[ExI] libertarians nominate none of these

[William Flynn Wallace]

For many years I shared the view that nobody should be able to tell me what
I can put into my body, such as prescription drugs.  I changed my mind.

Consider just how news about drugs (prescription, OTC, illegal) travels the
web.  Superstitions abound amid some probably good advice.  Add in that a
significant portion of the population are mentally challenged, are
psychotic, are just plain stupid, and you have a recipe for hundreds of
thousands of people harming themselves and others (including their
children) by taking prescription drugs they really have no idea how to use
properly ("If I take two won't that work faster and better?").  Opiates
will addict millions and many will die of overdoses.  You think it's bad
now?

What this view of legalizing comes down to is Social Darwinism - "If you
are stupid enough to take the drug you deserve the effects, including
death."  You might swallow that line for adults (I don't), but what about
the children who are dosed by parents (or peers- I assume no age limit for
purchasing drugs)?

This is just unacceptable to me.  Sometimes we need a nanny state.  I have
to accept that and the limitations it puts on me regardless of the fact
that I am not stupid, psychotic, superstitious, and so on.  Making all
drugs available to all people will create a nightmare.

For the same reason I accept that we have to have traffic laws to help keep
morons from killing themselves and other people.  No doubt you could think
of more laws that protect people from themselves.

Yes, I am a libertarian, but some things are just not possible, given the
mental limitations of many human beings.

The Interstate Highway System was started because Eisenhower wanted it so
the defense department could mobilize and get places faster in case of
war/invasion.

bill w

On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 3:57 AM Kelly Anderson via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> I'm replying to a bunch of stuff in this thread...
>
> I'm a Libertarian, though in self interest, I might temporarily
> declare as a Republican to be able to vote in the local primary which
> affects me directly. Even donated to a guy who I think is the more
> libertarian of the two Rs running in the primary. I hope he wins, but
> I don't think he has much of a chance.
>
> Anyway, as far as legalized drugs go, I'm personally in favor of
> making ALL drugs legal, including pharmaceuticals, without
> prescriptions. I would advocate for keeping actual pharmacies, so that
> you knew what you were buying was actually the drug you were paying
> for even if it is heroin. Prescription drugs are a big racket, just
> like illegal drugs and I think we could do with a few less of all
> those. I'd love to see some of the big pharma people in jail. But I
> believe in freedom more than any other value, especially over safety.
> Safety is overrated in our society.
>
> So this is an example of why the Libertarian party will probably never
> win. Guys like me have fully independent thoughts. We don't buy into
> what any prepackaged set of ideals that are peddled by say Fox or
> MSNBC. If you have several dozens of millions of people like me that
> have fully independent thought patterns, how do you create a party
> platform that we'll all agree to? I want legal immigration of a large
> number of law-abiding immigrants to help solve our demographic issues.
> Good for America, bad for everyone else, but pretty much everyone else
> is more or less screwed in any case. No, I don't believe at all in
> open borders. I do think traffic laws are good, but I don't believe we
> need an Interstate Highway System to be maintained by the government.
> I think we have enough technology at this point for ALL roads to
> basically be toll roads, and you pay for what you drive on to a
> private system (perhaps a different system for each road) and Google
> can route you cheaply or route you fast. But the government is out of
> the way, and you can decide how well maintained a road you want to
> take. I do believe that there needs to be environmental protection so
> that the commons can't be raped by individuals who would burn down the
> world if it made them a few bucks. Dangerous people need to be in
> jail, and the government should provide a judicial system to keep us
> safe from bad people. Private prisons are a bad idea though. The
> military is necessary, and I'm against a world government. I do see
> the point of the US Navy providing security on the high seas and
> keeping piracy to a minimum. While I think religious freedom is an
> important right, I don't think religions should avoid taxes. I think
> the gold standard MIGHT be a good thing, but I'm not fully decided on
> that and I love cryptocurrency as a concept and Defi is particularly
> interesting if there is AI to setup smart contracts with a minimum
> number of loopholes. Should the government get involved in limiting
> AI? I just don't know yet... probably not because of the unintended
> side effects and that just leaves the bad guys with guns, so to speak.
> I'm not in favor of any weapons ban, except for weapons of mass
> destruction (the stuff even the government really shouldn't ever need
> or use). I think abortion should be available, but not paid for by the
> government. I'd love to see us get rid of health insurance altogether
> other than for major stuff because that bureaucracy is what makes
> things expensive. You see? Random crazy positions that could never
> form the basis of a party platform. There are probably six or seven
> people in the world that would agree with my positions on everything,
> and you can't form a party like that. You can only form functional
> parties from mostly sheep that believe the same things. Independent
> lone wolves just can't herd. We're like cats. Unfortunately, even
> though I agree with a lot of the Libertarian type thoughts, and even
> go objectivist or transhumanist on a lot of things, I won't join a
> herd and give up my rights to independent thought. I can't even agree
> with myself from year to year as my thoughts evolve and my positions
> become better informed.
>
> So you see, that's why the Libertarians are never going to win the
> presidency. ANYONE who is Libertarian is going to have one or two
> totally crazy positions on SOMETHING, and therefore people wouldn't be
> able to vote for them. Plus quite a few are atheists which means
> absolutely nobody will vote for them in America, because the only
> people polling lower than atheists on the "I'll never vote for a..."
> poll are pedophiles.
>
> Sorry to ramble on there, but I feel like I'm a good example of why
> Libertarians can't herd.
>
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 6:05 AM Henry Rivera via extropy-chat
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Mar 26, 2024, at 10:06 PM, spike jones via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > If all drugs are legal, they soon get mixed with pharmaceuticals, as
> opium did in the 19th century.
> >
> > I don’t buy this. This is a current problem now with black market drug
> purity. Crap gets mixed in or outright is substituted for what people are
> seeking.
> >
> > You seem to be referring to regulation and labeling issues vs
> legalization. People who advocate for legalization aren’t expecting to find
> cocaine in Coca-Cola after that, but it might mean you can go to a
> dispensary and buy cocaine in a pure uncut form without fentanyl in it, for
> example. That reduces harm in my mind, not the opposite.  Portugal, for
> example, which is engaging in an experiment in
> legalization/decriminalization right now doesn’t have the problem you refer
> to.
> >
> > Now, if you are suggesting that a Libertarian would advocate for the
> abolishment of literally all regulation, which is a very extreme version of
> a libertarian I might add, then perhaps what you suggest could be a
> problem. But I haven’t heard anyone advocate for that version of
> libertarianism in a long time. People seem to prefer at least some
> regulations around basic safety. No one wants a window to fly off a plane
> while in mid flight or to take a mislabeled drug. Allowing trial error to
> determine what is safe and the free market to follow will never become
> popular if people are dying in rapid succession, I suggest.
> >
> > -Henry
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20240328/e3b908eb/attachment.htm>