Screw the LRC

Stuart Richards just posted an interesting article about public acceptance of the idea of a third party. He then spun it into a puff piece for the Libertarian Reform Caucus, linking us to their stance on immigration.

Let’s see how libertarian the LRC’s stand on immigration is. Here’s a quick excerpt:

  • Requiring migrants to pass background checks…
  • Requiring migrants to be self-sufficient…
  • Requiring migrants to seek…

“Require” doesn’t sound very libertarian to me. Who are these LRC guys again? Aren’t they the guys that want to remove the principle that people have to sign to become a LP member? So if the LP removes the priniciple, they’ll just be “The Party of ________ “!

The LRC says:

However, the legitimate role of government is to protect the rights and property of it’s citizenry.

This may be the “legitimate” role as described in the constitution, but no libertarian could agree that government is good at protecting anything! Remember, these are the same people who can’t keep drugs out of their own prisons! What libertarian could have the hubris to believe that they can make government work? If you catch yourself feeling this way, I suggest you review Harry Browne’s “Seven Never-to-be-Forgotten Principles of Government”

What I want to know is, who wants to be a citizen of a government anyway? Considering that the “supreme court” has ruled time and time again that the government has no obligation to protect citizens, why would anyone consent to be protected by these people?

FTL_Ian

( -)-(- )85 comments

90% of Americans support a third party

The Lou Dobbs Show on CNN apparently asked its viewers a question on Tuesday: Would you consider membership in a third party? As of the latest reporting (via DailyKos), 90% of them said “yes.” Coming on the heels of Greenspan’s prediction of a viable centrist third-party candidate for President in either 2008 or 2012, this is big news. Obviously, the people are getting fed up with Republican betrayals of the Constitution and fiscal discipline, and Democratic betrayal of their spines.

Will this translate into unprecedented Libertarian successes in 2008? Well, in order for that to happen, we’ll have to give the voters what they want-fiscal discipline, an end to the war in Iraq, and a moderate stance on immigration, along the lines of the LRC’s proposal or Chuck Hagel’s proposal. And that’s pretty much it. Maybe a few tangential issues, like marijuana decriminalization or some other issue that enjoys broad public support, but that’s it. We have to be credible, and only run on those principles that the voters support. This, of course, means that the LRC has to be leading the Libertarian Party by then. After all, if we don’t give the voters what they want, someone else will… and diehard libertarian though I am, I’ll probably vote for that man.

But just by looking at the Republican candidate circus, it’s evident that we can probably just expect more of the same from them. As for the Democrats… as time passes it looks more and more like Clinton’s got the nomination clinched. The voters are crying out for an alternative-it is our duty to give it to them.

( -)-(- )32 comments

HoT Blogger in the News on Bloggers’ Rights

Michael Hampton, who blogs here and at Homeland Security, was covered in the news today in reference to FEC regulation of bloggers. From the article:

Wisconsin-based blogger Michael Hampton favored the broad language of the Hensarling bill over the more targeted CDT proposal. Though his blog, Homeland Stupidity, runs on about $1,000 per year and would likely be untouched by reporting regulations for online electioneering, he views any attempt to regulate web-based political activity as a threat to bloggers’ ability to air their views freely.

A self-described libertarian whose blog “covers almost anything the government does which might be considered stupid,” Hampton argued: “Attempts to regulate the speech of bloggers are tantamount to regulating the New York Times‘ editorial and op-ed pages, and as such, should be vigorously opposed.”

Hampton’s take:

And after carefully reconsidering the issue, I am still of the opinion that the only Internet campaign finance reform we need is for the Federal Election Commission to stay away from the Internet entirely. The CDT proposal is going to do the same thing to the Internet as existing campaign finance laws do: make it harder for third parties to get their message out. And since one third party has the most important message few people are hearing, it’s absolutely vital that every possible avenue for communicating that message be protected

I’m in agreement with Hampton — get the FEC totally out of the Internet picture.

( -)-(- )7 comments

Libertarian Party Chair on Cavuto

I’ve been getting behind at work, and then lost Internet access for a while, which got me even further behind. One of the things I missed out on was Libertarian Party Chair Michael Dixon on national television. All I know is what was reported on the LP blog (and in the comments section). If anyone finds a link to the video, please let me know. Props.

