programs and give it to the big tobacco corps. is not really what I would want.
Which is exactly why you don't want to repeat the mistake with the legalization of weed (not against it, just think it has to be done right).Quote:
Originally Posted by jman3000
So does this mean we'll start seeing weed ads with Monday Night Football? I can already see the ad now...
John Stewart: "Have you ever seen Felix Jones run... On Weed???"
I don't think it will be legalized. More like still illegal but highly regulated. They might even have to increase the punishment for possession in order to force people to get the licenses. It'd be even more heavily restricted than tobacco in regards to ads too. No TV. No magazines. Probably just word of mouth... but it's weed so it's not like that's a problem.
Any guess on what Miller & Anheuser-Busch's lobbyists will have to do with such a proposal?
As has been pointed out above, any move towards legalization will be resisted by various interests who currently benefit from the "War on Drugs."
At the end of the day, this issue, like many others, comes down to the masses being afraid of greater individual liberty. Americans circumscribe their own liberty in large part because they are afraid of being free to live their own lives as they see fit, and incur the inherent responsibility.
We know marijuana use is less dangerous than other harder illegal drugs and as dangerous as other weaker, legal drugs (ie alcohol). Regardless of the legal status, more people use weed than coke and smack as most people know that marijuana is far less addictive and harmful than those. Fortunately alcohol consumption was far more popular than the prohibitionists could contain. Marijuana was easily stereotyped as the drug of choice for filthy lazy brown people, so it was easier to ban once upon a time.
In general, our society hates the notion of individuals enjoying their liberty. Be it drugs, sex, carbon use, or health care, we can't bear the thought of people actually enjoying life and being responsible for themselves. We all must self-flagellate ourselves for all of our natural desires. Fuck the Puritans of the left and right.
anybody ever wonder how many hard working honest people lost there jobs due to coming out dirty for a piss test. i am a union sheetmetal worker. we require drug testing every time we start with a new company. i cant tell you how many good ,smart, hardworking members we lost because they couldnt pass a piss test. they end up going non union and having to settle for half the pay we get and no benefits. their familys suffer. on the flip side if they were concerned about their families they would just not smoke. my point is the drug tests should be called the "marijuana test". if i do coke on friday and get a job interview on monday, im borderline clean. ide rather have a pothead as a co worker than a coke head working with me.
It won't fix the economy, but far fewer people will give a shit.
when i was young i would stay at home and just get baked. i was too stoned to go out and commit crime. also i could walk into a party and make 10 new friends by simply saying "anyone wanna smoke a joint?" i would spend the rest of my cash at jack in the box. trust me, weed is better for the economy in more ways than just profiting off it.
economically it'd be great.
We should declare 4/20 a national holiday while we're at it...
It will help, but not fix it. Politicians will just see it as more money to spend anyway.Quote:
Will legalizing weed fix the economy?
It already is an unofficial holiday! I'm sure there would be a large push to make it official. What do we call it?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Liberty day maybe?
^^ I was thinking the same about 4/20 ... people who don't even smoke wanna take the day off and get blazed with me :lmao
I remember my first job I worked at sonic, and literally everyone asked for 4/20 off... at my current job, one of the MANAGERS of a branch just didn't show up last 4/20 :lol
maybe your manager was a nazi. 4/20 is adolf hitlers birthday.Quote:
Originally Posted by z0sa
420 was probably already a holiday before Hitler was born. It was probably a holiday before Christ was born too.
fixed for accuracyQuote:
Originally Posted by Geezerballer
The alcohol and beer companies will fight this to the death and they have a shit ton of resources to do so. No way the big beer and alcohol companies allow another substance to cut into their piece of the disposable income pie.
There is more to overcome than your typically ignorant religious political bullshitter.
The alcohol and beer companies will fight this to the death and they have a shit ton of resources to do so. No way the big beer and alcohol companies allow another substance to cut into their piece of the disposable income pie.
There is more to overcome than your typically ignorant religious political bullshitter.
I'm too lazy to fix that double post :smokin
herb if used at all doesn't make you do any of the shit you just mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by sam1617
and i'll tell ya what else... lsd and mush never made me want to hurt myself or others and i used to be a big 'cid head back in the day. long live the key to life's door!
