Whereas I may believe that most of your agenda is positive, I’m not happy about being herded into a three choice corner about drugs. As a libertarian (note the little “l”) I don’t support the prohibition from government of just about anything, giving some exception for totally foreign concepts which don’t find any room under the constitutional umbrella (Sharia, for example, or even Babylonian Talmud, FCS). I believe that the personal use of mind-deadening substances is foolish, perhaps even suicidal, but when power sources (government, e.g.) become involved it becomes a game of money and power, not morals. Every government intrusion into the personal is for the sake of power and money, not the “welfare” of the citizen. When will the numb nuts finally figure that out?
Were our government to dissolve all bureaucratic controls, dump all these worthless pencil pushing desk sitters, the government would be as the constitution ordered – small, efficient, benign, and doing what it should concerning the defense of our borders. AND, we’d need not have income tax, either, would we? (of course, it would also have to dump all those executive “Secretaries,” which the constitution never allowed. The “cabinet” has too much crap in it. Time for a yard sale, or a trip to the dump.
More than one person has suggested they don’t like the number of choices. But very interestingly, no one has, SIMULTANEOUSLY, suggested what should take it’s place WHILE adhering to the limited, single subject of drug prohibition. There is only one topic at stake here. It’s not, for example, constitutional government, Big Pharma drugs, or even other forms of prohibition. Other one topic surveys will be published VERY soon. The question here is, “I ___________ Drug Prohibition.” Do you support or oppose? We have kept ourselves open to suggestions.
Hi William. I want to add to Jim’s comment. It seems as if you agree that The State should not prohibit drug use, but that you also think that people should nevertheless refrain from using drugs. If so…
The deficiency you may see in our design is a place to state that second belief. We hope to provide this in the future by creating a comments section. This would allow you to use the slider to affirm that you do NOT think The State should prohibit drug use while then using the comment section to state that you yourself still believe drug use is bad, and should be argued against.
I hope I have understood your concern and that this new comment feature will meet that concern once we’re able to add it to our system.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. We appreciate it.
Of course participation in “Social Security” should extend to everyone, tho I would prefer to call it a “citizens dividend.” It should NOT be funded by any tax on income earned by labor or use of capital goods. Rather, it should be funded by collection of rent for natural resources, such as the electromagnetic spectrum and offshore oil. The Alaska Permanent Fund is a small step in this direction for residents of that state.
I think you’re right. In my faith tradition, it is the responsibility of a parent to care for children when they are young, and the children’s responsibility to care for parents when they are old. If we did not have to pay in to the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security, that task would be made far easier. It would be far more sane to take taxpayer’s approach, and leave the care of most of the elderly to their children. The rest could be cared for by friends, other family, or the faith community. The statist system we have currently is a problem in two ways: it removes responsibility from those who should have it, (family, friends, faith community) and places it with those who should not. ( heartless, faceless state agencies)
Fortunately (unfortunately) social security, medicare, and all the other federal schemes to relocate wealth through confiscation are totally unconstitutional. They make our “Republic” into a dictatorship, in that there is a confiscatory tax required to be paid at threat of incarceration; all for the sake of reimbursing the less fortunate for subsidized health care and retirement. We live(d) in a nation where we are (were) subject only to our own resourcefulness, and ability. And then came the big influx of folks from central Europe, where socialization had become a way of life. You can figure out what happened next. Just remember – for every bureaucrat there is a salary, a retirement, and continued expense, beyond by far the worth of their work. If the government gets involved, the cost multiplies. Somebody must pay for this inefficiency, and you know who that is.
I want my money back (plus interest and inflation factor) to do with as I please. Dump the Ponzi, the bureaucracy, and the vote buying, and let us run our own lives. Were we to do this, we’d need very little in the taxation department. (Of course the biggest Ponzi is the Federal Reserve/IRS money laundering scam).
I have just signed up to receive the email blog from time to time. — I eagerly await the first one.
OPINION: – So far the ZAP Website has all the trappings of lots of layout thought and thoroughness. HOWEVER: I am still searching for ‘intellectual Content”.
In the mold of Tom Wood, Lew, Ron Paul, Hans Hermann Hoppe, and all the thinkers, I was hoping to find a two way street here where Libertarianism is constantly argued and debated and all its ideas thrashed out.
