Is Chuck even libertarian?

[daSHiZZLE]

One thing I know about Chuck which I like is that he is actually knowledgeable to some extent about the future of Nuclear energy...

...but what about other issues which characterise Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Peter Schiff's campaigns?

Will he support the full legalization of weed and end the war on drugs altogether? This is a not an important issue but its a telling sign as to whether his views on the function of government are right...

...or not.

[Gaius1981]

Christian fundamentalists such as Baldwin are likely in support banning all drugs, banning all gambling, banning all prostitution, removing all abortion rights, building walls around the borders, being strongly anti-immigration, being in favor of protectionism in economics, having mandatory prayer in school, and teaching creationism. This is why I never vote for Christian fundamentalists.

I wouldn't call them libertarian, but rather paleoconservative.

[johnrocks]

I like him enough to where I would have voted for him had RP not been on the ballot in my State last year.

ETA. I thought this was on Baldwin, I don't even know who this other guy is, I should have looked at sub forum I suppose.

[Gaius1981]

TNA: Where do you stand on the war on drugs?

Baldwin: I believe that as president, I would have the responsibility to keep drugs from crossing the borders, and I would do everything in my power to keep drugs out of America. Once they come into the country, drug enforcement falls under the rubric of law enforcement, and the Constitution gives no authority to the federal government for domestic law enforcement. That is the responsibility of the state and local communities. So I believe that the drug war has been used by the federal government many times excessively, to the point where individual rights have been abridged and abrogated. I think the propensity for overreach is too great.

He seems to be on the fence about it, but notice that he somewhat evades answering the question directly.

Source (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/24-elections/351)

[Bman]

He seems to be on the fence about it, but notice that he somewhat evades answering the question directly.

Source (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/24-elections/351)

Yeah, that's not a very direct answer. He's obviously anti-drugs and really doesn't show sympathy of any sort of person who would disagree.

[nayjevin]

Christian fundamentalists such as Baldwin are likely in support banning all drugs, banning all gambling, banning all prostitution, removing all abortion rights, building walls around the borders, being strongly anti-immigration, being in favor of protectionism in economics, having mandatory prayer in school, and teaching creationism. This is why I never vote for Christian fundamentalists.

I wouldn't call them libertarian, but rather paleoconservative.

People named Gaius are likely to believe Gaia. Meaning they are likely to support one world government, global climate change legislation, socialist 'equal' sharing by decree, and tying me to a tree and force-feeding me psychotropes until I learn their hippie utopian theories. This is why I do not listen to people named Gaius.

I'm totally kidding. But your statement did sound a bit fundamentalist itself.

[GunnyFreedom]

He seems to be on the fence about it, but notice that he somewhat evades answering the question directly.

Source (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/24-elections/351)

"the Constitution gives no authority to the federal government for domestic law enforcement." Would seem pretty clear...

I have heard Chuck speak many times, and IIRC, he believes that the fed.gov's ONLY role WRT drugs is to prevent them from actually entering the US from foreign countries. I have heard him say more than once that it is immoral to dictate to consenting adults what they can and can not do with their own bodies.

Why do people assume that being a Christian means being a drug warrior?

I am a serious Christian, and I personally believe that one has to leave their Christian principles behind in order to support substance prohibition, or to claim the authority to legislate morality in most any sense (except wherein such alleged crimes violate the NAP).

I am of the opinion that those 'Christians' which advocate for an oppressive government that would lock people in prison for smoking a joint are CINO (Christians In Name Only) and would argue that fewer Christians than you think support the WOD. Granted, those that do tend to be the most vocal/loud politically oriented "Christian Right" segment, and that's probably where you get the impression from...

But in my experience, it is pretty easy to point out their hypocrisy.

Some guy is sitting at home, alone, smoking a joint. WWJD? Lock him in federal rape-me prison? LOL - the answer to that one should be obvious, and if it's not, then the individual in question clearly is not familiar/intimate with the Holy Spirit.

Chuck Baldwin would leave the question of drugs to the individual States. If he were President, then the role of the Federal Government would begin and end with policing the border, full stop. It's a shame that his campaign site is no longer up, because I believe he answered this question clearly on that site.