By sensibly, I meant not using it while operation heavy machinery, or driving, or any of those other things that you aren't supposed to do drunk either.Quote:
Originally Posted by koriwhat
As for LSD, it may have never made you want to hurt yourself or someone, but is it a similar trip for everyone? And if it isn't, is it easy to predict who has peaceful vs violent trips?
I disagree. A true social conservative might do as you say, but then he would be authoritarian. He may just as likely promote proper social living standards, but not force them upon others. Conservative and liberal are opposites and can be libertarian or authoritarian. I am a conservative libertarian. President Obama, and many liberals here, are liberal authoritarians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
I disagree. They already have the distribution set in place for regulated intoxicants. They would more likely benefit from becoming the large suppliers, selling to the same retailers they already have.Quote:
Originally Posted by BacktoBasics
rofl. If anything, you are a true progressive militarist. You are not even close to being a tory anarchist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Ah yes, you are a "conservative libertarian" who believes the state should be free to spy on its citizens and torture individuals. And who believes that preemptive wars of aggression are A-OK. There's nothing conservative nor libertarian about such positions.
Not by what progressive means now. And militarist, maybe. I am primarily conservative, and if you consider how old weed is, and was once legal, how is that not being conservative? I am a firm supporter of the constitution as written. It only asks of basic government functions and recognizes the need of a military. So do I. As for anarchism, that is the extreme end of libertarianism that I do not believe in, nor are very many libertarians that extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
You are obviously misinformed, and do not understand the constitution. I believe the intent of the constitution should be followed. There was no torture, although the form of waterboarding we used I'm sure was not pleasant. The citizens of this nation were not spied upon as the term suggests. The fourth amendment clearly allows for reasonable searches and seizures. As for preemptive wars, that is the one that is hardest to warrant, but by no way should it be ignored either. As for not being libertarian positions... If you expect someone to be a perfect copy of some stated political position of a party, you are really ignorant. Very, very few people will actually follow any particular party line 100% I'll add a third part I can identify with. The constitution party. All of my personal beliefs are probably all rooted within the some of the party principles of the three.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
"Maybe"? ROFL.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
That's right. Most libertarians believe in a military with bases in 180 countries. Silly me.Quote:
I am a firm supporter of the constitution as written. It only asks of basic government functions and recognizes the need of a military. So do I. As for anarchism, that is the extreme end of libertarianism that I do not believe in, nor are very many libertarians that extreme.
ROFL. Ah yes, I am obviously not a constitutional scholar of the internets as yourself.Quote:
You are obviously misinformed, and do not understand the constitution.
And I'm sure the rack was not pleasant either.Quote:
I believe the intent of the constitution should be followed. There was no torture, although the form of waterboarding we used I'm sure was not pleasant.
LOL. So it's not spying unless Uncle Sam actually does something bad to you when he's spying on you.Quote:
The citizens of this nation were not spied upon as the term suggests.
Ignorance is taking a narrow view of constitutional liberties and a broad view of the federal government's war powers and claiming that jives with a libertarian, classical liberal, anti-statist, or individualist viewpoint. There is nothing libertarian about your views. Stop fouling the term by misusing and misrepresenting it.Quote:
The fourth amendment clearly allows for reasonable searches and seizures. As for preemptive wars, that is the one that is hardest to warrant, but by no way should it be ignored either. As for not being libertarian positions... If you expect someone to be a perfect copy of some stated political position of a party, you are really ignorant.
LOL. By that notion Obama is a conservative Republican, as plenty of his policies are right in line with the prior administration.Quote:
Very, very few people will actually follow any particular party line 100% I'll add a third part I can identify with. The constitution party. All of my personal beliefs are probably all rooted within the some of the party principles of the three.
I think I fit the ideals of the Libertarian Party pretty good. From the Libertarian Party Web site:
Quote:
Platform
National Platform of the Libertarian Party
Adopted in Convention, May 2008, Denver, Colorado
Preamble
I agree.Quote:
As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
If only through peace can prosperity be realized, then what do we do with those who are not peaceful?Quote:
We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
I agree.Quote:
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
Idiotic statement. To set a goal of world freedom in our lifetime... Get real.Quote:
In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.