( -)-(- )7 comments

Nevada: Anti-Marijuana Pollsters Stoop to New Low

For those of you not aware of the situation, the Marijuana Policy Project is pushing a statewide campaign to legalize marijuana in Nevada. Someone out there is doing some push polling which provides blatantly dishonest information about the initiative. According to an e-mail from Rob Kampia, he doesn’t yet know who is behind the push polling effort.

To listen to the bogus message, click here or here. From their state issue blog:

CRCM recently obtained a recording of a telephone “poll” that Nevadans are hearing when they answer their phones. The automated “pollster” lies to voters about what CRCM’s initiative would do, claiming that it would “make marijuana available in grocery stores and convenience stores similar to buying a pack of cigarettes” … when in fact the initiative would ban the sale of marijuana in convenience stores, grocery stores, dance halls, and gas stations. You can read the relevant section of the initiative below.

Push polls don’t provide useful information, and in this case any results obtained can only be used to provide misinformation to the public and the press. These sorts of amaturish polls are not conducted by any serious political consultant, and are considered highly unethical by the American Association of Political Consultants — an organization of which I’m proudly a member. Anyone subordinate who conducted any such polling on any of my campaigns would be immediately terminated — and I would quit working for any campaign which insisted on such unethical behavior.

I’d like to see the Nevada media pick up on this issue and loudly expose whomever is conducting this dishonest survey. This sort of behavior makes even politicians look bad.

( -)-(- )22 comments

Illegal Iraq War Costing $6 Billion Per Month

The Iraq war is costing the U.S. taxpayer nearly $6 billion per month. That’s billion with a big fat “B”. That’s a 6 followed by no less than 9 zeros. That’s a LOT of money.

Let’s attempt to put $6 billion into perspective. Assuming a 30 day month, $6 billion is:

  • 200 million (200,000,000) dollars per day
  • Over 8 million (8,333,333) dollars per hour
  • Over 138 thousand (138,000) dollars per minute

Of course these numbers don’t put a dollar figure on human casualties.

But hey, we are spreading freedom and democracy around the world so it’s all good.

Bring’em on

UPDATE: Catch a glimpse of what you get for the money.

UPDATE 2: They all knew it’s an illegal war

( -)-(- )25 comments

Volunteers Needed to Fly Without Papers

Somehow, I missed the news on the resolution of the John Gilmore case — where he lost his challenge to the law about having to have “proper” identification when flying. To the best of my knowledge, Gilmore is still trying to decide whether to take the case before the Supreme Court. It’s funny how the MSM seemed to miss this one.

In the meantime, PapersPlease.org is reporting that one can fly without papers, so long as he or she submits to a secondary screening.

What they need are a few volunteers to see if the TSA will do what the 9th Circuit directed. If you wish to be a freedom fighter flyer, here are the instructions.

Props.

( -)-(- )5 comments

Bill Clinton Leads George Bush Among Conservative Critics

The Washington Post reports that a CATO Institute panel discussion of the Bush Administration’s policies, the White House couldn’t be bothered to send a representative.

“We did ask a few members of the Bush economic team to come,” explained David Boaz, the think tank’s executive vice president, as he moderated a discussion between two prominent conservatives about President Bush. “We didn’t get that.”

The two panelists who were there, Bruce Bartlett and Andrew Sullivan, are longtime conservatives fed up with Bush and his anti-conservative actions. The White House has obviously decided that, rather than defending the indefensible, they’ll just hide until the critics go away.

They might be smart to hide. One of Bartlett’s quips illustrates just how bad it’s become for the President.

“If Bush were running today against Bill Clinton, I’d vote for Clinton.”

So would I, Mr. Bartlett, so would I.

( -)-(- )8 comments

Windows Live: Initially Dead on Firefox, Working Now

We started getting a few hits tonight from a domain with which I’m not familiar: Live.com. After searching the news, this account explained things a bit:

Microsoft is releasing a series of new products at ETech. They include Windows Live Search Beta, Windows Live Toolbar Beta (including announcing the acquisition of Onfolio), and the next version of Live.com.

While it worked pretty quickly on IE, it took an hour to upload on Firefox on my first try. It seems to work fine on both browsers, now.

I’ll play with it a bit and give it some time (it is day one of a beta test), but I’m pretty familiar with searches and feeds on my websites, content, and articles. It missed a good chunk of hits that I’m used to, but they may have some new plan on relevancy. The output was rather interesting (as it does not rank similarly to Google, Google News, Technorati, Topix, etc.) at least. The topline results certainly looked a bit different from what I usually see.

For the technophiles out there, this may be one to watch.