I am not sure Libertarians comprehend that they have not come close to presenting a coherent Political, Ethical or Moral “operations Manual”.for its followers. They also seem to have failed in their evangelism. I have not yet meet a single outsider who has even rudimentary understanding of what Libertarianism is. I get lots of totally incoherent opinions.
I am not sure Libertarians themselves know of any doctrine other than NAP and the Golden Rule. These two alone are insufficient to conduct a life, and far short for a meaningful discussion on the standard Sex, Religion, and Politics,
Tom Woods tries hard to present views which he implies are Libertarian. Fortunately for the cause, he is a brilliant intellectual and is credible.
This site is going to have to do some serious thinking if it wants to become what it is trying to purport
Regards Graham
Thank you for joining us. FWIW, our site is not a debaters playground or movement quality-control center. We leave that to others. We are trying to reground and popularize a philosophy on governance. And our bailiwick is almost confined to governance-related matters. We don’t see libertarianism as a philosophy that has much to offer on “how to conduct life.” It’s about one thing you’re NOT supposed to do. The aesthetic variances from there are wonderfully wide. Pornographers and pastors can be libertarians, and everyone in-between or without. YOU ARE FREE!
Here’s a minor whine, one that I actually have with many websites. When I attempt to print the receipt for a donation, the top of the page is all that is important, but invariably a second, nearly blank page is printed. A page which has no value in relation to the receipt I’m printing out. Have your website manager ensure that printing the receipt page prints ONLY one sheet of paper.
I like the mental levers: they are wise, concise and understandable.
I wish I could present a solution to my problem, but I’m not really the creative type. I have several times posted your ‘Mental Levers” to my facebook, but no one ever likes them or comments on them so I’m guessing no one reads them even though many of my friends are liberty minded (although I’d really like to get the non-liberty minded to read them). My guess is that neither the picture nor the title grabs anyone’s attention. I understand the picture of the head with the gears in it, but I don’t think its going to interest anyone enough to read the mini-article.
Show Comments 13
Whereas I may believe that most of your agenda is positive, I’m not happy about being herded into a three choice corner about drugs. As a libertarian (note the little “l”) I don’t support the prohibition from government of just about anything, giving some exception for totally foreign concepts which don’t find any room under the constitutional umbrella (Sharia, for example, or even Babylonian Talmud, FCS). I believe that the personal use of mind-deadening substances is foolish, perhaps even suicidal, but when power sources (government, e.g.) become involved it becomes a game of money and power, not morals. Every government intrusion into the personal is for the sake of power and money, not the “welfare” of the citizen. When will the numb nuts finally figure that out?
Were our government to dissolve all bureaucratic controls, dump all these worthless pencil pushing desk sitters, the government would be as the constitution ordered – small, efficient, benign, and doing what it should concerning the defense of our borders. AND, we’d need not have income tax, either, would we? (of course, it would also have to dump all those executive “Secretaries,” which the constitution never allowed. The “cabinet” has too much crap in it. Time for a yard sale, or a trip to the dump.
More than one person has suggested they don’t like the number of choices. But very interestingly, no one has, SIMULTANEOUSLY, suggested what should take it’s place WHILE adhering to the limited, single subject of drug prohibition. There is only one topic at stake here. It’s not, for example, constitutional government, Big Pharma drugs, or even other forms of prohibition. Other one topic surveys will be published VERY soon. The question here is, “I ___________ Drug Prohibition.” Do you support or oppose? We have kept ourselves open to suggestions.
Hi William. I want to add to Jim’s comment. It seems as if you agree that The State should not prohibit drug use, but that you also think that people should nevertheless refrain from using drugs. If so…
The deficiency you may see in our design is a place to state that second belief. We hope to provide this in the future by creating a comments section. This would allow you to use the slider to affirm that you do NOT think The State should prohibit drug use while then using the comment section to state that you yourself still believe drug use is bad, and should be argued against.
I hope I have understood your concern and that this new comment feature will meet that concern once we’re able to add it to our system.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. We appreciate it.
Of course participation in “Social Security” should extend to everyone, tho I would prefer to call it a “citizens dividend.” It should NOT be funded by any tax on income earned by labor or use of capital goods. Rather, it should be funded by collection of rent for natural resources, such as the electromagnetic spectrum and offshore oil. The Alaska Permanent Fund is a small step in this direction for residents of that state.