These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.
Yes, the state has too much necessary power.Quote:
Statement of Principles
We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.
I agree to the extent that as long as they don't take government resources to support bad decisions they make.Quote:
We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
I agree except for a small tax. We still need a limited government, and pay for it somehow.Quote:
Governments throughout history have regularly operated on the opposite principle, that the State has the right to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labor. Even within the United States, all political parties other than our own grant to government the right to regulate the lives of individuals and seize the fruits of their labor without their consent.
Did they purposely leave out taxation after specifying "fruits of labor" in the previous paragraph?Quote:
We, on the contrary, deny the right of any government to do these things, and hold that where governments exist, they must not violate the rights of any individual: namely, (1) the right to life -- accordingly we support the prohibition of the initiation of physical force against others; (2) the right to liberty of speech and action -- accordingly we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form; and (3) the right to property -- accordingly we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain, and support the prohibition of robbery, trespass, fraud, and misrepresentation.
I agree.Quote:
Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.
I agree with this. Where preemptive action takes place, is where some other type of action is already initiated against us.Quote:
1.0 Personal Liberty
Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.
Agreed.Quote:
1.1 Expression and Communication
We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.
Agreed, but I'll add that if people disable themselves with drugs, they cannot expect the tax payer to take care of them. Personal responsibility.Quote:
1.2 Personal Privacy
We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.
I agree with this as written except for military service.Quote:
1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.
I disagree because I see abortion as murder.Quote:
1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
Agreed.Quote:
1.5 Crime and Justice
Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.
Agreed.Quote:
1.6 Self-Defense
The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.
Agreed.Quote:
2.0 Economic Liberty
A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.
Agreed.Quote:
2.1 Property and Contract
Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.
Agreed.Quote:
2.2 Environment
We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.
Agreed.Quote:
2.3 Energy and Resources
While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.
I agree if this is as I assume. They agree to taxation, just not income taxes here. I assume property taxes are not liked either, but something like "The Fair Tax" is. I support The Fair Tax.Quote:
2.4 Government Finance and Spending
All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.
Agreed.Quote:
2.5 Money and Financial Markets
We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies, the repeal of legal tender laws and compulsory governmental units of account.
Agreed.Quote:
2.6 Monopolies and Corporations
We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.
Agreed.Quote:
2.7 Labor Markets
We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.
Agreed.Quote:
2.8 Education
Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.
Agreed.Quote:
2.9 Health Care
We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.
Agreed.Quote:
2.10 Retirement and Income Security
Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.
Agreed.Quote:
3.0 Securing Liberty
The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.
I disagree with us not being the policemen of the world. We are the stongest nation still, and at times, should intervene.Quote:
3.1 National Defense
We support the maintenance of a sufficient military to defend the United States against aggression. The United States should both abandon its attempts to act as policeman for the world and avoid entangling alliances. We oppose any form of compulsory national service.
Agree with the intent, but you cannot have transparency and be able to collect intelligence. Disclosure of methods will allow others to keep out intelligence network from working.Quote:
3.2 Internal Security and Individual Rights
The defense of the country requires that we have adequate intelligence to detect and to counter threats to domestic security. This requirement must not take priority over maintaining the civil liberties of our citizens. The Bill of Rights provides no exceptions for a time of war. Intelligence agencies that legitimately seek to preserve the security of the nation must be subject to oversight and transparency. We oppose the government's use of secret classifications to keep from the public information that it should have, especially that which shows that the government has violated the law.
I like the idea, but I don't see it as practical.Quote:
3.3 International Affairs
American foreign policy should seek an America at peace with the world and its defense against attack from abroad. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid. We recognize the right of all people to resist tyranny and defend themselves and their rights. We condemn the use of force, and especially the use of terrorism, against the innocent, regardless of whether such acts are committed by governments or by political or revolutionary groups.
I would be in favor of complete free trade ideas if we move to a taxation system that does not tax producers. We need a consumption based tax for this to work.Quote:
3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a threat to security, health or property.
Agreed.Quote:
3.5 Rights and Discrimination
We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.