( -)-(- )8 comments

House Passes Patriot Act

The press is already hailing it as a victory for Bush and the GOP, but I call it a major loss for Americans. The House just passed the new and improved Patriot Act by a super-majority vote.

Bush, forced by filibuster to accept new curbs on law enforcement investigations, is expected to sign the legislation before 16 provisions of the 2001 law expire on Friday.

The vote was 280-138, just two more than needed under special rules that required a two-thirds majority. It marked a political victory for Bush and will allow congressional Republicans facing midterm elections this year to continue touting a tough-on-terror stance. Bush’s approval ratings have suffered in recent months after revelations that he had authorized secret, warrantless wiretapping of Americans.

Prediction: Aside from Ron Paul, the GOP is going to have a very tough time maintaining control of the House of Representatives in 2006. While there may not be a significant difference between the parties, the increased level of gridlock (a good thing — my favorite Gary Nolanism) of one party not having absolute control over all three branches of government will certainly be welcome.

Of course, we all know Bush will sign the bill. The graphic (courtesy of Flickr) indicates where he can stick his pen, though.

( -)-(- )24 comments

Recurring Theme: US Out of Cash

Outside of the blogosphere, there’s been little little mention of the fact that the US government is already technically in default on the national debt. Now, Treasury Secretary John Snow is reported to be shuffling money (including retirement funds) around in order to pay the bills.

From ABC News:

In a letter to Congress, Snow urged lawmakers to pass a new debt ceiling immediately to avoid the nation’s first-ever default on its obligations.

“I know that you share the president’s and my commitment to maintaining the full faith and credit of the U.S. government,” Snow said in his letter to leaders in the House and Senate.

Treasury officials, briefing congressional aides last week, said that the government will run out of maneuvering room to keep from exceeding the current limit sometime during the week of March 20.

We already know what will happen next: Congress will vote to increase the debt ceiling.

Let’s see. What would happen if I buy a 10,000 square foot house and a few really nice cars — and then run out of money? If I needed a yacht and some original Van Gogh’s, perhaps my family could simply vote to increase our debt ceiling, too. If we don’t have the income to pay it off, who cares? The kids can always pay off our debts.

( -)-(- )4 comments

Ron Paul Wins GOP Primary

The results aren’t all reported yet, but Ron Paul has a picked up a wide enough margin (more accurately, a landslide) to easily call him the winner. The first article I found relating to Dr. Paul’s race has this minor report:

The former wife of Frank Sinatra Jr., Houston attorney Cynthia Sinatra, was unsuccessful in her bid to unseat District 14 Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Surfside, who often votes against his party because of his strict views on spending.

Let’s hope his success continues until November.

( -)-(- )12 comments

Libertarians Lead at Political Partying

How come whenever I’m at the National Press Club, the events are somewhat dry and there is no real party going on? If memory serves correctly, the latest events there with which I was involved were a couple of press conferences and panel discussions dealing with 2004 election recount in Ohio, a panel I sat on which was hosted by Webster Brooks dealing with minority voting in the 2004 elections and helping Aaron Russo run some film crews for this flick.

According to Wonkette, they have a much better time at the National Press Club when I’m not speaking. Not only do they get to listen to Joe Trippi and Glenn Reynolds discussing the present and future of blogging and politics, but it sounds like they partied their asses off, too.

From Wonkette:

After all this, we definitely needed a drink. Thankfully, the debate and book signing were followed by an open bar. As our host Nick Gillespie put it, “This is a celebration of open source, so we have an open bar. ‘Please take what you want – but drink what you take.’ So we took, and drank, and took and drank some more.”

We’ve said it before, we’ll say it again: Getting drunk with libertarians is fun!

I think I just learned the secret to hosting successful events in DC: Invite libertarians and have a lot of booze on hand. Perhaps our expertise is closer to political partying than political parties. On a related note, I’ll be speaking in Baltimore on April 1, then spending a few days in DC where I hope to catch up on my alcohol consumption with some of my friends in the area.

Props.

( -)-(- )3 comments

Around the Web

Lew Rockwell published a good article by Jacob G. Hornberger about the hypocrisy involved when members of the Bush Regime compare others to Hitler.

Homeland Stupity reports that the DHS might be watching you if you decide to pay off your credit card(s). There is an interesting post on Liberty Forum about this as well.

More Liberty refers us to a Reason article explaining why the line-item veto isn’t necessarily a good thing.

