[learc83]

Libertarians believe that ending drug prohibition would reduce the harm to society--that the problems caused by drug use are exacerbated by prohibition.

You can argue with libertarians all you want about whether you think their proposed actions will help or hurt society, but stop acting like libertarians are monsters who don't care about the welfare of others.

>"I know this would destroy people's lives and society would decay but it is immoral for the government to do anything about anything."

You seem to have fallen for the reddit caricature of libertarians. Again you can argue with the methods, but stop acting like libertarians are heartless bastards. As a group they believe that reducing regulations and limiting government will help society.

[dinkumthinkum]

I haven't fallen for any Reddit caricature, I just actually know what libertarianism is. I'm not saying any libertarians are monsters. Apparently some just want their cake and eat it to. L) Actually, you're wrong, a pure libertarian view has no judgment about whether or not people do better on heroin than people normally think, or that heroin only has bad effects because of the big bad government. It's like libertarianism provides no view about whether duck-typing is a good thing.

It is a convenient ploy to pretend all these things in the article or simply make counter-intuitive statements. I think a libertarian should be more like "Oh, so heroin actually makes you more productive and a better person? Well, I don't really care but the government should stay out of it."

A true libertarian view is that the government should just stay out of it, whether it harms or not. I am not making a judgment about that basic position. I think that people that proclaim to be libertarians don't want to state their true beliefs because they know they are going to be made fun or at least not taken seriously in practical society.

[learc83]

You have fallen for the Reddit caricature--you have no idea what you're talking about.

The closest thing you could get to a "pure" libertarian philosophy is that libertarians are against coercion.

Whether that coercion is public or private has no bearing. You seem to have distilled libertarians beliefs down to "government bad"--a clear caricature.

Many (in my experience most) libertarians support the existence of government to provide services they believe the private sector can't--some don't. And yes, Most libertarians want to limit government and supplement it with voluntary association, but only because they believe that is what's best for mankind, not because of some irrational hatred of government.

"Government bad" is not the central tenant of libertarian philosophy, that you think it is.

But you seem to know more about what libertarians think than libertarians themselves. Let's take a look at some of your wording.

>I just actually know what libertarianism is

> I think a libertarian should be...

>A true libertarian view is...

>I think that people that proclaim to be libertarians don't want to state their true beliefs...

The beliefs that fall under the term libertarianism are so varied that libertarians themselves can't agree on a definition--How can you possibly come here and decide what is and isn't a libertarian view? Libertarian beliefs range from anarcho-capitalists to libertarian socialists. Everyone from tea party protesters to Noam Chomsky call themselves libertarians.

Libertarians haven't been able to agree on these issues for decades, so it's very kind of you to come here and clear it up so nicely.

[yarrel]

Legalisation and state provision of drugs would minimise harm both to drug users and to society.

Since this would result in a reduction in government (with the end of the War On Drugs), this is actually a Libertarian argument.

How Libertarians react to this says a lot about just how much of a caricature they are.

[learc83]

>state provision of drugs

Why do you think provision of drugs is necessary to minimize harm?

If drugs were legal (and not heavily taxed) the prices would drop to a level that even indigent beggars could afford.

Are you saying that drugs specifically should be provided, or are you arguing that in general all basic needs should be provided?

Because if that's the case, I'm not opposed to a guaranteed minimum income of the type supported by Milton Friedman in lieu of the current welfare system.

Incidentally, I think that by guaranteeing a minimum income we would be free to remove much of the regulation that ineffectually attempts the same outcome--resulting in an overall reduction in the size and scope of government.