Agreed.Quote:
3.6 Representative Government
We support electoral systems that are more representative of the electorate at the federal, state and local levels. As private voluntary groups, political parties should be allowed to establish their own rules for nomination procedures, primaries and conventions. We call for an end to any tax-financed subsidies to candidates or parties and the repeal of all laws which restrict voluntary financing of election campaigns. We oppose laws that effectively exclude alternative candidates and parties, deny ballot access, gerrymander districts, or deny the voters their right to consider all legitimate alternatives.
Agreed.Quote:
3.7 Self-Determination
Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of individual liberty, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to agree to such new governance as to them shall seem most likely to protect their liberty.
Quote:
4.0 Omissions
Our silence about any other particular government law, regulation, ordinance, directive, edict, control, regulatory agency, activity, or machination should not be construed to imply approval.
You fit the "ideals" other than your love of war socialism and disdain for civil liberties.
Idiotic and misinformed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Unless you consider the John Birch Society as the only true indicator of conservatism, you're full of idiotic ramblings that make no sense.
Isolationist conservatism was dead by the time of Eisenhower who called forth the Eisenhower doctrine regarding foreign policy. And if you want to go way back, it was the New Federalist or Whig Party that wanted to carry out manifest destiny.
Neoconservative policy is not anything like Wilsonian philosophy, Wilsonian philosophy on spreading Democracy was very idealistic and desired a third party League of Nations to administer such goal.
Neoconservative today is more about spreading democracy to achieve military advantage and to retaliate against our Cold War rivals who had their own version of Neoconservativism. For infact it was the Communist of the Motherland who wanted to engulf every state with communism leaving the United states to crumble under surrounding pressure and trade boycotts.
NeoConservatism was practiced by JFK, Johnson, Truman, and Reagan. Its not that we're here to promote Topless titty bars, playboy and Britney SPears. Neoconservatism aims to make representative govts out of despotic regimes and introduce free markets. Free Markets allow for everyone to chase money instead of chasing blood. That's the whole point behind it.
So to say that waging war is a Republican or Liberal thing is fallacious. Even the Federalist wanted at one point to choose sides and support the Brits vs the French.
As far as Libertarian views on Military being big Govt. The constituion specifically states the duty for congress to raise taxes for supporting a standing army.
Supporting a Big millitary is not being liberal, its being constitutional.
lol...Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
I agree that most of the Libertarian party platforms are things that no party would seemingly argue with. However, on the key things that make a Libertarian a libertarian (isolationist, civil liberties, fiscal independence) WC seems to not be an isolationist at all, is halfway ok with civil liberties, and is full on with fiscal independence. I'd say WC is slightly more libertarian than most conservatives, but still not libertarian enough to be a big L Libertarian.
You need to read up more on your history books. The reason that Congress is forced to vote, EVERY YEAR, on a standing army is to ensure that it is necessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
If the framers wanted a large and permanent military, they wouldn't make Congress vote every year to keep it going.
This will spell it out easier for you:
http://stason.org/TULARC/society/law...ding-Army.html
I agree with you. Times have changed since then. This is an item that. Voting to fund the military each budget cycle I would say shows all congress' have seen a standing army as necessary. I don't completely agree with a standing Army being compared to the police, but as a police state, yes. We don't have a police state. I would say it's getting close however.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Yawn. Until you are able to follow the conversation, you can return to playing with your Dubya action figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignignokt
Isolationism is not opposition to shooting up half of the Middle East in order to spread "freedom." That's called sanity.Quote:
Isolationist conservatism was dead by the time of Eisenhower who called forth the Eisenhower doctrine regarding foreign policy. And if you want to go way back, it was the New Federalist or Whig Party that wanted to carry out manifest destiny.
ROFL. It's the same enterprise, right down to the use of a state of war to accomplish goals that would otherwise be unattainable for the state.Quote:
Neoconservative policy is not anything like Wilsonian philosophy, Wilsonian philosophy on spreading Democracy was very idealistic and desired a third party League of Nations to administer such goal.