Lew Rockwell has a post on his blog regarding Dubya’s war on those that criticise his regime.

Finally FMNN republished two very good articles by Harry Brown: WHY YOU ARE A LIBERTARIAN and IN PRAISE OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY.

Update: Don’t forget to check out Stephen VanDyke’s post about the credit card issue here.

( -)-(- )Comments Off on Around the Web

Libertarian Search; Kosmix Style

Innovative search engine Kosmix is simplifying the sometimes daunting task of finding what you need on the web by organizing search results into categories. There are currently three main engines with more on the way: Health, Travel and recently added Politics. The cool thing about the Politics engine is that Libertarian is one of three categories it will organize your results. As Wired News reports:

Search engine newcomer Kosmix, which lets users look in specific topic areas, recently introduced its politics engine. For any search term, Kosmix organizes results into conservative, liberal or libertarian categories, allowing seekers to explore results associated with a certain political persuasion.

They are still in the “Alpha” stage of development so the categorization isn’t perfect, but any search engine that acknowledges libertarianism as a mainstream political philosophy deserves a second look.

( -)-(- )7 comments

Wisconsin LP State Convention Might Be Interesting

I’m frequently invited to speak at state Libertarian Party conventions, and Wisconsin is no exception. Unfortunately, I had a scheduling conflict and was unable to accept their invitation. It’s probably a good thing, as they’ve managed to drum up a most interesting speaker line-up. I’ll shut up, and let the e-mail I received tell the story:

FEDERAL RESERVE BANKER TO SPEAK AT WISCONSIN LIBERTARIAN CONVENTION

will come clean on secrets of American Government

from the www.LPWI.org website:

2006 LPWI STATE CONVENTION

Hal Greenwood, a former advisory director to the Federal Reserve Board during the Reagan administration, will be speaking at lunch. Mr. Greenwood has been involved with politics since the 1960s, and will be sharing a great deal of his political insight with us. The main topic of his talk will be the erosion of our liberties in recent years. Mr. Greenwood is well known by the media and will likely attract media attention from several areas around the state with this, his first speaking engagement in a number of years. Greenwood has been president, CEO and director of a number of banks and bank associations since the 1960s, and also worked under Hubert Humphrey’s and President Carter’s administrations.

Greenwood will be introduced at the convention by LPWI Vice-Chair Rolf Lindgren. According to Rolf Lindgren, former Federal Reserve Banker Harold “Hal” Greenwood was appointed to the Federal Reserve Advisory Board by presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan.

Greenwood was name in a 1974 Time magazine article which listed the brightest Leaders of America’s future. The list included Bill Clinton and Hal Greenwood. [I’ve seen the magazine]

Greenwood made Nixon’s ENEMIES LIST.

He was also a speech writer for Hubert Humphrey.

According to Lindgren, Greenwood believes he knows who killed JFK and once had a confrontation with international bankers named Rothschild and Rockerfeller in a small New York business office. This occurred shortly after Humphrey, in 1968, announced that Greenwood would be named Secretary of the Treasury if Humphrey were elected.

After Greenwood’s LPWI convention speech, he will be taking questions from the audience.

Some good questions might be:

Is Bush’s illegal wiretapping legal?

Is the Federal Reserve privately owned?

Is there and international banking conspiracy?

What really happened on December 23, 1913?

Was the 16th amendment ratified?

Do you really have to pay federal income taxes?

What is the truth about the Trilateral Commission?
The Council on Foreign Relations?
The Bilderburgers?
Bohemian Grove?
Henry Kissinger?

The Mason, the Freemasons, and the Masonic Lodge?

What about the Shriner’s?

What is the link between Carl Rove’s girlfriend and the Valerie Plame CIA leak?

Attend the April 8, 2006 LPWI State convention and find out!

WARNING – UNDERCOVER FBI AGENTS MAY IN PLAIN CLOTHES AT THE CONVENTION, THEY WANT TO HEAR WHAT GREENWOOD SAYS, TOO.

PS

Also speaking at the convention will be LPTN Tax Resistor Vernie Kuglin

Following the afternoon session there will be a cocktail hour followed by a banquet and a keynote speaker. Vernie Kuglin of the Libertarian Party of Tennessee will speak on her 2003 IRS tax case, and her thoughts on the current status of tax honesty.

