Realistic Libertarianism

Several of my fellow conservatives have pointed out to me that I’m being inconsistent by espousing libertarian values while also saying I tentatively am fine with keeping in place the idea of controlled substances in place, especially so with a relatively harmless one such as marijuana. I realize that I did not fully flesh out my explanation as to why I think that way, and figured that said explanation could make a good followup post, so here we are.

First let me say that while I do hold to libertarian political values and ideals, I would consider myself to be realistic and responsible as a higher priority than those ideals – which means that sometimes a (hopefully temporary) compromise must be made between my ideals and my principles. While this may sound haughty or offensive to other libertarian thinkers, I don’t mean it to be – my point is simply that I don’t think we’re at a place where a full on overnight libertarian revolution would be a good thing – rather, it would be best to gradually move culture back to a place of responsibility and morality, and transition the political situation back to where it should be in the process. Let me explain why.

John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” He was right. In order to live in a society where personal freedom is left mostly unimpeded, that society must be responsible and moral, with a firm foundation. Unfortunately, our society today is neither responsible nor moral. A century of living with a government trending toward socialism and a dominant public education system created by Marxists and used to turn its students into drones has shredded the fabric of our society, and left us with a situation in which your average person thinks the government is a mother to protect and provide for them, and shuns the very idea of a disciplining father.

In order to be consistent with libertarian ideals, not only would marijuana be legalized, but the whole idea of controlled substances would go out the window. The DEA and FDA would cease to exist. All prescription drugs would be available over the counter at any drug store, and you could buy opiates at the Circle K on the corner along with your milk and bread. Can you imagine this being the case right now, in our current society? It would be suicidal to push for that kind of change without also pushing for a society where responsibility is a basic, essential value for every person. And I am not saying this society would be perfect; there will always be abusers and thieves and those who would exploit any system. Such is the nature of man. But I would submit that in a society where personal accountability was highly valued and the government was not looked to for any need but those few listed in out Constitution, such as that this country enjoyed when it was written, we would find that such ideals could play out with far less ill effect than if we were to find ourselves in that ideal today.

We cannot sit here and pretend that we have not failed our country miserably for the last century by allowing it to go this far. We cannot ignore the situation we live in and think everything will somehow work out for the best on its own. We need to undo all the evils that have been done in the last hundred years, for with that will come a natural shift toward personal responsibility, accountability, morality, and ultimately, liberty. Let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Reader Question: Legalized Marijuana?

The first issue I was asked to address was that of legalized marijuana. Thank you so much, Elisabeth, for giving me such a non-controversial, easy to discuss topic… oh, wait. Nevermind. You’re trying to get me in trouble, aren’t you?

This subject is obviously controversial, with many people on either side holding beliefs so tightly it borders on religious fervor. Personally, I have never smoked marijuana and I do not plan to. From a Christian perspective, its intoxicating effects violate the instructions we are given concerning drunkenness, and from a personal perspective I just hate not having complete control of myself – this is why I never drink to excess either. I say this to show that I do not have a personal stake in this, and to be up-front about where my biases lie. These strong beliefs, along with the fact that society has such a bizarre and convoluted viewpoint on the subject, makes it difficult to establish any sort of real, balanced public forum or debate on the topic – as California is finding out right now the hard way. Let me then start by addressing some basic aspects of “how” and “why” legalization could or should occur before I get into whether or not it actually should happen. Continue reading Reader Question: Legalized Marijuana?

Shameless begging

So, in order to help get me going for November’s writing: is there anything you’d like me to write about? Any questions, subjects, concerns, whatever that I can address here? Anything you’ve always wondered about me or what I believe? Give me some ideas and I’ll cover them as best I can.

NaBloPoMo & Me

So Elisabeth, my old friend Silas’ wonderful new bride, recently posted about NaBloPoMo – a blogger’s answer to NaNoWriMo, for those of us less inclined to writing novels and more interested in filling our websites with drivel and nonsense. Or maybe that’s just me, not really sure. Anyway, the long and short of it is that you pledge to update every day in November, the idea being to “force” you to write. I think I’m going to give it a shot, though if there’s anything my track record here shows, it’s that I am inconsistent at best.  The timing will either work really well or really poorly, as I’m starting a new job (yay!) on November 2.

In the meantime, I’ll just let everyone know that I’ve been spending hours and hours this week listening to Mark Driscoll’s sermons at – and it’s really feeding a need I’ve had for a while to digest some good, solid teaching. I recommend these sermons wholeheartedly, as I have yet to find anything I fundamentally disagree with in any of his teachings. One thing you will quickly find that may turn you off is that he’s a “complementarian” – which is a fancy word used to mean that he believes that men and women have different roles in the family and the church. In other words, he believes what the Bible actually says. Some people don’t like that, I suppose, but it kind of comes with the territory. Maybe that can turn into a November blog post.

Until then, readers…

Edit: Holy crap! Jennifer Knapp is back! YAY! Thanks to reader sami for pointing it out.