Neoconservatism today is about spreading democracy and freedom by force, often by attempting to run out the very despots the US put in place directly or indirectly during the Cold War.Quote:
Neoconservative today is more about spreading democracy to achieve military advantage and to retaliate against our Cold War rivals who had their own version of Neoconservativism. For infact it was the Communist of the Motherland who wanted to engulf every state with communism leaving the United states to crumble under surrounding pressure and trade boycotts.
Neoconservatism is nothing other than the progressivism of the Roosevelts and Wilson, rediscovered. The amusing thing is that today's "conservatives" fail to grasp that the tradition they uphold is simply the progressive militarism of a century ago.Quote:
NeoConservatism was practiced by JFK, Johnson, Truman, and Reagan. Its not that we're here to promote Topless titty bars, playboy and Britney SPears. Neoconservatism aims to make representative govts out of despotic regimes and introduce free markets. Free Markets allow for everyone to chase money instead of chasing blood. That's the whole point behind it.
Waging war is a bipartisan affair, as it expands the power of the state at the expense of lost individual liberty.Quote:
So to say that waging war is a Republican or Liberal thing is fallacious. Even the Federalist wanted at one point to choose sides and support the Brits vs the French.
Wrong, professor.Quote:
As far as Libertarian views on Military being big Govt. The constituion specifically states the duty for congress to raise taxes for supporting a standing army.
ROFL.Quote:
Supporting a Big millitary is not being liberal, its being constitutional.
So you think a company as massive as say Jack Daniels or Miller would risk alienating its core base over the possibilities of distributing a newly legal drug? A drug that if made legal would have a huge following of non-supporters. JD or Miller aren't advocates of cigarettes anymore than it would be of dope. I would think the risk doesn't outweigh the reward until the new product had been on the market and stable for a good decade or so. At that point it seems more logical to oppose it than support it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Not to mention that dope isn't even remotely related product wise to booze. What other liquor or beer company have cross promoted legal vices? None that I an think of.
lolololololololololololololololololololol!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Your article qouted hardly any founding father nor the constitution correctly. It managed to qoute Henry David Thoreau, a transcendalist! lololol!
infact it left out this whole passage;
This states specifically what is allowed to fund by raising taxes. The constitution designated taxes for keeping a military. To say that funding a military is Big Govt like Marcus Douchant by implying its discretionary and un american is idiocy.Quote:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
So it's every two years instead of one.
And, for the dense such as gtown, the military in its current incarnation is most certainly excessive in scale and scope. That's the argument, not that the mere existence of the armed forces is "big government."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Sure, you think that while you pleasure yourself with your john Birch plaster of paris appendage. See how completely easy that was? Useless.
Neoconservatism is not confined to military action fool. Neoconservatism is more than often spreading representative democracies through diplomacy and backing revolutions without having to invade countries. Poland and Western Europe are examples. Lebanon is another prime example.Quote:
Isolationism is not opposition to shooting up half of the Middle East in order to spread "freedom." That's called sanity.
The Iraq war was not primarily advanced because of Neoconservative ideals, but at first because it was sold as an immediate threat. Neconservative and preemptive military action are not synonomous.
More of MB's "Look at me!' i'm a purist douche. Wilsonianism is only applied to recent neoconservatism only because of some of the empty rhetoric of Wilson's 14 points. Wilson's actual foreign policy was to prop up military coercion through an International Party, Neoconservatives today believe Wilson to be naive and are distrustive towards International govts.Quote:
Neoconservatism is nothing other than the progressivism of the Roosevelts and Wilson, rediscovered. The amusing thing is that today's "conservatives" fail to grasp that the tradition they uphold is simply the progressive militarism of a century ago.
True Wilsonian philosophy is more attributed towards Jimmy Carter. Infact if we just focus on Neo Conservatism, we see it's a rival to Kissinger, Nixon, And Bush 1, amoral national foreign policy. Policies that Marcus now attributes to leading to the shit we have in the ME after WW2.
LOL, it's also a constitutional affair, otherwise the constitution wouldn't differentiate between times of war and peace. LOL!Quote:
Waging war is a bipartisan affair, as it expands the power of the state at the expense of lost individual liberty.