[and more…]

I’ll report, you decide…

( -)-(- )13 comments

Yale: Not as Bright as Rumored

I thought one had to be pretty bright to study or teach at Yale — until Bush and Kerry indicated this not to be the case. I held out hope for their post-grad programs, but apparently I’m mistaken about this, too. Yale’s Law School has been whining about military recruiters on campus. In particular, the Yale legal community is upset about the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

This article covers a lot of the nuances of the arguments heard before the Supreme Court. Here are some examples:

“The Solomon Amendment neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything,” Roberts wrote. “Compelling a law school that sends scheduling e-mails for other recruiters to send one for a military recruiter is simply not the same as forcing a student to pledge allegiance, or forcing a Jehovah’s Witness to display the motto ‘Live Free or Die.'”

Justice Samuel Alito LAW ’75 did not participate in the case — Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, or “FAIR” — since he was not on the bench when oral arguments were heard on Dec. 6.

During the past several years, the Yale Law School community has been particularly engaged in this debate. Last November, members of the faculty filed an amicus curie brief with the Supreme Court in the FAIR case decided today. Two years ago, 45 professors successfully sued the Pentagon in Burt v. Rumsfeld after the federal government threatened under the Solomon Amendment to withhold more than $300 million in federal funding from Yale if military recruiters were not allowed on campus.

In Burt v. Rumsfeld, the plaintiffs ultimately won an injunction that allowed Yale’s barring of military recruiters from campus in acknowledgement of the discriminatory nature of the military’s policy against open gays. The case is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

E-mail lists for recruiters and such aren’t the key issue. Who won or lost at court today isn’t important. What’s significant are $300 million federal dollars. It doesn’t take too high an IQ to realize that that if an organization accepts federal dollars, they also get federal dictates. If you don’t want the rules, don’t take the money. It’s that simple.

It seems that Yale lawyers are sitting on the sofa swatting flies while there’s an elephant in the living room.

( -)-(- )15 comments

Unconfirmed Report: Kubby Released

The following is still unconfirmed, but from a generally reliable source:

Steve Kubby was just released from prison by the Sheriff and jailers, on Monday evening, March 6th.

The reason for his removal was “due to overcrowding”.

Steve is staying with a friend. He is due to appear in court again on March 15th.

More details to follow…

The good news is now confirmed by Richard Cowan:

Posted March 6, 2006
Exclusive to MarijuanaNews

I just spoke with a very happy Steve Kubby, who was released from Placer County jail this afternoon, where he had been held since January 27th, following his expulsion from Canada on January 26th.

I’ll post additional details as they become available.

( -)-(- )7 comments

Kubby Getting Sicker in Jail

Marc Emery isn’t the only victim of Canada’s recent capitulation to the United States regarding marijuana issues. Steve Kubby is still in jail in California after being recently booted from Canada. Kubby requested a hearing to modify his 120 day sentence in Placer County, California. According to the Canadian Press, his request was denied.

Still suffering from adrenal cancer, Kubby is reported to have shingles, indicating that his immune system has been further compromised by an injustice system which is preventing him from obtaining the medication which has been keeping him alive. One report from his court appearance states that he has lost 27 pounds in his first 37 days of captivity.

I’m not sure what Kubby’s weight was when he was arrested, but he certainly wasn’t portly. Other health problems aside, if continues to lose weight at the current rate, he will have lost 88 pounds by the time of his release. Considering his other health conditions, this could easily be a state no longer compatible with life.

Our government has shown that it has absolutely no concern for the lives of people who require marijuana to stay alive, especially those incarcerated for doing what is required simply to survive — just ask Jonathan Magbie or Peter McWilliams. Actually, you can’t ask them, as they are already dead — murdered by the cold and callous hands of the state.

( -)-(- )6 comments

Marc Emery on 60 Minutes

As a follow-up to this post:

UPDATE: YouTube.com has removed the video, but you can still view it at the following locations:

The Pirate Bay
Archive.org

( -)-(- )24 comments

Baby Euthanasia: The Final Solution?

Holland, which already allows the practice of euthanasia, or assisted suicide, for adults who have expressed a desire to die if they are afflicted with a terminal illness and lose the ability to function, is now going to allow euthanasia for babies with terminal illnesses, in consultation with the parents and doctors.

Under the so-called Groningen protocol, a doctor would be able to end the life of a terminally ill baby in cases of “unbearable suffering” when the baby has no chance of surviving anyway.

