Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Your first response to me on this subject. You use a complete red herring as an example when I mention libertarianism and wonder why it has no place here? Not funding the police and army and borrowing from china? You might as well have typed random letters for all it had to do with what I am addressing.
|
Random letters?
Alright.
Again you stated:
"I'd be for 100% drug legalization but only in a libertarian government."
I pointed out there are many different takes on political philosophies such as libertarianism, liberalism, conservatisms etc...
You then stated:
"This has pretty much nothing to do with Libertarianism. You can still fund the military and the police and be a Libertarian, its not about no taxes, its about not using taxes to redistribute wealth and buy votes. Its about having the government do the minimum required for the state to function."
And I provided a link to a definition of differing philosophies of Libertarianism and asked-
"who decides what is the "minimum required for the state to function?"
Without responding to that question you state:
The war on murder costs millions and millions every year and yet people are still murdering, its obviously not working and insane to continue to spend money on the issue.
An absurd example but the logic is the same. The issue should not be how much, or how many, but what would be the cost of changing to society. I do not have a good answer for that, and neither does anyone. Perhaps it would be best if they were legal, I don't know for sure, but I do know that expense of enforcement alone isn't the only way to look at it.
And now you claim I'm using a red herring? If you say so.