Yes it's excessive if we still had the big nasty British occupying the great Lakes and Canada, and 3/4ths of our congress was backing France!:lol:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Yes, gtown is that stupid.
You know when Marcus Bryant has been owned when....:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Claiming that since the Constitution authorizes the existence of the military, that justifies its current bloated state and wars of preemption (not to mention other military ventures) in pursuit of liberating the world by force is asinine. Only a truly deluded neoconservative would believe that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtownspur
Yes, you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by gtownspur
BFD. It attempts to justify wars not on the basis of national defense, but rather in terms of spreading "democracy" in foreign states.Quote:
Neoconservatism is not confined to military action fool. Neoconservatism is more than often spreading representative democracies through diplomacy and backing revolutions without having to invade countries. Poland and Western Europe are examples. Lebanon is another prime example.
Oh, the neoconservatives had a major hand in that, and not to mention that Bush eventually settled on 'spreading democracy' as the causa belli.Quote:
The Iraq war was not primarily advanced because of Neoconservative ideals, but at first because it was sold as an immediate threat. Neconservative and preemptive military action are not synonomous.
So the flavor's changed a little, but it's still the same old shit stew.Quote:
Wilsonianism is only applied to recent neoconservatism only because of some of the empty rhetoric of Wilson's 14 points. Wilson's actual foreign policy was to prop up military coercion through an International Party, Neoconservatives today believe Wilson to be naive and are distrustive towards International govts.
What war did Carter drag the US into in order to extend democracy? Moron.Quote:
True Wilsonian philosophy is more attributed towards Jimmy Carter. Infact if we just focus on Neo Conservatism, we see it's a rival to Kissinger, Nixon, And Bush 1, amoral national foreign policy. Policies that Marcus now attributes to leading to the shit we have in the ME after WW2.
[/B]
Is there ever a time of peace? Both parties prefer a permanent state of war in order to limit the constitutional liberties of the people. Predictably, you were yet unable to understand the obvious.Quote:
LOL, it's also a constitutional affair, otherwise the constitution wouldn't differentiate between times of war and peace. LOL!
:whineQuote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Yes, Marcus Bryant, we know you can repost the same bull over and over. Let me see, how did we change Lebanon and POland, western Europe by force?
If you could actually post your own thought rather than verbatim regurgitated by self important tools, you'd actually prove your point.
You have been proven that your assertion and fears that neoconservatives want to spread peace in every single corner of earth as fallacious. If you're just going to repeat the same things all over again, then again, you are the deluded one.
And as far as the military being bloated, the Soviets have violated the Monroe doctrine even to this day, and we've beefed up intelligence and third way methods along with infrastructure to protect our trade, and our way of life. The Founding Fathers did not experience this kind of phenomanae in their day, wait..... They did!
The british were blockading the great lakes and charging ridiculous taxes on merchant ships, the French and the SPanish were intent on encroaching towards our established expansion plans, we in turn backed the Texas Revolution to spread representative democracy, and then we launched attacks on indians loyal to britian and its navy. ROFL!
Yes, it's been proven to me that the wise neoconservatives don't want to 'spread democracy' by citing examples of when democracy was spread and claiming the neoconservatives deserve credit for that.
Before I forget, in what article of the Constitution lies the Monroe Doctrine?
There is no justification for spending half a trillion a year on the military, unless you believe that the American state should be spreading democracy around the world, like the delusional neoconservatives.
It's easy to bring the 4th grader out of Marcus everytime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
No, that was True wilsonianism, it was intent on spreading democracy because of its belief in that superior form of govt. Neoconservatism use democracy because they believe it is vital for our defense interest. A distinct difference in that one, and also that NeoConservatism is very much anti UN.Quote:
BFD. It attempts to justify wars not on the basis of national defense, but rather in terms of spreading "democracy" in foreign states.
Infact i have to remind you that your hero Eisenhower, who railed against a bloated military did infact employ neoconservative dogma.:rollin
I agree with using the word moron here, cept its the Moron who is still stuck on the cable news rhetoric of "neoconservative= invasion of territories." After already providing examples inwhich neoconservative policy didn't use force, you still manage like the true idiot you are to repeat this same fallacy. The flavor has yet changed and still the same shit stew.Quote:
What war did Carter drag the US into in order to extend democracy? Moron.