“If a child is untreatably ill,” Verhagen explained, “there can be horrendous suffering that makes the last few days or weeks of this child’s life unbearable. Now the question is: are you going to leave the child like that or are you going to prevent that suffering?” He went on: “Does the child have to sit it out until the end? We think that the answer is no. There can be circumstances where, under very strict conditions, if all the requirements are fulfilled, active ending of life can be an option – but only in cases of untreatable disease and unbearable suffering.”

This is what happens to terminally ill babies with no hope of survival today.

Verhagen, a 42-year-old father of three who has spent years tending sick children in underdeveloped countries, became a paediatrician with the intention of saving children’s lives, not ending them. Then along came a case that changed his entire way of thinking.

Sanne had a severe form of Hallopeau-Siemens syndrome, which meant that her skin would detach itself from her body if anyone touched it. The membranes inside her mouth and oesophagus fell away whenever they tried to feed her through a tube.

To experts, it is obvious when babies are in pain, and not only because of the type of shrieking. The way they clench their fists is another indicator. This was a child in great pain but pain relievers seemed to make no difference; and every time nurses replaced her bandages a little more of her skin fell off. She came to resemble a mummy. Verhagen did not know what to do.

Her parents demanded an end to her suffering and, for the first time in his career, Verhagen considered euthanasia. Fearing prosecution, however, he sent the child home, where she died of pneumonia six months later.

When reports of the Groningen protocol first surfaced in late 2004, so-called “compassionate conservatives” were up in arms, comparing it to the Nazi final solution.

This is either a low point, or a point of no return. The establishment of “independent committees” to dispatch non-consenting humans is nothing but a death penalty committee for innocents. Once begun, it is impossible–simply impossible–to limit the concept with any bright line. Abortion, of course, has always been limited by the physical act of birth, and once out of the womb, only the most extreme “reproductive rights” advocates have argued that the baby’s natural right to live can be compromised by the mother. But now the Netherlands has gone farther–much, much farther. If the “severely retarded” may be killed upon appropriate motion, second, debate, and majority vote, why not the moderately retarded? Why not the mildly retarded? Why not, in fact, anyone the “independent committee” deems as usefully dispatched.

Why not? Let’s just kill any baby that doesn’t live up to our genetic standards! We’ll finally be able to create the Aryan master race our Führer dreamed of! Heil Hitler!

Don’t be ridiculous. Nobody’s even come anywhere close to suggesting creating a master race through baby euthanasia, except for the so-called “compassionate conservatives.”

As far advanced as our medical science has become, there are still many diseases and disorders which are not only quite lethal but for which we have no cure. We’re talking about babies who, in their short lives on this earth, will know nothing but the most severe suffering. Is it really the moral high ground to sit back and watch for months on end, listening to the constant, relentless screams of a baby in severe, unbearable pain, until the child finally dies? Or can the parents, after consulting with their doctors, getting a second opinion, and some oversight by an independent committee, make the decision that their baby should not have to continue suffering?

I leave to you the decision you would make for yourself and your family. As for me, if I am ever terminally ill with not only no hope of recovery but no hope of ever getting out of my hospital bed again, then that’s time to pull the plug.

( -)-(- )29 comments

War On Drugs: Open the Libertarian Front

Vote against prohibition

It’s time to declare our own war on drugs. Or in more logical terms: a war on drug prohibition rhetoric. Libertarianism is the largest political movement that can even remotely pull off any kind of insurgency against badly conceived laws and bad propaganda and it’s high time we took the initiative (no pun intended).

You see, from a logical standpoint, there’s not a whit of difference between 1920’s alcohol prohibition and today’s drug prohibition. Even the terminology is easily transposed (bootlegers, runners, dealers, etc). But perhaps it’s time we started flipping our own rhetoric back on the prohibitionists.

Example:

If legalization of drugs is worse than the alternative, why aren’t Miller and Anheuser Busch doing drive-bys on each others’ factories?

I’d like to open the comments up to anyone who can come up with some clever anti-prohibitionist rhetoric of their own. I know there’s some real gems out there in favor of legalization/decriminalization that don’t rely on the crutch of “legalize pot… woot, OMGROFL”. Seriously… be smart and witty, not just the me-too crap that fills other forums.

The mic is yours, step up.

( -)-(- )33 comments

It’s Nice to be Hated

It is rare that one can express a political opinion without offending someone. Libertarians often get a double dose of it, as almost every opinion we express offends someone from the left, the right, or both. As a result, we get our share of hate mail. One such writer came up with a long list alternate names for Hammer of Truth:

see more…

( -)-(- )58 comments