Sounds attractive taxpayer. Alas, I doubt those revenue sources would be equal to the need.
I think you’re right. In my faith tradition, it is the responsibility of a parent to care for children when they are young, and the children’s responsibility to care for parents when they are old. If we did not have to pay in to the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security, that task would be made far easier. It would be far more sane to take taxpayer’s approach, and leave the care of most of the elderly to their children. The rest could be cared for by friends, other family, or the faith community. The statist system we have currently is a problem in two ways: it removes responsibility from those who should have it, (family, friends, faith community) and places it with those who should not. ( heartless, faceless state agencies)
Fortunately (unfortunately) social security, medicare, and all the other federal schemes to relocate wealth through confiscation are totally unconstitutional. They make our “Republic” into a dictatorship, in that there is a confiscatory tax required to be paid at threat of incarceration; all for the sake of reimbursing the less fortunate for subsidized health care and retirement. We live(d) in a nation where we are (were) subject only to our own resourcefulness, and ability. And then came the big influx of folks from central Europe, where socialization had become a way of life. You can figure out what happened next. Just remember – for every bureaucrat there is a salary, a retirement, and continued expense, beyond by far the worth of their work. If the government gets involved, the cost multiplies. Somebody must pay for this inefficiency, and you know who that is.
I want my money back (plus interest and inflation factor) to do with as I please. Dump the Ponzi, the bureaucracy, and the vote buying, and let us run our own lives. Were we to do this, we’d need very little in the taxation department. (Of course the biggest Ponzi is the Federal Reserve/IRS money laundering scam).
I have just signed up to receive the email blog from time to time. — I eagerly await the first one.
OPINION: – So far the ZAP Website has all the trappings of lots of layout thought and thoroughness. HOWEVER: I am still searching for ‘intellectual Content”.
In the mold of Tom Wood, Lew, Ron Paul, Hans Hermann Hoppe, and all the thinkers, I was hoping to find a two way street here where Libertarianism is constantly argued and debated and all its ideas thrashed out.
I am not sure Libertarians comprehend that they have not come close to presenting a coherent Political, Ethical or Moral “operations Manual”.for its followers. They also seem to have failed in their evangelism. I have not yet meet a single outsider who has even rudimentary understanding of what Libertarianism is. I get lots of totally incoherent opinions.
I am not sure Libertarians themselves know of any doctrine other than NAP and the Golden Rule. These two alone are insufficient to conduct a life, and far short for a meaningful discussion on the standard Sex, Religion, and Politics,
Tom Woods tries hard to present views which he implies are Libertarian. Fortunately for the cause, he is a brilliant intellectual and is credible.
This site is going to have to do some serious thinking if it wants to become what it is trying to purport
Regards Graham
Thank you for joining us. FWIW, our site is not a debaters playground or movement quality-control center. We leave that to others. We are trying to reground and popularize a philosophy on governance. And our bailiwick is almost confined to governance-related matters. We don’t see libertarianism as a philosophy that has much to offer on “how to conduct life.” It’s about one thing you’re NOT supposed to do. The aesthetic variances from there are wonderfully wide. Pornographers and pastors can be libertarians, and everyone in-between or without. YOU ARE FREE!
I just contributed answers to questions on my comment with regard to voting. I made two errors. How do I edit?
I’m trying to figure out how you, as a user, edit a comment.
Here’s a minor whine, one that I actually have with many websites. When I attempt to print the receipt for a donation, the top of the page is all that is important, but invariably a second, nearly blank page is printed. A page which has no value in relation to the receipt I’m printing out. Have your website manager ensure that printing the receipt page prints ONLY one sheet of paper.
I like the mental levers: they are wise, concise and understandable.
I wish I could present a solution to my problem, but I’m not really the creative type. I have several times posted your ‘Mental Levers” to my facebook, but no one ever likes them or comments on them so I’m guessing no one reads them even though many of my friends are liberty minded (although I’d really like to get the non-liberty minded to read them). My guess is that neither the picture nor the title grabs anyone’s attention. I understand the picture of the head with the gears in it, but I don’t think its going to interest anyone enough to read the mini-article.