On to Carter, Carter advocating changing foreign governments for "human rigths". He altered the wilsonian doctrine from "democracy" to a more specific "human rights" cause. Again, Neoconservatism doesn't have to call for military action, see Poland, Lebanon.
I understand the cynicism behind that belief, and to a point it's partially true. So now that you admitted that you were wrong about the constitution's implication of limited liberties in times of war, i expect a thank you.:lmaoQuote:
Is there ever a time of peace? Both parties prefer a permanent state of war in order to limit the constitutional liberties of the people. Predictably, you were yet unable to understand the obvious.
I thought that'd make it easier for you to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by gtownspur
Ike isn't necessarily my "hero."Quote:
No, that was True wilsonianism, it was intent on spreading democracy because of its belief in that superior form of govt. Neoconservatism use democracy because they believe it is vital for our defense interest. A distinct difference in that one, and also that NeoConservatism is very much anti UN.
Infact i have to remind you that your hero Eisenhower, who railed against a bloated military did infact employ neoconservative dogma.:rollin
It doesn't have to, but it has, in total accord with its doctrine.Quote:
I agree with using the word moron here, cept its the Moron who is still stuck on the cable news rhetoric of "neoconservative= invasion of territories." After already providing examples inwhich neoconservative policy didn't use force, you still manage like the true idiot you are to repeat this same fallacy. The flavor has yet changed and still the same shit stew.
On to Carter, Carter advocating changing foreign governments for "human rigths". He altered the wilsonian doctrine from "democracy" to a more specific "human rights" cause. Again, Neoconservatism doesn't have to call for military action, see Poland, Lebanon.
I admitted no such thing. Both parties enjoy claiming the need to limit civil liberties in a state of war.Quote:
I understand the cynicism behind that belief, and to a point it's partially true. So now that you admitted that you were wrong about the constitution's implication of limited liberties in times of war, i expect a thank you.:lmao
Wow, first of all Marcus Bryant i don't pretend to know everything like you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Second, who implied the Monroe Doctrine was in the constitution? What a sad example of MB trying to grasp for strawmen to seem as if he's won any point yet. Let's see i used the Monroe Doctrine as an example to justify military buildup because James Monroe was a founding father, and he knew of our constitution's purpose and didn't see a conflict in applying such doctrine. It was used as an example to give credence to the fact that we were fighting Soviet intervention because of their violiation, which we as americans have held as our duty to keep for the past 150+ years. To Marcus Bryant, American political thought has never left Washington's farewell address.
3rd, Military buildup has been used for reasons outside of Neoconservatism, to imply that that's the sole reason why military buildup occurs is naive or at the worst deliberately misinformative. Either case could be legit with MB since he's both dishonest and naive.
[QUOTE=Marcus Bryant;3511773]I thought that'd make it easier for you to understand.[/QOUTE]
No, i already understood your disposition.
You're a quarter of the way there, cmon, maybe you should get into 4th grade mode, i could simplify it for you there once you get there.Quote:
It doesn't have to, but it has, in total accord with its doctrine.
Ofcourse you never denied that the constitution never talked about times of war and peace, i responded to you in this manner because you were talking as if Limited Liberties was an extraconstitutional clause not in our law. That was the whole point of that argument, thanks.Quote:
I admitted no such thing. Both parties enjoy claiming the need to limit civil liberties in a state of war.
I guess that's only when you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by gtownspur
Obviously the founding fathers intended for wars of preemption and a massive standing army because the Constitution granted to the legislature the power to establish a military.Quote:
Second, who implied the Monroe Doctrine was in the constitution? What a sad example of MB trying to grasp for strawmen to seem as if he's won any point yet. Let's see i used the Monroe Doctrine as an example to justify military buildup because James Monroe was a founding father, and he knew of our constitution's purpose and didn't see a conflict in applying such doctrine. It was used as an example to give credence to the fact that we were fighting Soviet intervention because of their violiation, which we as americans have held as our duty to keep for the past 150+ years. To Marcus Bryant, American political thought has never left Washington's farewell address.