[GunnyFreedom]

Yeah, that's not a very direct answer. He's obviously anti-drugs and really doesn't show sympathy of any sort of person who would disagree.

Actually, given that the WOD is a particular concern of mine, I approached his campaign directly in 2008 in order to ask this question, and was told directly (answered by Chuck himself, mind you) that he was opposed to substance prohibition in principle, but that he would police the border since (in his opinion) foreign sources of drugs were more dangerous, and that he would leave the actual question of drug prohibition to the individual states to dispose of as they saw fit.

I believe the reason his publicized answers are so vague has more to do with not wanting to offend the "Christian Right" (his chief constituency) than with trying to veil an anti-drug position from the libertarians (who seem predisposed to oppose him anyway.)

I am vehemently against substance prohibition, and his answer to my query certainly satisfied me. But then I don't have this knee-jerk 'xtians are teh evul' thing going on either...

[GunnyFreedom]

OOPS -- My apologies, this is the Chuck DEVORE subforum. Some folks were referring to Chuck Baldwin, and so I referenced HIS policies. I actually have no idea what Chuck DEVORE thinks about anything. Sorry!

[Bman]

OOPS -- My apologies, this is the Chuck DEVORE subforum. Some folks were referring to Chuck Baldwin, and so I referenced HIS policies. I actually have no idea what Chuck DEVORE thinks about anything. Sorry!

LOL. I don't think anyone saw that.

[LibertyEagle]

Christian fundamentalists such as Baldwin are likely in support banning all drugs, banning all gambling, banning all prostitution, removing all abortion rights, building walls around the borders, being strongly anti-immigration, being in favor of protectionism in economics, having mandatory prayer in school, and teaching creationism. This is why I never vote for Christian fundamentalists.

I wouldn't call them libertarian, but rather paleoconservative.

This is Chuck DEVORE's subforum, Gaius.

[cheapseats]

One thing I know about Chuck which I like is that he actually knowledgeable to some extent about the future of Nuclear energy...

...but what about other issues which characterise Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Peter Schiff's campaigns?

Will he support the full legalization of weed and end the war on drugs altogether? This is a not an important issue but its a telling sign as to whether his views on the function of government are right...

...or not.

The contrived criminalization of marijuana is a TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE. The War On Drugs breaks our bank AND our spirits . . . 'cept for the booze guzzlers.

While we are in Economic Freefall, we are spending fortunes and foregoing other fortunes by creating criminals out of drug users. America has topped its own records and those of the WORLD with a prison population of 2.3 MILLION, a not small number of whom are pot smokers.

Pray tell, how are these not important issues except as they give "clues" about "bigger picture" issues? I will suggest that trivializing the significance of JUSTICE does not well serve ANY cause.

[Slutter McGee]

Will he support the full legalization of weed and end the war on drugs altogether? This is a not an important issue but its a telling sign as to whether his views on the function of government are right...

...or not.

We have to stop holding all candidates to this impossible criterea. The elimination of the FEDERAL war on drugs in the accordance with states rights and the consitution should be enough. If they recognize that drug legalization should be left to the state, then they will certainly get my vote at the Federal Level, even if they would not support legalization in their particular state.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[daSHiZZLE]

Yeah, I was wondering why everyone was going on about Baldfail. This is about DeVore. Why the Hell is there a DeVore forum here if he hasn't stated his positions on the WOD and other issues that characteristic the Campaign for Liberty for what it is.

Ron Paul is also a Christian and isn't scared to speak his mind on the issue. If he gets voted out, then obviously his constituents don't deserve him. DeVore has little to know chance of winning so he has nothing to lose in speaking his mind.

[Flash]

Yeah, I was wondering why everyone was going on about Baldfail. This is about DeVore. Why the Hell is there a DeVore forum here if he hasn't stated his positions on the WOD and other issues that characteristic the Campaign for Liberty for what it is.

