LIBERTY: The War on Drugs is generous to drug addicts and punitive to all others … … UI?

The Egregiously Destructive War on Drugs
by Gennady Stolyarov II
[Posted on Tuesday, May 30, 2006]

***Begin Quote***

The War on Drugs is generous to drug addicts and punitive to all others; the drug addicts are arrested at others' expense and given "free" food and "free" lodging at government prisons — free to the imprisoned, that is, but paid for by the taxpayers. Why should moral people pay to sustain others for those others' immoral conduct? Why should the drug addicts be given state handouts and be spared the requirement to earn their own living on the free market? Prison conditions may be miserable, but they are granted to the drug addicts automatically — as a taxpayer-funded gift for having broken a silly law. Why should drug addicts deserve even poor-quality food and shelter for ruining their lives?

***End Quote***

Here's a interesting view of Prohibition Version 2.0 now being "waged" on Drugs Other Than Alcohol And Nicotine.

See alcohol and nicotine are "good" drugs. All the other illegal drugs are "bad" drugs.

Understand the distinction?

If yes, explain it to me. If no, look for the politician responsible!

GUNS: Maher is no Libertarian … … what I wrote to Time Magazine and their response!

My letter to Time Magazine re: Maher is a NOT a Libertarian

***Begin Quote***

Dear Time Magazine Editor:Maher is not a Libertarian.

There's really no "big tent libertarianism". You have RepublicansINOs, DemocratsINOs, CatholicsINOs, but there are no LibertariansINO. There are lots and lots of people, usually on the radio, who CLAIM the Libertarian label. You can always tell the difference by how free they will let you be.

Real libertarians will always say you are free. "All men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Ring a bell?

Libertarians will extend to you all the freedoms they want for themselves. See the only way I can be free is if you are as well. Then together we will fight any infringement of "our" freedoms. I don't want any gang (i.e., the government) stealing my money (i.e., taxes); so no one should be force to pay for any "service" that they didn't voluntarily agree to pay for. I don't want to pay for government reeducation camps (i.e., "public" schools) where your children are indoctrinated with beliefs contrary to your beliefs; so no one should have to pay for the publik skoolz. I don't want anyone telling me what drugs I can use; so you can be a drug addict or take whatever you feel you need. 

Both Big L Libertarians and Little L Libertarians (distinguished by  membership in the Libertarian party), despite the squabbles about specific issues, all will agree about the ZAP Zero Aggression Principle. Basically, a Libertarian is some one who will not use force to initiate social or political goals. That's not pacifism. But it's good old fashioned American MYOB!
Guns are the litmus test for Libertarians.
If you don't trust your fellow humans to be responsible enough to defend the free state, then you're not a libertarian. If you don't think that a woman or a responsible can't distinguish between the good and bad guys, then you're not a libertarian. If you think that the IRS needs automatic weapons, then your not a libertarian. If you think we need a BATF, then you're not a libertarian. If you think that we need the alphabet soup of private armies, then you're not a libertarian. If you don't think a patriot can tell the difference between the Nazi Storm Trooper and the highway patrol, then you're not a libertarian.
When only the gummamint has guns, the population is at risk for genocide. As the SF write Heinlein posited "an armed society is a polite society". When we surrender our protection to the promises of the Mommy State, Father State comes out and oppresses us.
The litmus test is especially useful because that seems to be THE single issue that exposes the Statist, Socialist, and the Benevolent Dictators who want to control everyone. With them, there's always an exception for guns. You can be free … … except for guns.

You have to give a huge percentage of your savings, earnings, and future to the State for its "protection". Ignore for the moment that the State's courts have held that there is no specific duty of the State to protect to you. But, you can't have a tool to protect yourself.
They always have to disarm the people before they can oppress them to enforce their will. Oppressed people with guns are dangerous to the oppressor. Look at what a few determined Jews with even fewer guns did in the Warsaw ghetto. Don't think that the current and future "hitlers" missed that lesson.
No, guns are an essential issue to true Libertarians because those guns are the only true check on government power. That why the dead old white guys recognized, right after our right to say what we want, the right to defend our liberties.

Your Liberty depends upon our guns.

***End Quote***

AND their response:

***Begin Quote***

Dear Reader:

Thank you for writing.  We welcome timely, insightful reactions to material we have published, and we can assure you that your observations found an attentive audience among the editors.  Should your comments be selected for the column, you will be notified in advance of publication.  Again, our thanks for letting us hear from you.  We hope that you will write again should you discover something of particular interest in the news or in our reporting of it.

Best wishes.

TIME Letters
***End Quote***

Notice the canned paternalistic pat of the head of the generic reply. "We hope", yeah right!

LIBERTY: Free to petition your government for the redress of grevances … … watch what you get back!


—–Original Message—–

From: reinkefj
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 10:05 AM

Subject: Reduce aid to higher education

Please reduce state aid to education to zero. It will actually improve education for the following reasons:

(1) Schools will have to respond to their true customers (i.e., the students and the people who pay the bills).

(2) The cost of education will rise and fall based on demand and benefit without the State's involvement.

(3) If you cut aid, you can give me back my money. If I think that a school "deserves" that money, then I'll give it to them. If lots of my fellow taxpayers, do the same then that is different than you forcing me to do it.

(4) Perhaps without the artifical support of government some schools will go out of business. That's good. We obviously didn't need them.

Basically, free the taxpayer from supporting what politicians think is important. If it truly is important, then we can do it on our own.

Mr. Ferdinand Reinke
Kendall park, NJ 08824


From: Senator Peter A. Inverso, R., NJ Legislative District 14 
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:25 AM
To: reinkefj
Subject: RE: Reduce aid to higher education

Mr. Reinke:

This is to acknowledge that our office received your E-mail on May 19th.

We will share your concerns with the Senator.


Jim Hansbury
Legislative Aide
Senator Peter A. Inverso, District 14


Yup, I can just hear it now. "Senator, listen to what this wacko wants. His money back!" followed by a group laugh.

I'm sure the French Aristocrats laughed too when Marie said "let them eat cake"! 

LIBERTY: The FDA “protects” the sheep … … right into skin cancer!

Why Is the Best Sunscreen Blocked by FDA?
America Denied Sun Shield That Other Countries Enjoy
John Stossel
***Begin Quote***
June 17, 2005 — We think of July and August as the peak of summer, but when it comes to sunburn, now is the peak. Next Tuesday, June 21st, is the longest day of the year, when the sun is highest in the sky, so it's now that the sun does the most damage.
{extraneous deleted}
But even though dermatologists say Mexoryl is the best, you cannot legally buy it in the United States. It's illegal, because the Food and Drug Administration won't approve it. They won't even say why. The FDA is charged with making sure no drug is sold unless the government is convinced it's safe and effective. Dermatologists think it's just stuck in the bureaucracy. It routinely takes 12 to 15 years for a drug to get approval. After an approved drug — Vioxx, for example — gets bad publicity as a health risk, the FDA gets particularly cautious.
{extraneous deleted}
Everyone is always telling us, protect yourself from the sun, but then the government won't give us permission to have the best sunscreen?
Give me a break.  
***End Quote***
I was tipped to this article. That aside. (Note to self: put Stossel on a internet watch service!)

FDA "protecting" us, like a good Mommy Government agency should. After all we are to dumb to choose what to put in or on ourselves.

Wake up sheep! 

Close all those Three, Four, and Five Letter Agencies! Then we'll work on the "big words" like freedom, liberty, and limited government.