I never said that was the sole reason. Again and again, you misquote, miscite, and completely misrepresent my argument.Quote:
3rd, Military buildup has been used for reasons outside of Neoconservatism, to imply that that's the sole reason why military buildup occurs is naive or at the worst deliberately misinformative. Either case could be legit with MB since he's both dishonest and naive.
The original discussion, which of course you sought out as a means to attempt to exonerate neoconservatism from its disaster in Iraq, was whether libertarianism was compatible with a military of the size and budget well beyond what is needed to defend this nation, wars of preemption, and the curtailment of civil liberties. It is not.
The true 4th graders in this thread are the ones who believe that that federal government should be spreading democracy around the world. For the state is good and doubly good when it invades 3rd world countries and kills scores of brown people in order to liberate them from the asshole who we had a hand in installing there in the first place.
ORLY?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Nevertheless, i didn't see the Team America video coming.
Also, Since you seem to never go off the "Neocons are synonomous with warmongers" script, it seems this endeavour is futile.
Why should I not? It's the latest shining example of the American state "spreading democracy." Wilson's experiment led the greatest global conflict of the 20th Century.
Sure, I never said it was the reason for the build up. The quote you offer regards maintaining the military at its current level. Duh.Quote:
Originally Posted by gtownspur
backtracking eh? you did say that the current buildup is only justified for neocons reasons. Your qoute not mine. As far as being specific about the current buildup, unless you subtract the iraq war that's only 300 billion a year at its peak, most of the military buildup is towards things other than nation building. We withdraw out of iraq, we still have a huge millitary budget so i don't see how this helps your argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
I think Marcus is just a troll, attempting to act like a libertarian.
nah, just a tool.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
LOL. Yeah, because a real libertarian would be for preemptive wars, a military empire stretching across the globe, and the state torturing and spying on people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
You only latched on to the libertarian label after you and your ilk managed to shit on the conservative one enough such that it's now an epithet in American politics.
That's not backtracking. That's basic comprehension.Quote:
Originally Posted by gtownspur
Wow....Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
You should see Dr. Phill. You have some serious anger issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
that's your qoute, you said the only reason we spend half a trill is because of neoconservatism. if u meant something different, learn to express your self proper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Who smelt it, dealt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
You're Wild Cobra, right? Did you forget when you said that MB is a fake libertarian, that he pantsed you recently on this very point?
I knew he wasn't that bright, but damn.
Actually, I was commenting on gtown but that goes for Water Closet as well.
Calling someone an idiot is not a sign of intellectual strenght. As for your qoute you claimed i miss interpreted. Its not my job to mind read, it is your job to properly convey your ideas like an intelligent person would.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Bryant
Sorry that you cannot understand your own gibberish.
remember, that next time you call other people bitches or idiots. Man, keep talking, you are your own worst enemy.cheers!:toastQuote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
That was so long ago, gtown. Please let it die.
I won't curse you anymore. I apologize for calling you a bitch. Even though you deserved it.
I apologize for calling you an idiot, too. I don't recall it distinctly, but I'll just trust you on that one. I probably meant to insult you.
An examination of the record may reflect my composure was under sustained and indecent assault by either you or one of your irritating sock puppets.
But that is no excuse. I forthwith resolve to put away, repent of and abjure, all gratuitous vituperation and insult...
...save that well worth committing.
En garde!
I actually don't think you're an idiot, gtown. Just terribly confusing.
Maybe, at times, confused.
You have a habit of saying what you mean very abstractly and elliptically, and your characterization of what others say is not infrequently fanciful, in the (slightly archaic) academic sense of the word. (Fancy= imagination)
That's one reason I say that. I did a point by point on the platform, and agree with most of their platform. I don't understand how you think he pantsed me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
[QUOTE=Hunter S. Thompson;3504942]Will legalizing weed fix the economy?/QUOTE]
No. Promoting entrepreneurship will.
But in general I do think it should be legalized. You aren't going to stop people from doing what they want to do. Legalization would cut down on much of the drug-related violence we see today especially in Mexico. Old cartels would become irrelevant to the likes of Walmart or Costco.
Imagine getting weed there lol