Ron Paul is also a Christian and isn't scared to speak his mind on the issue. If he gets voted out, then obviously his constituents don't deserve him. DeVore has little to know chance of winning so he has nothing to lose in speaking his mind.

Are you sure about that? Last poll showed DeVore & his opponent tied. Don't forget DeMint (who endorsed DeVore) only endorses serious candidates.

[klamath]

One thing I know about Chuck which I like is that he is actually knowledgeable to some extent about the future of Nuclear energy...

...but what about other issues which characterise Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Peter Schiff's campaigns?

Will he support the full legalization of weed and end the war on drugs altogether? This is a not an important issue but its a telling sign as to whether his views on the function of government are right...

...or not.

I hope he is not.

[jmdrake]

He seems to be on the fence about it, but notice that he somewhat evades answering the question directly.

Source (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/24-elections/351)

I think the answer is rather direct. The federal government's role is foreign trade. It's not intrastate trade and there is only a very limited role in interstate trade. Under a Balwin administration drug kingpins trying sneak drugs into the country will still be checked at the border. But the little guy on the corner selling homegrown weed would be left alone, at least by the federal government. (States would still be free to prohibit what the wish).

I think it's important to note that this is not a libertarian movement. It's a constitutionalist movement that includes libertarians and conservatives.

Oh, and this thread isn't supposed to be about Baldwin. I think DeVore's position of foreign policy is great and classic Ron Paul. (Explain why true conservatives don't go around imposing democracy on everybody whether they show they want it or not.)

YouTube - Chuck DeVore on foreign policy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCJq3GhMfMc)

[Brian4Liberty]

Chuck likes Hemp:

YouTube - Chuck DeVore discusses Industrial Hemp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh45rkgbxs0)

He is not a Libertarian, he is a Republican that has a commitment to the Constitution, limited government and fiscal responsibility.

In California, the other choices are the RINO Carly "police the internet" Fiorina and Barbara Boxer.

[South Park Fan]

I will definitely support DeVore now that I know he's anti-war and anti-prohibition, at least to a great extent.

[Gaius1981]

Ah sorry for mistaking this for a Chuck Baldwin thread.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Chuck likes Hemp:

YouTube - Chuck DeVore discusses Industrial Hemp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh45rkgbxs0)

He is not a Libertarian, he is a Republican that has a commitment to the Constitution, limited government and fiscal responsibility.

In California, the other choices are the RINO Carly "police the internet" Fiorina and Barbara Boxer.

Of course he's not a (L)ibertarian. I haven't looked into DeVore too much, but I hope he holds libertarian positions. If we could fill Capital Hill with 100 Howard Buffets that would be an immense victory.

Is he for ending the Fed? Ending the Income Tax and replacing it with nothing? Ending/Closing all Military bases on foreign lands? Repealing GATT, CAFTA, NAFTA, etc.? Ending the national minimum wage laws? Ending legal tender laws? Putting every single Fed expense on budget?

I think people would wake up much faster if every single expense by the Federal Government was actually "on budget" and accounted for. The deficit for this year "on budget" is 1.8 trillion, not counting interest, but if you add in all the entitlements (Which are off budget and many other things, like Iraq/Afghanistan, etc.), the total probably comes out close to well over 5 trillion, easily. GET THAT SHIT ON BUDGET. (Another thing you can thank LBJ and Reagan for)

[erowe1]

This is why I never vote for Christian fundamentalists.

You didn't vote for Ron Paul?

[.Tom]

If I have the right to put whatever I want to in my own body, why should the States get to tell me not to?

I'm for full legalization nation wide.

[Brian4Liberty]

I think people would wake up much faster if every single expense by the Federal Government was actually "on budget" and accounted for. The deficit for this year "on budget" is 1.8 trillion, not counting inflation, but if you add in all the entitlements (Which are off budget and many other things, like Iraq/Afghanistan, etc.), the total probably comes out close to well over 5 trillion, easily. GET THAT SHIT ON BUDGET. (Another thing you can thank LBJ and Reagan for)

Sounds like a great idea. I don't remember Ron Paul talking about this, but I may have missed it. Are there any politicians pushing for this?