Then you’re under a grossly simplistic and, what is more, a preciously self-flattering impression. You could insert the word “conservatism” or any number of other things in place of libertarianism, and the statement would be equally true. Lots of political philosophies justify themselves in terms of liberty and personal responsibility, and it is not that narrow set of priorities that defines libertarianism.

Libertarianism is a philsophy which concerns personal liberty and responsibility, and which makes certain assumptions, prescriptions, and priorities as organizing principles for political life. But it is not simply the belief that liberty is good, or that we should suffer the consequences of our behavior. Every modern Big Idea concerning social life has promised these things in abundance. Libertarianism’s place in this constellation of ideas is determined by its special emphasis on the legitimate scope of government (small) and the relative importance of negative natural rights (big).

Unless I am severely mistaken, and if I am I suppose I am in need of a block of instruction, but I was under the impression that Libertarianism was the belief in personal liberty and responsibility. Not holding policy, laws, governments, or anyone else to the fire for one’s own actions.

Yes, there is indeed a butterfly affect at work here, as all issues are based on a multitude of parameters, but clearly the attacks mentioned above and deaths that were manifested are the responsibility of the gunmen and their organization, not policy.

You are right this type of crime exist before laws and a supposed war on drugs and it would continue if drugs were legal. I just can’t see anyone believing in freedom of choice and responsibility blaming that on anything other than those responsible.

cl

Mr. Roach: I agree with you. However, I don’t agree that “Libertarians” act, or think, the way that you portray them. The people that you describe are more anarchist than anything else. If it wasn’t the drug war they would find something else to whine about. That is where the dividing line between philosophical libertarians and political libertarians is drawn in the sand. I left the Libertarian Party after more than twenty years of membership precisely because the party was by all appearances being taken over by people that would rather look around for something to complain about rather than take a stand based upon principle.
Have a good one.

All crimes exist and exist after they are prohibited. The question is how much do we tolerate and how much energy do we devote to enforcement. Swift, certain punishment is a big part of the answer. There is a finite supply of people willing to break the laws to get rich, and we should find most of them and lock them up for a long time. We don’t have enough prisons, we don’t have enough capital punishment, and we don’t have enough willpower at the present in spite of the so-called drug war.

And don’t look like a snickers bar if you don’t want to get eaten.

The point man should have buttonhooked to the right, and the #2 man should have crossed over, and neither of them should have been more than a few feet off the wall.

Instead, the point man was sucked into the center of the room, because he was aggressing on his target. Very intuitive reaction, but it got him shot, when the #2 man was surprised at the guard by the door, and proceeded to do a full-auto hose down with his AK.

Remember, check your hard corner before going to your primary target, and stay near the walls, not the center of the room. Dynamic Tactics 101

And no, I would never support an ex post facto release of legal punishment for anyone involved in the drug trade after legalization. In fact, I would be very much in favor of the death penalty for most of the people involved.